Because they have no other conclusions that can be reached?

So is the anti-#hb695 crowd actually advocating for dirty, back alley abortions or for killing your unborn child based on it’s sex? #ncga

— Jennifer Hall (@jenjhall) July 3, 2013

The idea that someone who opposes shutting down all the clinics because of the onerous and extreme measures that the proponents of the bill claim are necessary for womens’ health is somehow for back alley abortions, or is against womens’ safety ignore that the morbidity and mortality rates for women who are patients at clinics are far safer (13-15x more safe) than those who seek natural or c-section birthing. It’s far far safer than plastic surgery, and there’s none among the proponents looking to demand that all plastic surgeons have privileges at hospitals or that any location where plastic surgery occurs conform to requirements such as those these folks are hoping to impose on abortion clinics so they are forced to shutter if they can’t afford the cost to comply with the demands.

But, as everyone here knows, the retort is that it might be safer for the woman, but not the unborn (ignoring that their claims for safety are a cover for their true intention to force the clinics to close). The safety and well being of the women is not part of the calculus, because if it were, these same people would be demanding that health care improve for pregnant women so they don’t die in such large numbers or that plastic surgeons don’t have so many bad outcomes - death and disfigurements.