Is abortion a fundamental right now? What are the American public’s views on this issue? How will the American public respond if the rollback of Roe v. Wade is finalized? Is the American public wedded to the “protections” under Roe v. Wade or are they ambivalent? Why does any of this matter? I discuss these matters with a few on the opposite side of the issue.
First, let’s examine where the American public stands on this issue. A Pew Research Center poll from last week divided us in this way:
We can say the American people fall into three distinct groups, excluding the 2% who didn’t answer.
- 25%: Abortions should have no limits or very few limits.
- 36%: Abortions should be legal with limits such as no abortions after 20 weeks or no abortions after viability (around 25 weeks or later).
- 37%: Abortions should be illegal in all or most instances.
Alternatively, we could also lump the two groups in the middle and say that a majority of Americans (63%) favor abortion with restrictions:
- 25%: Abortions should have no limits or very few limits.
- 63%: Abortions should be legal with limits.
- 10%: Abortions should be illegal in virtually all instances.
The majority is clearly in the middle; they see abortion as a necessary evil with a few or perhaps multiple restrictions needed. Maybe they find the practice distasteful and wouldn’t engage in it themselves, but they will allow that others should have some (not unlimited) choice in the matter. These folks don’t countenance late term abortions nor could they contemplate killing a baby after birth (like the Californians in this video pro-abortion-crowd-is-out-of-control), but they think the Catholic Church and folks like me go too far to end it altogether and folks like AOC, Chuck Schumer, and my critics are wrong to have no limits whatsoever.
The Planned Parenthood v Casey ruling in 1992 actually sets “viability” as the outer limit for abortions. Abortions in the third trimester are illegal per this 1992 ruling.
Several states have extended that standard in allowing abortions into the third trimester and some even up to nine months. Furthermore, laws against late term abortions are often overlooked and poorly enforced (read about Kermit Gosnell). The CDC estimates there are thousands of third term abortions in the U.S. every year, but this number is likely much higher as doctors lie about a women’s status to avoid openly running afoul of the law.
I worry about those at the extreme pro-choice end. They demand abortion be a fundamental right and increasingly refuse to acknowledge that it ends the life of another. It is a woman’s health issue. It is my body, my choice. These folks ignore the life, the rights, and the body of the child. The current Supreme Court decision makes many in that group apoplectic. Even supposedly mild mannered politicians are looking the other way at fire-bombing of a Wisconsin anti-abortion clinic and protests at the homes of Supreme Court justices. They will say they are against violence but then say: well the issue matters so much, can you blame folks for going to such extremes? One journalist even declared on national TV to “make sweet love” to thank the Supreme Court leaker. Yes, let’s thank the leaker for breaking the law and breaking with traditional norms. Give this one-minute clip a listen and ask yourself what is wrong here: https://video.foxnews.com/v/6305839099112#sp=show-clips
The limbo status of the decision is not good and risks that undue influence will be applied to justices to change it. Imagine this tactic were used with every court decision, say it was used during the trials of people charged with crimes in your neighborhood. Senator Mark Warner of Virginia is perhaps the lone Democrat in the wilderness, speaking up abut this problem:
Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., broke ranks with party leaders on Thursday when he unequivocally condemned the individual who leaked a Supreme Court draft opinion on abortion, calling for prosecution to the “full extent of the law.”
“I completely condemn the leak and whoever leaked it should be prosecuted,” he asserted.
“I’ve seen the theories… and this is kind of, I think, the cheapening of America where rules, morals, are being undermined on a constant basis,” he said. “And I think maybe the thing Americans are saying, they are sick and tired of it, whether it’s coming from either end of the political agenda.”
How Will the Public Respond?
Those of us who think abortion is evil are pleased with significant limits to abortion being enacted in many states. We want a complete rollback, but the court is doing its job by returning this decision to the will of the people. This is not radical. They are withdrawing the court from the decision, something most Americans do not fully understand yet. The court realizes they don’t have the authority to end abortion themselves (unlike the 1973 court which made the decision to allow it for us all), so they will allow those states to decide. Pro-lifers will continue to support the Republican party who has finally taken serious action to change the status quo.
Those in the middle, the largest contingent, will not care enough to change their votes for the upcoming election. They already believe some restrictions are needed, so a few more limitations in some states will likely not bother most of them. Some may believe restrictions go too far, but this isn’t the issue that gets them worked up. We are all impacted by higher prices and a looming recession, and for most, that’s the more impactful matter at the moment. Unless it impacts them personally in the next six months, the court ruling is a non-issue for this group.
A quarter of the electorate will be very upset about the decision. They will support whatever it takes to win (perhaps look the other way at bombings of an anti-abortion clinic in Wisconsin, protests at Supreme Justices homes, and violations of norms at the Supreme Court). However, these folks votes are already locked in for Democrats and won’t change their votes.
Therefore, overall, this issue is not likely to have a big impact on the upcoming election. Votes are not moving from one side to the other and new waves of voters are not likely to be motivated by the issue at this moment.
This debate shouldn’t be about winning the next election, in any case. That’s always been our side’s failure. Folks might want to focus on state legislators who can have an actual impact on this decision in the next couple years or, better yet, focus on changing the views of their neighbors (who need to know the truth of abortion).
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer held a vote on the issue to get his base riled up, but the measure was defeated. The U.S. Congress shouldn’t get involved in any case. If Congress could change the law today to allow abortion nationwide, the next Congress would change it back as soon as they had the chance. We would be caught in a continual back-and-forth as we are with issues like the Southern border and oil and gas drilling. The Supreme Court decision brings us to a better and less volatile political situation, the one we should have had for the last fifty years in any case.
It is Protection
I received a complaint after my post regarding California legislation in which I quoted the following:
Under this proposed new legislation, mothers would not be held criminally responsible for actively or neglectfully killing their hours-old to weeks-old infants. And depending on how a court defines the word “perinatal,” that timeframe could be expanded up to a year or more. This bill would also protect anyone who aids or assists the mother in exercising her “right” to kill and, furthermore, allows her to sue any law enforcement department which arrests or charges her for hurting or killing the baby.
My critic responded as follows:
This is misrepresentation of the bill. You say it “protects anyone who aids or assists the mother in exercising her “right” to kill…..” implying that women will be free to kill their children up to a year after they are born. It does not do that – among other things, it protects a mother from being criminally charged/prosecuted when a pregnancy ends in a death that the mother was not responsible for – such as a still born child.
This misrepresentation is a common tactic to discredit something that one does not like by creating “fear” that something terrible will happen if you do not act to stop it.
I find bizarre this notion that current abortion rights and rights to be afforded to women in the California bill are considered “protections” for woman. Some, like the head of the WHO, claim abortion itself actually saves lives: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/access-to-safe-abortion-saves-lives-who-chief-says-11651677457
Yes, abortions save lives except for 100% of the children who die during the procedure, and except for the mothers who have unsafe abortions in assembly lines purporting to be doctor’s offices (again see the Dr. Kermit Gosnell’s story). Do folks actually believe the things they say or do they latch on to what others say? I think my critics are sincere, but people who should know better repeat one liners, platitudes, and talking points that are not backed up with solid evidence and make no sense to a thinking person. A child has no rights or protections under Roe v Wade, and this is a fundamental good that must defended at all costs? We shouldn’t be safe if you don’t have the right to end the life of a child?
California Governor Gavin Newsome said if abortion were an issue for males, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. But isn’t it an issue for males? I was reliably told the last few years that periods and pregnancy and all the rest are no longer strictly the purview of females. How can that new “truth” have ended so soon for California and the other liberal bastions?
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellin should get credit for honesty. She says abortion is an economic issue. The government not only tries to convince us we are saving lives and protecting women with abortions, but now they use the argument that having a family and taking care of an extra kid is bad for your own economic future. In other words, for the good of the economy, abort your child. I would acknowledge that raising a child is a huge sacrifice and may diminish your own economic interest, but is it a morally justifiable argument?
Placing career ahead of family is the justification many celebrities have used to ease their own consciences and publicly preach to us all (Never Again).
More from my Critic:
My critic’s comments are in blue and mine are in black.
Your logic on this is flawed and weak. It takes a one-sided / simplistic view of a very complicated issue and applies a no compromise approach that touches on bigotry. Let me share what I mean:
- the argument for banning abortion defies the separation of church and state (a foundation of our constitution) – your argument is a conservative religious/church (Christian) point of view that you feel should be forced on others; many Christian sects do not take such a hard line on abortion; many accept that it is an individual’s choice; some allow for certain exceptions (rape/incest/life of the mother in danger); in addition many non-Christian religions take differing approaches as well; there is no consensus on this issue from the world’s leading religions; many countries allow abortion while we are the outliers on this issue. I do not mean to say that because the rest of the world is doing it that we should; but only to point out that there is not a consensus on abortion.
“Separation of church and state” is not a phrase in the Constitution. It is a notion expressed by Thomas Jefferson when he was president. It was never part of the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence or any other official U.S. document, contrary to popular belief.
I think abortion is a moral issue certainly, but it is also a rational argument that can be separated from religion. It has been opposed by the major religions and all types of cultures, religious or non-religious. I speak from a religious point of view because my faith guides my thinking.
- It also is alright, in this case for this to be forced on people; even though you argue that in other cases that government should not tell people what to do – like mask / vaccine mandates – it seems that is not an issue when your position is being mandated – hypocrisy.
Yes, we can force people to our will at times. We send people to jail for crimes that we all agree should be punished. I think abortion should not be a crime, but I also think it is a horrible act and we should not as a culture condone or encourage it. Why can’t you at least give us credit for trying to protect a child’s life? Why do you focus only on the life of the mother? We care about both the life of the mother and the child. The pro-choice folks rarely acknowledge the life of a child. Why is that?
And why is it only a woman’s issue? What about the father of the child? Why do pro-choice folks cut out the father from the discussion? If the child were born, certainly you would want the father to support the child and provide for it. Yet, the father’s objections to abortion should carry no weight? Why is that? You say I am insensitive. Are you being insensitive to the lives, the hopes and the beliefs of the child and the father?
But in reality how much “forcing” is going on here? People have the freedom to have sex or not. They have the freedom to take contraceptives or not (I won’t get into that debate at this time). They have the freedom to wait until marriage to have children or not. They want the additional “freedom” to have one last contraceptive measure (abortion) so they can continue promiscuous behavior with seemingly no consequences. However, there is a cost and a consequence to such behavior. You criticize me for pointing out the costs and the consequences, yet at some point, our culture must assume its responsibility. Our very civilization depends on responsibility to care of family and teach the next generation right and wrong. We are losing that pillar of society by placing our own twisted view of freedom and our own pleasure ahead of all else. Speak to public school teachers you know and ask them how well the parents are doing with regard to self-sacrifice and raising their families.
- the argument says a women should not be able to decide for herself on an issue that is personal to her and her family; it is a women’s health issue – male chauvinistic.
No, it is not a woman’s health issue. It would be a woman’s health issue if it were about removing a faulty appendix or gall bladder. Abortion takes the life of another. You don’t like this to be a religious issue, but there are atheists and who believe in justice who could make equally effective arguments by removing God from my argument below:
The ultimate judgment, the one clearly reserved for God alone, is the decision of who lives or dies. This is what the pro-choice people miss completely. A child aborted receives the ultimate judgement, a judgment we, even the child’s mother– especially the child’s mother–have no right to impose. I think this is what Jesus means when He says “Judge not”. Do not determine another’s ultimate fate. Do not send another to their judgment until God calls them in his due time.
I tie the argument back to God and Jesus’s words “judge not” because it is a common counter argument from those who oppose the Christian view of the matter. We are not hypocrites for judging another’s actions. As I said in my post: As humans we judge each other’s actions. We are expected to keep each other accountable. Otherwise, we cannot maintain a civilized society.
- on your defense of not compromising on this issue – it is offensive: likening acceptance of abortion to being a Nazi – that is disgusting and shows your insensitivity (although you feign that you care). The comparison is a bit like Putin calling the Ukranian’s Nazi’s to justify his invasion of the country – it is a shameful comparison.
I do not liken acceptance of choice to being a Nazi. Here is what I said:
- Compromise is sometimes a good thing, but there should be no compromising when it comes to the life of a child or the horrible nature of abortion. Would you seek compromise with Dr. Mengele and his evil boss or would you simply attempt to destroy their points of view on modern medicine and experimentation? Would Jesus allow that everyone, including the Nazis, ought to at least have their points of view considered and their standard be given as much weight as our own American ideals? This is moral relativism run amok. We wouldn’t seek compromise with the Nazis and we shouldn’t compromise with pro-choice advocates either, no matter how good their intentions, how much they care about others, or how nice they themselves are.
I use the argument that we should not compromise in every instance. We, neither you nor me, nor virtually anyone else reading this, would compromise with the Nazis. Therefore, all compromise is not good. That is my main point. I am not attacking pro-choice folks; I give you credit for having good intentions and caring about others, for goodness sake, not something I would concede to the Nazis. I am also attacking the idea of moral relativism. I seek to attack the ideas you believe in, not you yourself. I do not lump in pro-choice people with the Nazis. Re-read it carefully.
Another point is that not all views are equally or morally good. Some views, some cultures, are superior to others. We should not put certain ideas or cultures on an equal playing field with those which are clearly superior. American ideals are superior to Nazi ideals and both should not be given equal weight. Abortion is not an idea that is worthy of compromise. Like I said everyone has certain views that are beyond compromise. Again, the point is that compromise is sometimes good, but not always good.
I don’t know why you say I feign caring. You disagree with my ideas, but you can’t discern my motivations. Attack my ideas not me as a person. I give you credit for being sincere in your beliefs. Give me credit for being sincere in mine. We disagree but we can still both have good intentions.
- you may believe abortion is murder (that is your choice); however a majority of people in this country do not think so…. murder is universally accepted to be wrong …not only is it morally wrong it is illegal as well.
You do not believe abortion is murder? I do. However, I think we are both in the minority (see more of the breakdown in the Pew Research poll presented earlier).
There must be a compromise on this issue. In my opinion if we do not, we will tear the country apart. Compromise is what has sustained our democracy; without it we would not be the great nation that we are. We are great because of our constitution, legal and political systems…… all are threatened now. In the current hyper-political environment it is hard to see a compromise being reached. Where are the great politicians that have carried us through turbulent times in the past??
Compromise has been tried among the various groups for fifty years; it has failed. Our political leaders on both sides have failed; both used this issue to garner votes. I hope those dreadful tactics will someday end.
The Constitution is not threatened. The matter of “choice” is returned to the states if this decision holds. I would prefer abortion were no more, but in reality what is more democratic: having the citizens of each state decide whether or not abortion is the law or having it decided by nine justices? California and New York will have abortions and consider it good for tourism. Texas and Florida may outlaw it altogether. Other states will have something in between. Certainly, you have to agree that is better to have the people of each state decide than to leave such consequential decisions to the will of five of nine justices? This decision will be a restoration of democracy and constitutional principles, not an end to them.
I ask you: why are so many on the Left losing their minds over the right to abort a child? https://www.theblaze.com/news/whoopi-goldberg-unborn-right. Why is this the matter that is going to make or break us a nation? Why is this the matter that is going to determine the fate of democracy itself? There are so many other issues that matter. The president recently, in a candid moment, admitted that a child, not a fetus, not a clump of cells, is being aborted:
“The idea that we’re going to make a judgment that is going to say that no one can make the judgment to choose to abort a child, based on a decision by the Supreme Court, I think goes way overboard,” President Biden said.
Yes, Mr. President it IS a child, and that is the whole problem for us. It is the judgment of the child, the ultimate judgment forced upon that child by other human beings, often including the one that should love and protect that child more than any other, that we cannot accept.
Here is an alternate inspiring story to the craziness found on The View and among our political leaders. Kathy Barnette is running for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania against the better know Dr. Oz. She has a fascinating, real-life inspiring story. Her story is testament to the importance of this issue.
The differences between the two sides of this issue could not be more stark.
Again, I am labeled during this discussion: I am a male chauvinist; I am insensitive and I feign caring; I am a hypocrite, and possibly a bigot too. In all my discussions/debates my motivations and my ability to reason are questioned. I think my opponents are sincere, but they are also confused and caught up in a very, very warped ideology. I separate the people from the issues, a negotiating tactic. I do not attack or condemn pro-choice people themselves. I believe they (or at the least the ones I come in contact with, not our politicians) care as much about others as we in the pro-life movement do.
I explain why the pro-life position remains consistent with God’s commands. I use the pro-choice apologists’ own words to show they have no convincing argument. There isn’t anything redeeming in the pro-choice ideas, and we should easily win a real debate. How can one justify a fundamental right for me to kill my own child? Is it actually convincing to say Democracy ends if we don’t uphold this so-called “right”, a right of child sacrifice? This is the slippery slope that we lead to taking away all of our freedoms? I am afraid the real problem is that not enough people care about the issue as much those on either end of the spectrum. Everyone should take on a side, I believe.
Those of us who oppose the Green New Deal also like the environment. We want clean water, clean air, safe places to live, and all the rest. Go figure. The same logic applies to those caught up in abortion, transgenderism, and all the rest. We care about the people impacted and want to help them too, just not in the same way the Left does. I keep trying to convince others and change views because I know no other way, and because I believe we must.
This article below defines the abortion insanity well. This also demonstrates why the Babylon Bee was banned from Twitter.
WASHINGTON, D.C.—Just days after making an accurate, fact-based claim that MAGA was “the most extreme political organization in recent American history,” President Joe Biden fell back into his habit of making false assertions about his past, this time claiming he had once had an abortion.
“Back in the, around the, in the 1970s when I was a, you know, a young, single black woman, I had to make a choice between keeping or killing, or killing or keeping the where was I, the dead child, or you know putting food on the table,” claimed the real President behind a fake lectern in a fake press room with fake windows on the set of a fake White House.
Biden continued, “Back then I was trucking cross-country while fighting street gangs and marching with Rodney King to protest the Klondike Bar Klan, I had no choice but to murder my unborn child. Molasses.”
Fact-checkers labeled the President’s claims as mostly true, then pulled bottles of hard liquor from their desk drawers and drank until the warmth of inebriation gave them fleeting respite from the gaping, hollow void that ceaselessly harrowed their souls.
Biden has promised to fight hard until every woman has the right to “flapjack the waffle iron on a frumdiggle torcraprezsure” just like he did.
Remember, the court’s ruling is a return to democracy; it takes the actual decision out of the hands of nine justices and returns it to the people of each state where your voices will now actually matter. This is the essence of democracy.
For more of my thoughts on this topic: https://seek-the-truth.com/category/life/
Praise be to Jesus Christ, now and forever.