Do Pro-Lifers Have a Plan?

Plus, New York Democrats turn up the heat on congressional redistricting efforts.

By , and
139
Pro-life supporters gather on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., ahead of the March for Life on January 20, 2023. (Photo by Nathan Posner/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)

Happy Wednesday! We’re thrilled to announce that Weekly Standard and CNN alum Mike Warren is joining the Dispatch team. Give him a Twitter follow here.

Up to Speed

  • Sen. Tim Scott keeps taking steps toward a presidential bid. The South Carolina Republican announced the launch of a new exploratory committee Wednesday with a slick video filmed at Fort Sumter, the site of the first shots fired in the Civil War. “Today, our country is once again being tested,” Scott said in the video, timed for release on the anniversary of that battle. “Once again, our divisions run deep and the threat to our future is real. Joe Biden and the Democrats have chosen a culture of grievance over greatness.”
  • A super PAC supporting Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has made a key hire in Iowa, a crucial early caucus state in the race for the Republican nomination. Sources tell The Dispatch Never Back Down has tapped GOP operative Sophie Crowell, who until recently worked for Rep. Ashley Hinson, a second-term Iowa Republican from Cedar Rapids. Under federal election law, Crowell could seamlessly transition to a DeSantis presidential campaign, should the governor run, as is widely expected. (Never Back Down declined to comment.)
  • Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb, a Republican, filed paperwork on Monday to run for Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema’s seat in 2024. That Senate contest is shaping up to be one of the most chaotic in the country: Progressive Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego hopped into the race in January, and a host of Republicans are eyeing bids, including former GOP gubernatorial candidate and election-denying MAGA darling Kari Lake, Lake’s former primary opponent Karrin Taylor Robson, and former Senate candidate Blake Masters.
  • The Democratic National Committee has picked Chicago to host the party’s 2024 presidential primary convention. “The convention will take place Aug. 19-22 next year,” the Chicago Sun-Times reported. “It is expected to draw 5,000 to 7,000 delegates and alternates and attract up to 50,000 visitors to Chicago.” (Strange things can happen when national Democrats descend on Chicago—we’re keeping our eyes peeled for a reprise of the 1996 clapping video.) 
  • Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin announced Wednesday that she will run for reelection in 2024. A Redfield and Wilton poll ahead of the 2022 midterms gave Baldwin an even 34-34 approval rating in the state; the Cook Political Report rates the race Lean Democratic.
  • Republican businessman Bernie Moreno filed paperwork on Monday to run for U.S. Senate in Ohio next cycle, joining state Sen. Matt Dolan in the Republican field to take on Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown in 2024. An official announcement from Moreno is expected next week, NBC News reports.
  • Former Rep. Harley Rouda is exiting the race to succeed Rep. Katie Porter in California’s 47th District after suffering a brain injury after a fall in March. The Democrat said he expects to make a full recovery but is dropping his campaign on the advice of doctors. The Democratic-leaning 47th District, anchored in Orange County, is being vacated by Porter, the popular progressive who is running for retiring Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s seat.
  • Three-term Democratic Rep. Jennifer Wexton said in a video announcement on Tuesday that she has been diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. Wexton said the disease is primarily affecting her speech, gait, and balance but that Parkinson’s is not “an untreatable disease, cognitive impairment, or death sentence” and that she hopes to continue serving in Virginia’s 10th Congressional District “for many years to come.”

‘Republicans Need to Figure Out the Abortion Issue ASAP’

As they head into the 2024 presidential cycle, anti-abortion activists are having a tough time figuring out how good they should be feeling.

On the one hand, they’re less than a year removed from Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health—the Supreme Court case that slew their 50-year white whale, Roe v. Wade, permitting a patchwork of “trigger law” abortion restrictions to slam into place across the country. Meanwhile, sympathetic judges and legislators continue to chip away at abortion’s remaining legal edifice. Last week, a Trump-appointed U.S. district judge in Texas issued a ruling ostensibly striking down the decades-old federal authorization of the abortion drug mifepristone, likely setting up another abortion-related showdown before the 6-3 conservative court. And Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who signed a ban on abortions after 15 weeks in his first term, is planning to sign a more restrictive six-week ban with exceptions for victims of rape and incest this month.  

On the other hand, a growing heap of data suggests that the reemergence of abortion restrictions at the ballot box has provoked a huge backlash among today’s electorate. In last year’s midterms, Democrats rode an abortion-access message to better than expected results despite strong economic headwinds and the unpopularity of President Joe Biden. Meanwhile, the pro-choice side prevailed in every state where abortion itself was on the ballot—not only in blue enclaves like California and Michigan, but even in ruby-red places like Kansas and Kentucky. Last week, a state Supreme Court election in purple Wisconsin showed this electoral sentiment continues to burn hot: Liberal candidate Janet Protasiewicz, who campaigned heavily on the issue of abortion access, defeated conservative Dan Kelly by 11 points to give liberals a majority on the court.

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
139
By , and
Comments (139)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Jaybrown

    I am so so tired of the "abortion debate." I no longer care what anyone else thinks. I have my beliefs and will go by them when judging (for myself only) what other people do. Kill "unborn babies," or remove offensive and inconvenient "clumps of cells." Genetics is clear that whatever is growing in there, it is not "your body." Everyhing else is just blather, and I'm tired of it. I just don't care anymore.

    Collapse
    1. Bobby D

      I’m tired of it as well. It’s a distraction from issues that matter.

      Collapse
      1. Jaybrown

        Oh, it matters. I'm just absenting myself from the blathering about it.

        Collapse
        1. Bobby D

          By “it” I mean the I’ll-fated effort to eliminate early-term abortion altogether. It isn’t going to happen because that position enjoys only about 20-25% public support. So, it doesn’t matter from a political perspective because there’s no chance of success. By continuing to promote policies that 75-80% of the public opposes, conservatives are limiting their ability to succeed on issues that enjoy broader public support. Virginia is a purple/blue state today in large part because social conservatives overplayed their hand on abortion and faced a public backlash. The effect of pressing this issue is electing more Democrats.

          Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Kmregan7

        It's an issue that matters to women. And women matter. Both in general and in politics. It's not going away. Personally, I think leaving it up to individual women and their doctors/support team would be great - just leave us be and let us handle things, but I know that's probably way too much to ask.

        Collapse
        1. Bobby D

          I agree with you. I’m criticizing the anti-abortion activists on the right who continue to push for policies that enjoy no more than about 20-25% popular support. By forcing GOP candidates to kowtow to them in primaries, these activists cause us to field weaker candidates in the general election. For example, Wisconsin now has a progressive majority on its Supreme Court because the conservative candidate in the last election was unelectable because of his views on abortion. This issue is understandably important to many women. And promoting candidates who hold to unpopular views on abortion causes many women to vote for progressives when they may otherwise vote for a conservative.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Kmregan7

            I see…I hope I didn’t come off as hostile! Thanks for the clear, and cordial reply.

            Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      And yet I imagine you are so, so glad that RvW was overturned and now abortion is a live issue at the state and federal level in every single election from now until the end of time.

      Collapse
      1. Jaybrown

        Federal ism is alive. Congress won't touch it.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Pat Riot

          Um, Republicans just banned the abortion pill nationwide. Oops.

          (Or, were you trying to be funny and I missed it? I can't tell).

          Collapse
          1. BadgerBill

            What? Pat, you know that’s not correct. One federal judge in Texas made that ruling, not “Republicans”. The ruling has been stayed (albeit temporarily) already. Take a minute and turn down the hyperbole a little. And, yes, I believe the ruling will not stand, and shouldn’t.

            Collapse
          2. Jaybrown

            Congress did no such thing. Go read the court cases. Nothing has been "banned." FDA's data and subsequent approval have been set aside. FDA can reapply at any time.

            Collapse
  2. Johnsondm03

    This commentary seems rather cynical, as if abortion is merely an issue - one of many - that political parties need to "figure out". Yet, the question of abortion is fundamentally different, and gets to the heart of who we are as a nation. If the political parties continue to fight this out at the ballot box, in state referendum after referendum, then we will still be fighting 50 years hence. The only way to resolve this question, with finality, is the same as the resolution to the question of slavery: a recognition of the personhood of the unborn child through Constitutional amendment. But for the 13th Amendment, we might still be fighting over slavery today.

    Collapse
    1. BadgerBill

      That’s not ever gonna happen. If anything, it’ll be what European countries have done. Have you talked to young people? They don’t agree with that resolution at all.

      Collapse
      1. Johnsondm03

        Yes, you might be correct. On the other hand, if you had written in 1860 that slavery would never be abolished in the United States, the weight of evidence at the time would have been on your side.

        Collapse
    2. Jim S

      So everyone should declare the issue non political and just adopt your personal position?

      For the last 30 years I’ve heard the anti-abortion movement claim the whole point of overturning Roe v Wade was to return the issue to the states to be resolved politically. So what did I miss?

      Collapse
      1. Johnsondm03

        Well, you're not wrong; the anti-abortion movement believed - understandably - that returning the issue of abortion to the state legislatures was a least-bad option, when compared to nationwide abortion on demand. My assessment is that is similar to the abolitionists, after Dredd Scott v. Sanford or the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, saying that the issue of slavery should be decided at the state level, rather than by Congress, on the theory that at least *some* states might ban slavery.

        Collapse
    3. Bobby D

      The problem with that is that only 20-25% of Americans support such a position.

      Collapse
      1. Johnsondm03

        And what percentage of Americans do you suppose supported complete abolition of slavery in 1850, when the Compromise of 1850 required that slaves who escaped to free states be returned to their owners? The American people will come around, eventually.

        Collapse
        1. Bobby D

          Given that the northern states were more populous, I’d guess that it was above 50%. And there were economic levers that were making slavery more obsolescent. There’s no similar economic driver on abortion. In fact, the economic drivers probably push in the opposite direction. It’s a losing issue.

          Collapse
          1. Johnsondm03

            You've gotten it backwards: the economic drivers in the southern states all made slavery a necessity; the southern economy would collapse without the slave labor which enabled the agrarian economy to function. But you're correct, there is no similar economic driver for abortion rights. If abortion were abolished tomorrow, how many state economies would collapse? Zero. How many abortionists would lose their entire livelihood? Zero. They would all go and practice family medicine.

            Collapse
          2. GenZConservative

            Sadly not - the Compromise of 1850 wouldn't have passed were slavery that unpopular. The Republican party didn't even exist yet, and the debate at the time was whether Congress should allow CA into the union as a non-slave state at all.

            To your larger point, abortion abolition is almost certainly a losing issue right now. But so was emancipation until after the Civil War.

            Collapse
    4. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      Given the polling today, there's a far better chance of an Amendment protecting a woman's right to choose passing.

      Collapse
      1. Johnsondm03

        You might be correct, but let's have that destructive debate as a nation, instead of having the Supreme Court decide everything.

        Collapse
    5. Avatar photo
      I Am the Eggman

      The equation of abortion with slavery is repulsive and offensive. But at least you didn't, as some anti-abortion extremists do, equate it with the Holocaust, which is even more repulsive and offensive.

      Collapse
      1. Johnsondm03

        Explain to me why slavery is wrong.

        Collapse
    6. Avatar photo
      Magpie

      To paraphrase: "The only way to resolve this question is to decide it exactly the way I think it should be decided, regardless of the views of a majority of Americans." No, thanks.

      Collapse
      1. Johnsondm03

        How, exactly, do you decide a Constitutional amendment without the buy-in from the majority of Americans?
        Has that ever happened?

        Collapse
    7. Nordic_man

      So are you guys going to actually build consensus on the issue or take the lazy sack of shit way out and leverage all of the anti majoritarian methods you can to squeak a ban by? So far it has been nothing but the latter.

      Collapse
      1. Johnsondm03

        Have you actually read the Constitution? It explains very clearly how a Constitutional amendment is passed.
        https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-5/

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Kmregan7

        They can't build consensus. The places they've tried, even slightly (see: Kansas) has shown them that if they tried to let the people actually decide, abortion would be far more legal and accessible than they want. So they just pass the legislation they can pass, even though the majority don't actually want it.

        Collapse
    8. Avatar photo
      Kmregan7

      Or a recognition that fetuses are in fact NOT persons under the law…or are persons under the law only at a certain point of gestational development.

      Collapse
      1. Johnsondm03

        True, and the slave was NEVER recognized as a person under the law.

        So, I presume that you would agree that holding a slave was never wrong, because the personhood of the slave was never accepted under the law.

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        I Am the Eggman

        That they achieve legal personhood at some specified point in development is really the only way we're ever going to reach a decision supported by a majority of the population. To believe that a fertilized egg is a person is absurd; a person is not a single cell. The opposite extreme of arguing that a woman should be able to abort up to the moment of giving birth is equally deranged, but fortunately has very few advocates. So clearly we need to settle on some point in between those extremes, probably no earlier than 12 weeks but no later than 20, based on some sensible evaluation of how the fetus develops during that time.

        Collapse
        1. Johnsondm03

          "To believe that a fertilized egg is a person is absurd; a person is not a single cell. "

          Why is this absurd? Are you going to support your opinion or do we just take it on faith that it must be absurd because you deem it so?

          "So clearly we need to settle on some point in between those extremes, probably no earlier than 12 weeks but no later than 20, based on some sensible evaluation of how the fetus develops during that time."

          That is going to be arbitrary by definition. If we get to arbitrarily decide who deserves personhood and who doesn't, then how are we any different than the Third Reich?

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            I Am the Eggman

            That a single cell isn't a person is self-evident. Do I really have to explain that? A fertilized egg has human DNA, but DNA is only a form of biological code; a person is a complex entity constructed according to the instructions in DNA, but DNA by itself is a not a person. It's as if you're arguing that because a house is built according to the instructions in its architectural blueprints, therefore the blueprints are a house that you can live in. They're not.

            Your Third Reich reference is simply beneath contempt and does not merit a reply.

            Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    George.Skinner

    The Underpants Gnome approach to difficult issues is always popular among politicians. In the case of abortion, the Republicans could avoid the work of sorting out a policy by uniting around the first step of getting the Supreme Court to reverse itself on the right to abortion. When it actually happened, they'd done none of the work to figure out a position, and the initiative went to the most vocal and strident who wanted all-out bans on abortion. They did the same thing with repealing Obamacare - a decade of effort, and they choked when they finally had the power to repeal because they had no plan for replacement.

    This used to be a favorite of Democratic foreign policy as well: instead of sorting out difficult or intractable problems, get both parties to agree to something, commit to an ongoing "process", and celebrate the "accomplishment" of getting both parties to restate their existing positions and talk more later. This tactic was, of course, of rather limited effect in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and problem of North Korea nuclear weapons development.

    Collapse
  4. Deleted Comment

    This comment has been deleted

  5. Kaybmorrow

    Re: NIKKI HALEY, tried to send a check to her campaign but could not locate an address.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      JohnM.

      "Please mail checks payable to Nikki Haley for President to 186 Seven Farms Dr. Ste. F #370 Daniel Island, SC 29492"
      And I promise you that is not my address. ;-)

      https://jewishinsider.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/30163338/RJC-Letter-FINAL-With-Watermark.pdf

      Collapse
  6. Mary Stine

    re the abortion issue:
    there are reality issues on the ground concerning this that are by and large being ignored, especially on the right, but also on the left. However, these are issues that are of great concern to a large number of working families who are not wealthy. They are also of concern to many people of different faiths who have considered this issue carefully from a moral and ethical standpoint.
    1.) Once bans are in place forbidding 99% of abortions and only allowing one to "save the life of the mother"
    the already small pool of qualified doctors willing to treat women in high risk pregnancies will only get smaller
    Further, almost no doctor will be willing to risk prison, the loss of his/her license and lawsuits to merely save the life of an innocent, poor woman who is the victim of bad circumstance by performing a medically necessary abortion.
    Those of us voters who did not grow up in wealth or have spent time trying to help impoverished people, know this.
    2.) Voters with a strong medical background who are also from families of color already realize how poorly attention is paid to their mothers and pregnant women. They know that the 2nd trimester is often the most dangerous for women of color, and where many necessary, albeit unwanted , medical abortions occur. They see no attempts, research or care-wise to prevent this. What they see is denial and blame.
    3.)Some women voters of faith who have always identified as prolife and have worked to help prevent abortion through care, counselling and birth control are deeply offended by these laws and the pompous men
    gleefully pronouncing them. As one of them put it to me " I am a fully functioning adult woman capable of making an informed moral decision without some male politician telling me what to do"
    4.) Many people are dismayed that abortion is still referenced as birth control. Most Americans, even those who are on the left, see abortion as a last ditch awful alternative because we are not smart enough to
    do better medically. Most of us would prefer better contraceptives, or at least better distribution and education on contraceptives that we have.
    5.) Since no contraceptive is 100% effective, most aware people would also like better support for pregnant women in crisis, which would mean better shelter/housing/ nutrition/ medical care and a better path to adoption. There are too few shelters for women and families as it is.
    A lot of money is being wasted to fight this as a legal and political battle that could have been used to actually help real mothers, the unborn and the children already here.
    6.) There is more than one sect of Christianity in this country, as well as many other faiths. For any group to claim the moral high ground here is only going to turn more people off. This, like gun violence, is a complex issue with that needs long term answers.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Kmregan7

      I love everything about this comment…. Bravo!!!

      Collapse
  7. Meggymish

    I've written extensively elsewhere about the life issue, so all I'll say here is this: would you kindly use the nomenclature for "anti-abortion activists" that we use for ourselves? Namely, "pro-life." Would you call the other side "pro-abortion activists?" No? Then please, stop with the "anti-abortion activist" stuff. It may be the AP's standard, but why does it have to be yours, @thedispatch?

    Oh, one more thing: if the Republican party thinks they can win without prolife voters, or if they think they can weasle their way to "compromise" on the lives of the most vulnerable by promoting a European model and campaigning on a 12 week ban, it would be a surefire way to piss off the *non* Trumpy part of the base. This seems suboptimal for their electoral prospects. Republicans would do better to make the case for life, clearly, consistently, and constantly. The other side will portray Republicans as "extremists" on this regardless of how much they compromise (and thereby compromise themselves) on the issue, so they may as well actually be prolife, from conception to natural death, and make that case. They will only look like slimy liars if they don't, to everyone.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Donald E. L. Johnson, Florida

      Extremists and absolutist anti-abortionists are anti-women, anti-free speech, anti-Constitution and, I think, anti-American. I can say the same thing about absolutist pro choice and pro abortion people who want no limits on abortion. Pick your label.

      Collapse
    2. Kelly Windsor

      There is nothing pro-life about the anti-abortion movement. Pro-control is what it really is.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        I Am the Eggman

        That's actually not true. The anti-abortion people really do believe that a human life with a right to its own existence begins at the instant of conception. One can debate this point, certainly (and I do; I think it's ridiculous), but it really is what they believe, and it does logically follow from that premise that abortion is murder and therefore should not be legal. Some on the pro-choice side like to pretend that it's all about controlling women, but that's just the usual rhetorical BS that we see on both sides in politics today, where people try to undermine the other side's position by claiming they're not sincere and that their real motivation is something much more nefarious. It's nothing but a self-comforting lie, and it's just as disingenuous and stupid as Republicans branding all Democrats (even long-established moderates like Biden) as "radical leftists".

        Collapse
        1. GenZConservative

          You and I do not agree on when life begins, but I appreciate your recognition of an actual moral belief, rather than a strawman about "control." The world would be a lot better if everyone on both sides were more like you.

          Collapse
        2. Kelly Windsor

          I’m sure you believe that, but I do not.
          If they really believe it’s murder then they would agree on charging a woman with murder.
          If they really believe it’s about preserving life then they would ALL be willing to assist a woman in having a healthy, full-term infant and then helping to provide for that child’s well-being when the woman has little means to do so. Only a small percentage do.

          If they really believed in what they say they would have compassion, not hate in their hearts. Now, SOME do, but most do not.

          If they really, really, really believed it was about preserving life then they would be interested in WHY it happens, when it happens and all the in’s and outs of it so they could find a true solution.

          Criminalizing abortion does NOT reduce abortion rates (this is a well documented fact), it just increases the criminalization of innocent women who are already stuck in dire situations. It makes their lives even more difficult, sometimes unbearable.

          I don’t believe the vast majority of anti-abortionists (certainly NOT the ones currently passing draconian legislation) care about life at all. They care about controlling women and punishing the one’s who don’t live by their standards. Period.

          You can believe they care about human life if you wish. But I don’t believe the majority of them do, at all.

          Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

        You're entitled to your opinion, but I do notice something interesting.
        Pro-life is the label a group identifies itself as. Many activists for other identity groups insist that people use the label they prefer. And they are consistent with this...except for the pro-life movement. It suggests that perhaps not all identities are created equal.

        Collapse
        1. Kelly Windsor

          So what?
          They can insist all they want.
          That has no bearing on whether I buy the sell.

          I don’t.
          And, as you said, I’m entitled to my opinion.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

            It's very clear you don't, but the question is if you expect others to extend the same courtesies to you or not.

            Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Stephanie

      “Pro-life” implies opposition to gun violence (and most ownership of military style guns), the death penalty, and other issues affecting the already-born.

      Collapse
      1. GenZConservative

        "You can only hold your chosen title if you agree with me on a half dozen tangentially related issues."

        Collapse
    4. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      Calling yourself "pro life" is like calling yourself "pro awesomeness".

      I'm pro-life. So is everybody I know. I also think that forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy she does not want to carry is among the most gruesome, awful and terrible torture that can be delivered by a government, which is why I'm pro-choice when it comes to abortion. The term "pro-life" can be used to describe anybody who advocates anything because it's a meaningless marketing term.

      I don't ask that abortion abolitionists call my position, "pro-smartness" so they should play fair as well.

      The best term I've seen for those wanting to make abortion illegal is, "abortion abolitionist". That term describes exactly what they want.

      The non-Trumpy part of the GOP base is about 20% of it at best. Looks like y'all have lost your dance partner.

      Collapse
    5. Avatar photo
      Kmregan7

      Pro-life doesn’t cut it…you are anti-abortion. If they were using “anti-choice” I’d agree with you (I think some people are very much anti-choice but I don’t necessarily agree that all of those who are anti-abortion or “pro-life” are anti-choice) and using anti-choice is IMO, unnecessarily hostile).

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

        Is it fair to label those who urged my wife to have an abortion to be "pro-abortion" and not Pro-choice, since they were not actually pro-choice?

        Collapse
        1. Kelly Windsor

          Sounds like they are pro-abortion to me.

          Collapse
    6. Avatar photo
      I Am the Eggman

      "Pro-life" was never anything but a marketing term. Back in the '70s it was called the anti-abortion movement until someone decided they shouldn't be so "negative" and focus on what they were for instead of what they were against. The problem was they weren't for anything, they were just against abortion. They ended up settling on the vague and really rather meaningless term "pro-life" because it was the best they could come up with, but "anti-abortion" is and always has been a more accurate description. The movement certainly isn't "pro-life" in a general sense, because it isn't against the death penalty, nor is reliably anti-war, and it certainly isn't supportive of free healthcare or even just free prenatal care for all those fetuses that they want to see brought to term. It's the anti-abortion movement and that's all it ever was. The "chosen label" is just a diversion and should be treated as such.

      "Pro-choice", on the other hand, is reasonably accurate, because nobody is really "pro-abortion" in the sense of, like, "We think there should be more abortions. Every woman who finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy should be forced to have an abortion." Nobody thinks that. They support legal abortion so that women have a choice, a Plan B escape in case of an unwanted pregnancy. Not getting pregnant at all is even better, of course, and I think everyone agrees on that point, but sometimes it happens anyway despite perfectly reasonable efforts to prevent it. Birth control pills, for example, are said to be "more than 99% effective", but that doesn't mean 100%.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

        Except I can tell you there are people out there who recommend and urge abortions. That's no pro-choice.

        A true pro-choice person would lay out all alternatives, suggest the pros and cons to them, and allow the person to make an informed decision, without coercion.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          I Am the Eggman

          You say you can, but I notice you don't actually provide any links. I doubt you can point to anyone who actually thinks exactly what I said nobody thinks. There may be people who argue in favor of more abortions in support of some other policy view that they hold (e.g., that the world is overpopulated, or that certain minority groups shouldn't be allowed to reproduce), but I really doubt there's anyone who just thinks abortions are good in and of themselves. If such people do exist, they're a tiny minority and not representative of mainstream pro-choice views.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

            Community Hospital East-Indianapolis. check with their oncology &obstetrics departments. I can assure you from personal experience they were not pro-choice, but pro-abortion. No choices offered, even when asked.

            Good enough for you?

            Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Kmregan7

        You said it better than I did…😁

        Collapse
    7. Avatar photo
      David Burke

      They did. Read the head line.

      Collapse
    8. Karin

      Then again, maybe they are slimy liars.

      Collapse
    9. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      Andrew Egger vertical-nib Author

      Pro-life is used several times in the piece--including in the headline! But I've never understood why the groups whose organizing principle is to limit or ban the practice of abortion should object to being called anti-abortion. They are anti-abortion!

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

        Probably for the same reason homosexual men prefer to identify as gay.

        Collapse
      2. Bobby D

        Agree completely. After all, they’re generally fine with a qualified view of life in all other spheres of life, like war and the death penalty.

        Collapse
      3. Avatar photo
        Pat Riot

        For the same reason they support the absolutely ridiculous judge's decision in Texas that claims a drug that's been in use for the last 23 years is suddenly unsafe?

        Collapse
      4. Meggymish

        Fair enough, and it was the headline that got me to read the piece, so hats off to your headline writer! It's true, prolifers oppose abortion but there's more to it than that, for many of us, anyway. For example, we tend to be in favor of things some other Republicans might oppose, like expanding FMLA, and mandating paid maternity and paternity leave. But I take your point, we shouldn't be too offended by being called anti-abortion, since we are.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Kmregan7

          Some of you are- which is why the pro-life label is more accurate. But majority? No, not really.

          Collapse
  8. Bill

    Regarding Tim Scott’s announcement, Lexington in the April 1-7 issue of The Economist has an excellent generic campaign announcement template that, with a few strategic substitutions, serves equally well for Democrats, MAGA Republicans, and MAGA-Lite Republicans.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    John N.

    "Joe Biden and the Democrats have chosen a culture of grievance over greatness.”

    Jesus, Senator Scott. What a stupid statement.

    When the republican party is being led by chief petty officer Trump, claiming Democrats have chosen a culture of grievance is just plain ridiculous.

    🙄

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      David Burke

      Just thinking the very same. Had the quote cut and ready to paste…

      “Joe Biden and the Democrats have chosen a culture of grievance over greatness.” Tim Scott has now eschewed the “reasonable republican” mantle. What an idiotic forced error.

      Collapse
    2. Deleted Comment

      This comment has been deleted

  10. Bobby D

    The vanity and narcissism of the pro-life movement continues to be a head-scratcher. They support policies that enjoy no more than about 20-25% popular support. Why would anyone who holds such a minority view on an issue expect the law to reflect that view?

    I happen to be morally opposed to abortion. But I can see how someone who doesn’t share my religious convictions could reasonably disagree. Never mind that there are certain investigative issues that come into play when one seeks to criminalize abortion at a point in the gestational cycle when fetal life is precarious and prone to natural loss. So, I have severe doubts concerning the merits of banning abortion any earlier than about the 15th week of gestation.

    Sometimes it seems like the point of the Culture War is just to inflict senseless cruelty on those you perceive to be on the other side. I’ve largely come to view pro-life activists in that vein. Their position only seems to make sense if the point is to inflict cruelty onto women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      David Burke

      “Sometimes it seems like the point of the Culture War is just to inflict senseless cruelty on those you perceive to be on the other side”

      Absolutely concur. And beyond the abortion issue….

      Think back on the DeSantis Martha’s Vineyard airlift of those poor, confused, and frightened immigrants.

      To what end was that? Like a 13 year old boy torturing a cat.

      Damn.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Kmregan7

      As you delve into arguments from the anti-abortion crowd, it almost always, eventually, comes down to sex. “Don’t have sex if you don’t want a baby.” Applied to women heavily though there is always lip service toward men. So yes…inflicting cruelty on women who have the audacity to enjoy sex and expect no consequences has a long history in the abortion disagreements…I’m not saying there aren’t also, probably at the same time, true beliefs regarding fetal personhood and human rights too.

      Collapse
      1. GenZConservative

        I've had this issue too. I have the unpopular opinion that pregnancy is an obvious possible consequence of sex and it frustrates me that we don't hold men accountable enough for their half of it. Child support only kicks in after birth, and doesn't compensate for the personal effort or inconvenience of gestating and caring for a baby. I would very much like more consequences attached to careless fathers.

        Collapse
      2. Fred H

        There are other forms of contraception.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Kmregan7

          Abortion isn’t contraception- contraception PREVENTS pregnancy. Abortion ends pregnancy that has already occurred.

          Collapse
      3. Bobby D

        That’s the sense I get too. My personal objections largely arise from religious beliefs concerning fetal personhood. But we live in a religiously pluralistic society. And I can easily see that someone who doesn’t share my religious convictions may arrive at a different conclusion. So, my political position is largely a reflection of principled mutuality that I owe to others as part of living in a religiously pluralistic society.

        On those lines, I’ve observed that many of the pro-life activist types tend not to be big fans of religious and cultural pluralism. But crowing about abortion is more socially acceptable than crowing about the loss of religious and cultural homogeneity.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Kmregan7

          There are some that may even share your religious convictions and come up with a different conclusion. I'm honestly shocked we haven't seen (or I've missed) court cases that argue for women's religious freedom to choose an abortion (I believe many, but not all Jewish sects believe that personhood/life doesn't being until first breath)

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Stephanie

            Don’t quote me on this, but I think I recall reading about a lawsuit being brought by Jewish plaintiffs in ? Florida.

            Collapse
Load More