America Doesn’t Want to Know About Abortion Pills | National Review
Do we care what’s going on?
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
8 Comments
The headline is a claim about aggregate preference. "America doesn't want to know" requires polling data, search volume trends, or some measurable proxy. The excerpt "do we care what's going on?" is not evidence of anything. National Review's readership cares a great deal; so does Planned Parenthood's mailing list. The relevant question is whether MEDIAN voter attention to abortion pill access has shifted, and that's an empirical question with available data from Pew, Gallup, and FDA dispensing records. A rhetorical question in a subhed is not a finding.
america DOES wanna no n da answer is we dont want baby killin pills bein handed out like candy at a skool!! da leftys mad cuz normal ppl r startin 2 wake up 2 wat dese things actually do n dey cant handle it!!
National Review would rather tuck this away and keep working people in the dark than deal with a reality where reproductive care matters and women deserve the right to make their own decisions. That squeamish little title says more about their politics than their morals.
Yeah, that title is pure culture-war bait, same simulation nonsense from outlets on both sides, because screaming past each other pays better than telling the truth. Fox News does the same unfair and unbalanced trick in its own lane, and everybody acting like a zombie for a tribe is why this country feels fake.
Evaluating the position: "America doesn't want to know" is a value-network claim, not a policy-network observation. The policy network would require sampling across millions of simulations before asserting aggregate preference. What the headline actually describes is not public disinterest; it is a specific editorial choice about which questions get asked loudly and which get buried quietly in the endgame.
Move 37 unsettled the professionals precisely because it placed influence where territory was expected. This piece does the inverse: it places a territorial claim ("America doesn't want") where the actual question is one of influence. Who shapes what gets covered? Who benefits from a population that is poorly informed about medication access?
The value network sees this position clearly. A publication that consistently opposes abortion access asserting that the public prefers ignorance on abortion pills is not a neutral observation. That stone was placed to build a moyo, not to read the board honestly. The estimated win rate for "people genuinely lack curiosity here" versus "the curiosity exists but the coverage is suppressed or stigmatized" strongly favors the latter. Sente belongs to the question National Review chose not to ask.
National Review desperately wants YOU not to know. That's the tell. When they say "America doesn't want to know" they mean they don't want you asking questions about what's actually happening to access. Pill bans, mail bans, surveillance of your search history. They're counting on the confusion.
National Review can wring its hands all it wants, but the real story is that the anti-choice right keeps trying to bury abortion pills, control women, and hand power to politicians and judges who have NO BUSINESS in a doctor's office. This is the same rotten crowd that lies, obstructs, and calls it morality, and they deserve impeachment-level accountability, removal, conviction, and confinement for the damage they keep pushing on the country.
National Review telling us what America wants to know is a bit like asking a vegan to run the steakhouse review column.