They love to use life of the mother and rape as talking points to defend ritual child sacrifice, but they also know those situations are statistically irrelevant.
Guaranteed that with a rape exception, they'll continue talking about them, with the excuse that "not all pregnant people report their rapes" or "doctors shouldn't have to fear prosecution if they incorrectly make the determination that a woman's life was at risk".
They seem to be very risk-averse, not doing abortions even when it's allowed. In part this is to milk it for political ends, but no doubt they're seriously scared as well. They only do the virtue-signal when it's without cost.
They love to use life of the mother and rape as talking points to defend ritual child sacrifice, but they also know those situations are statistically irrelevant.
Guaranteed that with a rape exception, they'll continue talking about them, with the excuse that "not all pregnant people report their rapes" or "doctors shouldn't have to fear prosecution if they incorrectly make the determination that a woman's life was at risk".
“Incorrectly” or intentionally
They seem to be very risk-averse, not doing abortions even when it's allowed. In part this is to milk it for political ends, but no doubt they're seriously scared as well. They only do the virtue-signal when it's without cost.
I just use Crowders method. Ask, "would you support a ban with only exceptions for rape and the mothers life? No? Then shut up"