WaPo's Fact Checker gives 4 Pinocchios to Kamala Harris for her attack on Brett Kavanaugh.

Here's the Fact Checker, Glenn Kessler.

At the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, Kavanaugh, asked to talk about a case he'd participated in on the D.C. Circuit, said:

“That was a group that was being forced to provide a certain kind of health coverage over their religious objection to their employees, and under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the question was first, was this a substantial burden on the religious exercise? And it seemed to me quite clearly it was.... It was a technical matter of filling out a form, in that case with -- that -- they said filling out the form would make them complicit in the provision of the abortion-inducing drugs that they were -- as a religious matter, objected to.”

Harris put out a tweet, with a video clip that left out the "they said" and making it seem that the plaintiffs' position was his own opinion, and — a day later — put out a second tweet with a full context video but — rather than any kind of correction or apology — a restatement of her original point:

Here is Kavanaugh's full answer. There's no question that he uncritically used the term "abortion-inducing drugs," which is a dog whistle term used by extreme anti-choice groups to describe birth control. pic.twitter.com/PMbZzu8DqD

— Kamala Harris (@SenKamalaHarris) September 8, 2018

Kessler writes:

Some might argue that it’s a judgment call, open to legal interpretation, as to whether Kavanaugh “uncritically” used a term that riles advocates of abortion rights.

But a plain reading of Kavanaugh’s answer during the hearings shows that it is broadly consistent with his written opinion. One can question why he used the phrase “abortion-inducing drugs” rather than “abortion-inducing products” or “abortifacients.” But it’s pretty clear from the context that he was quoting the views of the plaintiffs rather than offering a personal view.

Harris’s original tweet, with the “they say” language removed, was slightly mitigated by the second tweet a day later, providing the full context. But there was no acknowledgment by Harris that the original tweet was misleading. She earns Four Pinocchios -- and her fellow Democrats should drop this talking point.

Harris deserves the 4 Pinocchios, but something I'd like to examine is why do abortion-rights advocates keep acting ashamed of abortion? The drug in question does rid the body of a post-conception group of cells. What's the pro-choice reason for opposing calling that "abortion"? Is it just that you want to hide the facts from people who believe a post-conception entity should not be destroyed? What I see is a political fight over which words to use, with those who support abortion rights wanting to maintain a distinction between the terms "abortion" and "birth control" and to keep as much as possible on the "birth control" side of the line because that's most effective in maintaining the most autonomy for women who they believe are entitled to control what goes on inside their own bodies.

The abortion-rights advocates are fighting on the anti-abortion side's territory, which is the subtle and usually religious question of when life begins or when the unborn becomes a person.

Of course, Kavanaugh knows better than to talk about any of that. I couldn't bear to watch the whole hearings, and I know I could find a transcript and do a search, but I'm sure if he were asked when does life begin/when is the unborn a person, he'd say that the case law establishes that the question is not to be answered by judges. In the case under discussion, the question was the scope of religious freedom rights, and the sincere belief of the plaintiffs was that life begins at conception. The question whether life begins at conception was no more in issue than the question whether Jesus Christ saves us from our sins.

But let me get back to Harris's second tweet. It's got another problem that Kessler doesn't even talk about. She wrote that "abortion-inducing drugs" is "a dog whistle term used by extreme anti-choice groups to describe birth control," but it's only a term for some birth control, not birth control in general. It sounds crazy to call all birth control "abortion-inducing drugs." Harris makes her opponents sound much more extreme and anti-science than they are. The term "abortion-inducing drugs" refers only to drugs used on what many people sincerely believe is a new human life, the fertilized egg. I'd like to hear someone cross-examine Harris about whether she thinks people who think life begins at conception are "extremists."

And I'm saying that as someone who believes the woman is entitled to her bodily autonomy and — as the case law says — has the right to take action to avoid going through with a pregnancy.