Soccer star Megan Rapinoe unsurprisingly contributed to the bewildering redefinition of language in her statement on the ruling:
“I just can’t understate how sad, and how cruel this is. I think the cruelty is the point. Because this is not pro-life by any means. This way of thinking, or political belief, is coupled with a complete lack of motivation around gun laws, it comes with pro-death penalty, it comes with anti-healthcare, anti-prenatal care, anti-childcare, anti-pre-K, anti-food assistance, anti-welfare, anti-education, anti-maternity leave, anti-paternity leave.
“This is not pro-life. And it’s very frustrating and disheartening, and frankly just infuriating to hear that be the reason that people are wanting to end abortion rights, and end this vital aspect of a woman’s — not only healthcare and general basic safety in this country, but her bodily autonomy, and the right to freedom, and the pursuit of happiness and liberty, is being assaulted in this instance. And it’s just incredibly disheartening.”
Even if you agree with abortion, characterizing a decision that does nothing to prohibit abortions 如 “残忍的” is absurd and purposefully inaccurate. The Court is simply returning to the states to the ability to determine for themselves, through legislation, what the rules should be in their state.
Rapinoe also apparently believes that killing unborn babies does not in any circumstance meet the definition of “残忍的,” and that the possibility of more children being born is not “pro-life.”
She went further, putting the blame on all men for the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution in a way that she disagrees with:
You are allowing a violent and consistent onslaught on the autonomy of women’s bodies, on women’s rights, on women’s minds, on our hearts, on our souls,’ Rapinoe said when asked what her message to men, as a monolith, 将会. ‘We live in a country that forever tries to chip away at what 你 have enabled, at what 你 have been privileged enough to feel your entire life.
The fact that this type of rhetoric is encouraged and promoted by glowing media reports celebrating her bravery and “emotional response” is outrageous and inexcusable.
Beyond the ridiculous hyperbole that anyone who disagrees with her stance is pro “cruelty,” she engages in the same hypocrisy we typically see from those who share her ideology.
According to Rapinoe, her body and other women’s bodies are under attack, but as Katie Pavlich astutely points out, she’d have no answer if asked to describe what a woman actually is:
Women to Rapinoe are tools to be used and discarded as necessary. When it suits her needs, she’s a fierce advocate for what she determines to be women’s rights. However when it comes to basic principles of biology and fairness in competition, she’s more than happy to erase them.
None of this is about protecting women’s rights, it’s about political posturing. Rapinoe’s ideology demands that she engage in the unavoidable hypocrisy of claiming to care about women while being unable to define them. And she’s more than happy to oblige.
To her, it’s somehow not a “violent and consistent onslaught on the autonomy of women’s bodies” when biological men transition, compete in women’s leagues and physically dominate their opponents.
Arguing that the Supreme Court decision is an attack on women’s bodies is much less persuasive when you can’t even agree on what a woman’s body actually is.