Outcomes of Overturning Roe Vs. Wade

[Josh]

Correct. It left states free to decide issues of abortion. At the heart of the matter is that there is no compelling “interstate commerce” argument for why all 50 states must be compelled to have third trimester abortions.

[temporal1]

GOD HAVE MERCY - IT JUST GETS WORSE+WORSE

”AP stylebook tells people not to say ‘late-term abortion’, so Twitter proposes alternatives”
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2022/12/07 ... s-1315154/

The Associated Press dropped their update in the march toward a “Newspeak” lexicon Tuesday with guidance on the usage of “late-term abortion” that was met with swift blowback.

In previous years, the AP Stylebook, the go-to source for corporate media’s political correctness, has been dragged for steering clear of accurate descriptors like “riot” and “mistress” for softer terms such as “unrest” and “friend.” Now that Democrats have maintained abortion access as one of the key planks of their party platform since the overturn of Roe v. Wade, late-term abortion was not only deemed taboo, it was treated as a myth.

“Do not use the term ‘late-term abortion.’ The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists defines late term as 41 weeks through 41 weeks and 6 days of gestation, and abortion does not happen in this period,”
the organization tweeted out Tuesday with a link to their online guide. .. ..

.. .. “Instead, use the term ‘abortion later in pregnancy’ if a general term is needed, but be aware that there are varying definitions of the time period involved,” the post continued. “Be specific when possible: abortions after XX weeks when XX is known in the context of the specific story.” .. ..

.. .. Before considering the Orwellian take on how best to describe the termination of an unborn child, it’s worth remembering that earlier this year, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D), who won reelection in November, signed the Reproductive Health Equity Act into law allowing for on-demand abortion up to the moment of birth in his state.

Moving from one denial to another, AP Stylebook chose not to be burdened by biological facts earlier this year when it issued guidance on the usage of the term “pregnant people” in place of “women” so as not to misconstrue anyone’s preferred gender identities. .. ..

As word spread of the latest effort at watering-down reality, social media users reacted with disdain for the AP,
with one stating, “‘Late-term abortion’ is too aggressive a way to describe stabbing a viable unborn baby in the heart with a needle containing potassium chloride & delivering its lifeless corpse. The absolute ghouls populating our elite class traffic in euphemism because they have nothing else.”

Meanwhile, others chimed in to call out the genuine atrocity in the practice of abortion.

Further criticism of the guidance from the AP was presented by the pro-life website Lifenews.com
when they shone a light on the partisanship of the organization’s source, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), for being a pro-abortion group.

“ACOG is a pro-abortion group.
As a supposedly unbiased news source you shouldn’t rely on partisan groups to determine your terminology,” they tweeted before later providing a link to a story they had written about an exodus of doctors from the organization for its “malevolent culture.”

^^ There are a number of response tweets in the above report link.

[temporal1]

^^The AP report underlines RZehr’s message:

Because I’m quite unimpressed with the follow through of Republican politicians, I’m happy to get a genuine, sturdy Supreme Court ruling, rather than a wimpy Republican majority. I would prefer both; but if I had to pick between the SC we have, or a Republican House and Senate, I’ll take the bird in hand any day.

For myself, I don’t think it was the ruling alone that made the election day difference. But even if it did, I’ll still take it.

I think it was Trump/Maga that lost the Republican “red wave”. And if it wasn’t for Trump, we’d not have the SC that we have. So as far as I’m concerned, Trump gets credit for the SC and the blame for the election loss. But to me, his SC legacy out weighs the mid term loss.

I would strongly agree. The highest court in the land judging according to Christian and Catholic values seems like a very good thing. “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.”

On the other hand, having a slim majority of Republicans in Congress doesn’t seem that important. What exactly did the Republican majority do in 2016-2018?

I think this puts it well:

Republicans Paid a Price for Overturning Roe. It May Have Been Worth It.
The Republicans’ under-performance in the midterm elections has been described a lot of different ways — a failure, a rebuke, a mistake, etc. — but rarely as a price. That is, however, exactly what happened.

Republicans took a hit at the polls because that’s the price to pay for a major policy gain, the one they got with the Dobbs decision earlier this year eliminating the national right to an abortion.

Politicians are sometimes described as behaving like, in political scientist David Mayhew’s famous words, “single-minded seekers of reelection.” That’s, of course, a simplification, but it explains a lot of what they do. Most of them aren’t particularly risk-seeking, and they’ll generally want to keep people happy if it means they can keep their jobs.

But when we throw parties into the mix, things become more complicated. Parties — and particularly the movements that support parties — have goals beyond just keeping their members reelected. They have a vision of what a better country looks like, and they look for opportunities to make that happen.

Overturning Roe v. Wade has been a core priority of the Republican Party since Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980, if not earlier. Conservative organizations like Moral Majority, Focus on the Family and the Federalist Society worked to ensure overturning Roe was central to the GOP’s mission. Abortion has been prominent in the party’s platforms and the governing agenda of every Republican president for decades. Republicans have sought to put anti-abortion justices on the Supreme Court and other federal courts, and through a series of untimely deaths and unprecedented power moves by Mitch McConnell, the unlikely figure of Donald Trump managed to place enough of them there to achieve the goal.

….

You could see a similar thing among Democrats in 2010. In enacting the Affordable Care Act, Obama and congressional Democrats were making good on something that had been a party goal for decades. Lyndon Johnson had fought for universal health care and settled for Medicare. Clinton fought for a version of it and lost. Obama actually got it into law. And his party paid a price for it, losing more than 60 seats in those midterms. According to one analysis, those Democrats voting for the ACA took a bigger political hit than those voting against it, and this may have been enough to cost Democrats their majority. But for those who’d been pushing the policy, that price may still have been worth it.

…

Republicans are understandably disappointed by the election outcome this year. But one of the core reasons is they secured a huge policy win, one that they’ve advocated for nearly half a century. And despite those self-imposed headwinds, Republicans still took the House, albeit narrowly. If that’s the cost, the GOP arguably got a good deal.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/republicans- ... 00389.html

Overturn of RvW is revealing pure evil. LET THAT SINK IN

Much needed, today from RZehr:
Hope
http://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5206

[temporal1]

P.3 / A prayer thread for the Catholic Church:
http://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1519

“Anti-abortion priest Pavone defrocked for blasphemous posts”
https://www.koin.com/news/national/ap-a ... ous-posts/

This is a horrifying report that seems to reflect the above news about the “AP Style Book” on abortion-speak, which apparently carries a lot of weight for some people.

The report seems to be more post-overturn of RvW backlash, with a lot of focus on “Hating Trump” as THE accepted way of life.
The report language is so politically vicious, it’s hard to concentrate on what the Pope and Vatican have to do with it.
The report has been picked up and parroted, verbatim, worldwide. SOP. (SOP doesn’t mean it’s a balanced report, or correct.)

i’m new to the report, i have NO idea about any of it, brand new reports take time to sort out; for a time, i followed LIFESITENEWS and a couple of pro life sites, Fr Pavone’s name is not completely new to me.

He’s done a lot of pro life work. https://www.priestsforlife.org/staff/fr ... raphy.aspx

“Innocent until proven guilty,” hangs on, ‘if by a thread.

Certainly, the AP report is dripping in hate for pro life believers, hate for Trump, i’m not yet sure if there’s more hate in there or not.
Well. Hate for traditional Catholic/Christian pro life views.

One would think the AP would be far more sophisticated. It’s disappointing.

i’m a slow reader. in every way. i often read then reread. i’m slow, but i try.

Possibly Max will contribute.

[temporal1]

i presume Fr Pavone would be judged differently in the 1) Catholic Church, 2) human courts, and 3) the court(s) of public opinion.

The above AP article ends with:

.. The statement concluded that since Priests for Life is not a Catholic organization, it would be up to the group to determine whether he could continue his role “as a lay person.”

Laicization, or being reduced to the lay state, is one of the harshest sanctions in the church’s canon law for priests.

It never dawned on me that Priests for Life was not a Catholic organization.

So many details!

[temporal1]

Idaho Supreme Court upholds abortion law after Planned Parenthood challenge
The Idaho abortion law is also the target of a DOJ lawsuit
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/idaho- ... -challenge

The Idaho Supreme Court on Thursday issued a decision upholding the state's near-total abortion ban after it was challenged by Planned Parenthood.

In a 3-2 decision, Chief Justice G Richard Bevan, Justice Gregory Moeller and Justice Robyn Brody decided to dismiss the lawsuit brought by Planned Parenthood against the State of Idaho. The lawsuit sought to prevent the state's abortion law from taking effect following the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade.

The law, which was passed in 2020, bans all abortions in Idaho with the exception of rape or incest cases that are reported to law enforcement.

After Roe v. Wade was overturned, the law was allowed to take effect. .. ..

In other news:

INSANE! Abortion pill vending machines could be next | Redacted with Natali and Clayton Morris / -17min

Description:

“Was the Supreme Court abortion decision a set up for the biopharmaceutical industry to roll out the birth control pill?
Clayton has a conspiracy theory that he'd like to work out and see what you think because if true, it sure is working!“

[temporal1]

2023 MARCH FOR LIFE / 50 YEARS

As it happened: The March for Life 2023
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news ... -life-2023

2023 March for Life: 8 things for pro-lifers to know
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news ... rs-to-know

‘I’m Working To Make Abortion Unthinkable In This Country’: James Lankford / 7min

Description:

During Senate Floor remarks on Tuesday, Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) spoke about the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

It’s hard to imagine how the message could be more clear.

[temporal1]

“Advocacy groups brace for looming decision that could end abortion pill access”
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3 ... ll-access/

[Jazman]

Temp, has the Marches for Life and politician talk and legislating changed hearts & minds?

[HondurasKeiser]

Temp, has the Marches for Life and politician talk and legislating changed hearts & minds?

That's an unanswerable question. It's also rhetorical because you assume the obvious answer is no in order to shut down Temp's (and those like her) line of argument. In reality though one cannot say with any certainty what has or hasn't changed people's hearts and minds. What's more, your question assumes that "hearts and minds" are the only relevant field of engagement. In point of fact, legislating against abortion may or may not "change hearts and minds" but it nevertheless may save quite a few children that would otherwise have been aborted. If it were possible, it would be interesting to ask those 'almost aborted', when they're adults, if they cared how their mother "felt in her heart" about the abortion issue when they were still a fetus.