Roe v. Wade

Pro-abortionists ponder a “world without Roe”

By Dave Andrusko

Could you have imagined even five years ago reading this headline: “Our fates are intertwined’: abortion rights activists warn Roe’s fall will hit blue states”? 

Read this first line from Alice Miranda Ollstein’s story in Politico:

WASHINGTON — Progressive leaders are staring down what they consider the biggest emergency for abortion rights in half a century — and they fear that both Democratic voters and elected officials are failing to appreciate the threat of a world without Roe v. Wade.

Her thesis, which once would have been considered heresy by the Abortion Industry, is this. If state after state is passing protective laws while Roe is the law of the land, what would life be like if that 1973 disaster gets sharply curtailed or even overturned? And what if “both Democratic voters and elected officials” are not grasping how close to the edge they are?

For example, “Meanwhile, as the country prepares to observe what may be the last anniversary of Roe v. Wade this weekend — with massive anti-abortion rights rallies planned in D.C. and in several state capitols — conservative legislatures are coming back into session and rushing to enact a host of sweeping new restrictions and near-total abortion bans,” Ollstein warns. 

She does point out her side is not sitting on their hands, States like Vermont and New Jersey “have recently advanced measures that protect abortion rights.” What is fascinating, however,  is if there is one possible anti-life measure to add to what they have accomplished, Ollstein tells us that abortion-rights advocates complain that “many of those efforts have been watered down.”

For example, while New Jersey just passed a wide open abortion law, they “dropp[ed] several provisions that would have guaranteed insurance coverage for the procedure and other financial supports.”

There will never be “enough.”

But what Ollstein never lets on is that the public is not in their corner, especially when it comes to paying for abortion. And late-term abortions? The public doesn’t have a clue that the only “obstacle” in the abortion industry’s way is the unwillingness of most abortionists to abort a huge, viable unborn baby.

We reported yesterday on the annual Knights of Columbus/Marist poll. The poll of1,004 adults found that a total of 71% of respondents would allow abortion only during the first three months (22%); only in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother (28%); only to save the life of the mother (9%); abortion should never be permitted under any circumstance (12%). 

By the way, a total of 49% self-identified Democrats fell into one of these four categories.

This poll takes on added significance because the Supreme Court will hand down a decision this summer on a Mississippi abortion law that protects unborn children after 15 weeks.

Some of Ollstein’s apocalyptic warnings are merely to “gin up the base.” But the truth is that, overwhelmingly, the momentum is on the side of life.

Recent Posts

Facts 37 & 38 of 40 Weeks 40 Facts

Weeks 37 & 38: The baby is about the size of a honeydew melon at… Read More

16 hours ago

PA Republican Senate primary too close to call, likely to go to recount

By Maria V. Gallagher, Legislative/PAC Director, Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation The eyes of the nation have… Read More

16 hours ago

Largely euphemism-free, story bluntly writes about “other options” if Roe is overturned

By Dave Andrusko When discussing chemically-induced abortions, ordinarily pro-abortionist bask in euphemisms—“medication abortion” and “procedural… Read More

17 hours ago

A thought-provoking counter-cultural option 

A French order of nuns for women with Down syndrome  By Chiara Bertoglio  If you… Read More

17 hours ago

Unborn children aren’t constructed—they develop

By Paul Stark, Communications Director, Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life In one Seinfeld episode, the… Read More

18 hours ago