Is there a real disagreement among pro-abortionists over how far to push amendments to state constitutions?

By Dave Andrusko

It’s always useful to read publications such as POLITICO that have a pipeline into the Abortion Industry. They are so sympathetic that not only are Congressional Democrats willing to spill the beans but so, too, are the Planned Parenthoods and NARALs and EMILY’s List.

For example, on Tuesday Alice Miranda Ollstein and Megan Messerly published a story under the headline “Democrats want to restore Roe. They’re divided on whether to go even further”.

You mean there are “moderates” within the anti-life camp? Of course not. Where they differ is the degree to which they pretend to tell the truth. Understand, they all want the same thing–“Most involved in the efforts agree that eliminating all restrictions on abortion would be preferable” — but some are just more blunt.

For example, the measures advancing in some states “aim to restore the protections under Roe, which still allowed states to restrict abortions later in pregnancy, usually after the fetus could survive outside the womb,” Ollstein and Messerly write.”But some say undoing the Supreme Court’s June ruling isn’t enough, and want ballot measures that bar any restrictions on abortion.”

What is an example of the former [“moderate language”], according to pro-abortionists? What passed in Michigan. But Proposition 3 “protects the right to an abortion even after the fetus is viable if the pregnancy endangers the pregnant person’s life or their physical or mental health.”

Talk about loopholes you can drive a truck through!

Passage of Proposition 3, according to Barb Listing, president of Right to Life of Michigan meant “The prolife movement and prolife individuals in Michigan were dealt a tragic and devastating blow with the results of the 2022 November elections. The election results blew a hole in our state constitution, putting in language that endangers the rights of parents, healthcare providers, and especially the right to life of unborn babies.”

So much for moderation.

The POLITICO articles talks about  pro-abortion groups in several states attempting to meet the requirements to propose amendments to their state constitution. For example, Ohio, supposedly one of the states “that aim to restore the protections under Roe.”

“On Tuesday, February 21, the abortion lobby released their ballot initiative’s language to enshrine abortion into Ohio’s constitution,” Ohio Right to Life wrote, “The language would allow for abortion with no restrictions and possibly remove all pro-life regulations currently enacted.”

What is the abortion lobby saying? “In an interview on January 20th on the Radio Show Sunny95, Dr. Lauren Beene, spokesperson from Ohio Physicians for Reproductive Rights admitted that “The ballot initiative would allow abortion through all nine months of pregnancy by never committing to a date in which abortion should be banned,” according to Ohio Right to Life.

Molly Smith, Board Member, Protect Women Ohio,  explained the amendment language clearly prohibits any law that “directly or indirectly” would “burden” or “interfere” with any “reproductive decisions.” Those are specific legal terms which have been interpreted by courts across the country to strike down parental notification and consent laws.”

Some of the pro-abortions groups Ollstein and Messerly write about have little patience with the groups that feel the need to pretend they accept limits.

“We have long said that Roe was never enough, especially for marginalized communities shouldering the hardest impact of abortion bans,” said Vanessa Wellbery, the vice president of policy and advocacy for Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri. “We are deeply committed to rebuilding a system that ensures all people can access abortion and all providers can provide it without political or legislative interference.”

“Viability” is supposedly a limitation, but it would no more constrain abortion than it did under Roe v. Wade. Nonetheless, this is an irritant that some groups can’t swallow.

Adopting a viability limit, however, would mean agreeing that abortion can’t always be a unfettered choice between a patient and physician, a concession that is too much for some local and national groups, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Ultraviolet, All* Above All, Medical Students for Choice.

Some other groups “dispute the premise that a measure that goes beyond Roe would not pass in a red or purple state,” according to Ollstein and Messerly.

“We need to start from the most expansive and expansionist place possible and not go in with preconceived notions about what people will or will not support,” said Sonja Spoo, the director of political affairs for the abortion rights group UltraViolet. “The people putting forward these restrictions, they’re not doing it because of mal-intent. It’s based on their feeling of what they think can come to fruition. But we see that we have momentum on our side and that this is an opportunity for education and a culture shift rather than codifying bans.”

It’s fascinating to read the conflict which supposedly pits the absolutists versus the pragmatists but is in fact a disagreement over whether they believe their own press clippings—that “momentum is on our side.”