An Exercise in Hyperbole

I don't know much about the latest videos concerning Planned Parenthood, so I went to Little Green Footballs to see what Charles Johnson had to say:

Gail Collins has a good piece in the New York Times about the latest smears perpetrated by Lila Rose (and hyped by fraudster Andrew Breitbart) against Planned Parenthood. ...

The truth is that Lila Rose could not care less about real child slavery. Using actors playing pimps and prostitutes is a cynical trick, as Collins points out, to smear an organization that helps millions of low-income women every day. But Rose’s fanatical religious views tell her it’s fine to lie, distort, and fabricate evidence if it furthers the cause of destroying women’s rights.

I'm not a pro-life absolutist, but is it cynical to equate abortion rights with women's rights? Has it been that clearly established that women's rights hinge on access to abortion? If abortion is restricted would that somehow end women's suffrage or otherwise destroy women's rights? Is the claim that the pro-life movement wants to destroy women's rights a "fanatical" view?

I don't know Lile Rose from a hole in the wall, but I was eager to see evidence of "the truth" about her complete disinterest in child slavery. However, there was nothing forthcoming in the rest of the blog post. I'm not sure if we should call that assertion by Johnson a smear. Since he's the expert, someone should ask him.

Johnson ends with this:

Gail Collins says it well:

There are tens of millions Americans who oppose abortion because of deeply held moral principles. But they’re attached to a political movement that sometimes seems to have come unmoored from any concern for life after birth.

Is that a smear?

I have two questions: If someone is a secular humanist that believes the fetus is a human life - what can they do or say to note their objection to abortion without being accused of wanting to destroy women's rights or otherwise being smeared as "attached to a political movement that sometimes seems to have come unmoored from any concern for life after birth"? Under what parameters may the pro-life movement operate that wouldn't offend Collins or Johnson? I want to be part of the new civility.

P.S. I have to confess - Johnson is right about one thing. I don't care one iota about child slavery. No one who leans pro-life does.