Sometimes I type out a tweet thinking it’s genius. Only to highlight that MoFo and delete it. Not everything under 280 characters is gold. NARAL should’ve aborted this one.
— NARAL (@NARAL) July 11, 2018
This tweet may have flown under the triggered radar in 2014. But we’re more advanced now. Our sensitivity meters flutter at the mere suggestion of gender. Plus, and maybe you’ve heard of this thing called “Google,” people can run their very own fact checks sans banana dealers like CNN.
Behold, Twitter doing what Twitter does best: trolling.
But you had no problem with seven white men creating a right to abortion under the "penumbra" of the unenumerated privacy right, now did ya? https://t.co/1w3A6JzsAK
— Amy Swearer (@AmySwearer) July 11, 2018
7 men fought for it originally, you are the sexists
— Aaron Covert (@CovertAaron) July 11, 2018
Here are those seven men:
Here ya go, a history lesson. You know, in case you forgot.
— The Wako Kid (@OldGlory7476) July 11, 2018
So it was fine for 7 men to decide Roe v. Wade, but won’t be okay for 5 men to overturn it? In this hypothetical scenario which hasn’t even been presented?
Yeah, NARAL's never been one for the prep school/academic crowd. They support the common folk, like the Clintons and the Kennedys, the Bloombergs and the Pelosis. None of these upper-crust college snobs for @NARAL
— ConservativeNotCrazy (@IAMMGraham) July 11, 2018
A point that needed to be made.
Let’s also acknowledge that NARAL assumed the genders of the five SCOTUS judges they don’t like. Which should be a red card. Issued by the gender fluid, LGBTQAAIP community immediately.
Have you noticed the left is in a panic over Roe, but don’t seem all that concerned with other cases being overturned? It’s almost like the left is admitting Roe v. Wade is bad law. If it was solid, built on a sturdy foundation, they’d care not what judge was appointed. And yet…