The issue of abortion has certainly appeared in many posts.Roe v. Wade election, while pro-abortion Democrats seek to capitalize on its decline, often spreading fear over its pro-life stance while concealing their own extremism. We can debate how much abortion actually mattered in this election, or whether Republicans would facilitate or hurt themselves by addressing it more openly, but the issue undoubtedly made headlines.
On Tuesday morning, POLITICO published a detailed report with a stunning display of honesty. Their headline admitted: “Democrats want to restore Roe. They are divided on whether to go even further”
In some ways, the sense of honesty is refreshing, although there is still a lack of transparency from all groups about their financial performance. The article highlights state ballot initiatives on abortion, including those aimed at legalizing abortion after the U.S. Supreme Court transmitted the decision to citizens through the U.S. legislature. Dobbs v. Jackson decision.
Referring to efforts in Missouri, Ohio and South Dakota to expand abortion, the report described these measures as “aimed at restoring protections provided in Roewhich continued to allow states to restrict abortions later in pregnancy, usually after the fetus could survive outside the womb.” Still, it’s worth mentioning, especially since the POLITICO report doesn’t do this Roe the case of a comrade Doe v. Bolton still allows abortion up to birth due to an intentionally vague “health” exception.
It has long been emphasized that Americans support us Roe, this is because they do not have enough knowledge about what is involved.
“But some people are talking about invalidating the Supreme Court’s June ruling [in Dobbs] this is not enough and demand the introduction of laws that prohibit any restrictions on abortion,” we read further in the report.
At one point, the report includes a statement from Mallory Schwarz, executive director of Pro-Choice Missouri, who speaks a quiet part aloud. “Yes, Roe was always on the floor. But now Missouri is in the basement,” she said. “This is not the end of the game. This is the first step in a long-term effort and process.”
Interestingly, the long article includes insights from ten representing various groups on the issue of abortion, but no one is defending the pro-life position or criticizing the claims contained in all of these statements.
On the issue of viability, the report quotes a pro-abortion source as saying that it is legislatures that are altering viability while completely ignoring life-saving advances in medical science and technology since Roe it was decided 50 years ago.
“We would never advocate for a false or politically determined restriction on abortion,” said Pamela Merritt, executive director of Missouri-based Medical Students for Choice. “Competition is an arbitrary line. It’s a legacy Roe that we don’t have to be resurrected. “We also know that state legislatures can manipulate the language of viability while they are already trying to redefine what a child is and what rape is,” she added.
Students for Life of America, a national pro-life group that has been mentioned in countless articles on the topic in many media outlets, is one of many pro-life sources left out of this conversation.
Kristi Hamrick, vice president of media and policy at Students for Life Action, addressed the viability issue, emphasizing how disconnected it is from the comments made by Meritt and the others cited.
“What is incredibly shocking about this article is the open conversation about infanticide among those who have made abortion the center of their political agenda and world,” she said, emphasizing what these groups focus on. “The argument that viability is a social construct rather than a medical fact turns science upside down. As someone who gave birth so early that my daughter spent time in an incubator, I know that babies in the womb are people ready for life. Honestly, anyone who has ever read a book about children knows this too. This article shows that the conscience of the abortion lobby is so committed to abortion that even an unborn child, ready for life outside the womb, is not human enough for them. “
What’s more, when it comes to focusing on “livability,” the POLITICO report not only downplays just how possible it is Roe they really went, but in doing so they downplay the alarming nature of these ballot initiatives and the extremism of the pro-abortion groups mentioned:
Voting laws in Ohio and Nevada also protect abortion only until it is feasible, while South Dakota would legalize the procedure until the second trimester.
Groups defending the viability limit argue that it enjoys broad voter support and is most likely to be adopted in conservative and swing states.
“Yes, Roe has always been a floor. But right now, Missouri is in the basement,” said Mallory Schwarz, executive director of Pro-Choice Missouri. “This is not the end game. This is the first step in a long-term effort and process.”
They also note that more moderate language is similar to that of voters approved in November in Michiganand protects the right to abortion even if the fetus is viable, if the pregnancy threatens the life of the pregnant woman or her physical or mental health.
Michigan’s abortion amendment, known as Proposition 3, was not “moderate,” however. Live action news highlighted this description of Proposition 3 from Citizens Supporting Women and Children MI, which states that it is a “lawful abortion amendment” that would affect more than a dozen state laws and remove vital abortion safety provisions.
How another live action news article featured:
According to Steve Liedel, an attorney for the ballot initiative, “the provision itself does not invalidate any other provisions,” it reports Michigan Bridgereferring to existing statewide abortion laws. However, John Bursch, general counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, argued that the ballot proposal would create a “constitutional right” that would “override (state) statute,” adding: “This amendment places no restrictions on that right because it applies to every person. “
In statementThe Catholic Bar Association of Metropolitan Detroit agreed with Archbishop Vigneron’s assessment. “Supporters of Proposition 3 say it simply returns Michigan to the days of Roe v. Wade, but as lawyers we see it goes much further – it creates a new, vague and potentially unlimited set of ‘reproductive rights’ ‘including, but not limited to’ abortion, sterilization and other reproductive procedures and services,” the law society said. “Laws passed by the Michigan Legislature – including all laws already in effect that fully comply with Roe – would be subject to Proposition 3 review and could be invalidated by the courts because of Proposition 3.”
Please also note how the POLITICO report uses the language “pregnant person.”
With one caveat, the POLITICO report does to do, in a sense, these Americans NO supporting abortion in the delayed stages of pregnancy, has not been given in the broad context it deserves:
2022 Pew Research Poll of more than 10,000 people said support for abortion declines as pregnancy progresses: Americans are twice as likely to support abortion than to say it should be illegal at 6 weeks of pregnancy, roughly split on whether it should be legal at 14 weeks of pregnancy and about twice as likely to say it should be illegal than legal after 24 weeks.
Proponents of the feasibility strategy also argue that a constitutional amendment with more specific language could make it harder for anti-abortion lawmakers to find a loophole in the future.
Although these are the survey results consistent AND right among Americans when it comes to opposition to later abortions has not properly taken into account the fact that such groups, along with many pro-abortion Democrats, are not on the same side as Americans on this issue. Many people willingly support abortion up to birth, without legal restrictions, as they themselves admit, although often using fancy language. And yet it seems challenging to deny. Instead, such group representations are given a dazzling profile.
One such example of pro-abortion extremism is Planned Parenthood, which performs more abortions than any other entity in the country.
“We have been saying this for a long time Roe it has never been enough, especially for marginalized communities that bear the heaviest impacts of abortion bans,” said Vanessa Wellbery, vice president of policy and advocacy for Planned Parenthood in the St. Louis and southwest Missouri, who also said this peaceful part very strongly: “We are deeply committed to rebuilding a system that ensures all people have access to abortions and all providers can provide them, without political or legislative interference.”
And there’s more:
Adopting a viability limit, however, would mean accepting that abortion cannot always be an unfettered choice between patient and physician, a concession that is too much for some local and national groups, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Ultraviolet and Medical Students to choose from. These groups warn that the voting rules will permanently impose restrictions they consider hazardous and threaten to withhold support unless changes are made.
As POLITICO acknowledges, when it comes to including such polling results, these groups are losing out in their own way. However, quite astonishingly, there is no corresponding backlash as they are instead provided with a platform to promote their extremist views.
