“sure we’re all clear about” about Kavanaugh’s comment to “set off a lot of alarm bells.” It did but not the alarms that she intended. The false account was first spread by Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Cal.) who received four Pinocchios for the claim from The Washingon Post.
Clinton tweeted “I want to be sure we’re all clear about something that Brett Kavanaugh said in his confirmation hearings last week. He referred to birth-control pills as ‘abortion-inducing drugs.’ That set off a lot of alarm bells for me, and it should for you, too.”
Hillary Clinton
✔@HillaryClinton
I want to be sure we’re all clear about something that Brett Kavanaugh said in his confirmation hearings last week. He referred to birth-control pills as “abortion-inducing drugs.” That set off a lot of alarm bells for me, and it should for you, too.
“[Priests for Life] was being forced to provide a certain kind of health coverage over their religious objection to their employees, and under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the question was first, was this a substantial burden on the religious exercise? And it seemed to me quite clearly it was. It was a technical matter of filling out a form, in that case with — that — they said filling out the form would make them complicit in the provision of the abortion-inducing drugs that they were — as a religious matter, objected to.”
What was most disturbing was Harris’ release of an edited video of that cut out the words “they said.”
Kavanaugh was referring to the argument of the challengers. The analysis had to consider their view of contraceptives. Indeed, the appellate arguments in the first opinion used precisely this language:
It is undisputed that Plaintiffs all sincerely believe that life begins at conception and that contraception is contrary to Catholic tenets. Priests for Life, for example, was founded to spread the Gospel of Life, which “affirms and promotes the culture of life and actively opposes and rejects the culture of death.” Pls.’ Br. 11. Catholic doctrine prohibits “impermissible cooperation with evil,” and thus opposes providing access to “contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion-inducing products,” which the Church views as “immoral regardless of their cost.” Id. at 12. The specific acts to which Plaintiffs object are “provid[ing], pay[ing] for, and/or facilitat[ing] access to contraception,” any of which they believe would violate the Catholic Church’s teachings. Id. at 15.
This type of unfair editing has been shown in other Internet attack like the one targeting Ted Cruz’ opponent Beto O’Rourke where an video was edited to make him look like he was celebrating flag burning.
These attacks only destroy the credibility of these campaigns. I have previously written that, while the Democrats are wrong about “smoking gun” evidence put forward at the hearing on Kavanaugh’s opposition to Roe v. Wade, his interpretative methodology is clearly hostile to the reasoning of Roe. Yet, opponents like Harris and Clinton seem eager to claim any “gotcha” moment — even one that never occurred.
What is most striking is that there is plenty for both sides to use in rallying their supporters, but these unfair attacks are increasing with the anger (and panic) in some quarters. There is clearly a calculated risk here. These politicians are confident that more people will be outraged (or not care to check the facts) on the false narrative than there are people outraged by being misled. That would be a particularly sad statement about the state of our politics.