Friends, conservatives, including President Trump, are for the most part immensely pleased with the fact that the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and returned power over abortion policy to the states. For those who are pro-life, and for those who are pro-Constitution, you can see why. The sad truth, however, is that this "win" comes at a grievous cost, and has not led to the blossoming of a "culture of life" as many might have wished. Read all about it in my latest article:
The GOP's Abortion Dilemma
President Trump gets a lot of credit on the right for creating the conditions that led to the overturning of Roe v. Wade. That's totally fair. One suspects that any Republican president would have nominated more or less the same SCOTUS justices, but it's Trump who got the job done.
Now, to put all this in context, some states have, in the wake of the Dobbs decision, substantially impeded public access to abortion. Others have expanded it. In addition, although Republicans scored a political “win” by returning power over abortion policy to the states, Democrats used Roe's demise as a way to rally their base and exceed expectations in the 2022 midterm elections. Thus, the abortion ledger, if you will, post-Roe, may be more in balance politically than many people realize.
But what's the bottom line in terms of abortion itself? Has the number of abortions performed in America actually declined since the Dobbs decision, and, if so, by how much?
That data has recently become available, and it comes to us courtesy of the “Society of Family Planning”, which, since it is essentially a pro-abortion organization, has little incentive to minimize the impact of Dobbs. And yet the Society's extensive analysis shows that the incidence of abortion in America since Roe's demise is down by only 3%. 3%!!! That's a lot of hullabaloo for what many would consider a fairly marginal change in the abortion landscape. And keep in mind that, during Trump's presidency, the number of abortions actually increased by 8%. Ergo, the abortion baseline is actually higher today than it was when Trump, the slayer of Roe, took office. In short, reports of the death of “abortion rights” are greatly exaggerated!
None of this, needless to say, prevents the Left from claiming that the Supreme Court has abolished “women's rights” and reinstituted a form of fascist patriarchy. Just as, the more people of color vote in America, the more the Left claims that “Jim Crow 2.0” is blossoming, we can assume that the truth about abortion will similarly have little or no impact on progressives' ramblings, or, indeed, on the political ramifications of the issue. He who controls the media narrative controls everything.
Republicans have an additional problem on their hands.
Democrats are increasingly coalescing around a common view of abortion that posits the fetus as a contemptible parasite, and embraces the termination of as many fetuses as possible as the most morally, socially, and environmentally sound approach. They therefore have gone far beyond the quaint logic of Roe itself, which only fully protected a woman's “right to choose” in the first trimester, by advocating instead that abortion should be allowed (and encouraged!) up to the moment of birth. This perspective is profoundly disturbing and dangerous, but it has the virtue of being intellectually and politically coherent.
The GOP and conservatives, by contrast, have long disagreed on whether abortion should be permissible in cases of rape, incest, and serious health risks to the mother. Now they are also wringing their hands and wondering whether to "outlaw" (ineffectually, as it turns out) abortion at six weeks, or fifteen, or some other magic number. Very few of them are trying to outlaw abortion altogether. This is highly problematic, because it makes it appear as though Republicans are “pro-life” only when it is feasible, convenient, or popular. If, on the other hand, every fetus is endowed with “personhood” and is worthy of preservation, then why do Republicans and conservatives shrink from the logical conclusion: that all abortions constitute murder?
The answer, unfortunately, has been staring rank-and-file Republicans and conservatives, and ardent pro-lifers, in the face for several decades: most GOP politicians talk about abortion only when it is politically advantageous to them, and they are unlikely to support any anti-abortion measure that would effectively suppress the practice (like punishing women who pursue an abortion). Driving women seeking abortions out of one state and into another, or online to obtain medication abortions via virtual clinics, does not, at the end of the day, reduce the incidence of abortion – but it is not at all clear that Republican politicians care, as long as they have placated their pro-life constituents.
Post-Roe, therefore, Republicans and conservatives are increasingly confronting two depressing realities: one, the number of abortions performed, and thus the number of human lives snuffed out, is essentially unchanged; and, two, the abortion issue has become a winner for Democrats and an albatross for the GOP.
That sounds an awful lot like the worst of all possible worlds.
Dr. Nicholas L. Waddy is an Associate Professor of History at SUNY Alfred and blogs at: www.waddyisright.com. He appears on the Newsmaker Show on WLEA 1480/106.9.
And here it is at Townhall:
https://townhall.com/columnists/nicholaswaddy/2023/06/27/the-gops-abortion-dilemma-n2625009
***
In other news, you might wonder how leftist puppet masters invent the news -- by which I mean, how do they create stories (that advance leftist interests) out of nothing, and how do they convince the media to pick them up? This article sheds light on this fascinating process:
Finally, some good news -- if you're a godless Marxist. Church attendance has been waning for years, and since the pandemic it's fallen even further, with young people leading the way. Some of it, of course, may be the result of the coerced closure of many churches during the pandemic, but mostly it's the result of a long-term social and cultural transformation that reflects the domination of our popular culture by "secular humanists".
https://www.breitbart.com/faith/2023/06/26/poll-u-s-church-attendance-below-pre-pandemic-level/
Dr Waddy from Jack: Yours is a sobering analysis of this terrible situation. Bob Dole once said " if I were President I wouldn't outlaw abortion; I'd talk about it every day! " I just read about the film The Silent Scream which depict
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack. . . depicts the actual abortion ofa two inch fetus.I must rely on accounts of it; I dread to look at such a fiendish sight. Drs have both endorsed and faulted it. Many of the negative reviews focus on the young fetus's supposed inability to feel or react to pain.Presumably fetuses develop this capability while still in the womb. But abortionists urge unfetterered abortion at all stages of gestation.
ReplyDeleteRAY TO NICK
ReplyDeleteI'm "amused" at these anti-abortion people who decide to murder an abortionist, and then raise a big stink when they have to stand trial, and eventually end up in prison. Must be some "poetic" justice there, don't you think?
Many years ago I saw some Presbyterian minister who was on trial for murdering an abortionist, and he kept yapping that he did the right thing, and would wear a crown of glory in heaven.
Dr.Waddy from Jack: Having one's (oh sorry, its) head crushed is an unredeeming exprerience any old time. Well, what about it. I think these abortionists are a cold lot!
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: You are right: our civilization in all settings must resolve together to crush this execration! In discussing it at this site you help to foster vital attention to this inhuman presumption on human decency.
ReplyDeleteRAY TO NICK
ReplyDeleteI'm against abortion. However, I am also against a bunch of pious assholes who rant and rave about the evils of abortion, but promote wars of all kinds. Apparently, to them, some lives are more sacred than others.
Ray... do you equate the lives aborted with those who are accountable for their life decisions?
DeleteRAY TO NICK
ReplyDeleteInteresting, that abortion has become a political issue, where some clunk running for office has to declare their position on this issue. Realistically, having an abortion should be between a woman and her doctor, and if she chooses to have one legally (in a safe place without a coat hangar), she is then morally on her own.
Can you expound on the moral difference between a "legal" abortion utilizing a "doctor" to that which is done utilizing a "coat hanger"? If there is no moral difference in the end result, what difference does the "means" make?
DeleteRAY TO NICK
ReplyDeleteSome of my favorite people are all those selfish yuppies that campaign against abortion, but are also are against having children, because they are too busy with their f***ing careers.
Are you suggesting that those "against having children" are those campaigning against abortion? LOL!
DeleteDr. Waddy from Jack:: If the abortionists think they rode the issue to unexpected advantage in 2020, they will be ever more eager to continue as the flagbearers of the antiamericans, the left. I cannot imagine many on the left who would not rejoice. Uhh, it is most unwise to imagine that should they achieve the totalitarian power they seek that theywill celebrate with the milk of human kindness. Rather, we should look for them in such a catastrophic turn to exercise the expeditious, amoral, inhumanity which they flaunt in their enthusiasm for this murderous abomination, with renewed vigor and creative application to myriad issues.
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy from Jack:Abortion without limit and celebrated too: it is theantiamericans, with their characteristic presumptuous assurance of their definitive justice, who have made of this the hideous spectacle it is, the salient issue that it is. In doing so they define themselves and let them reap the political whirlwind for it!
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy fromJack: Of course most antiamerican megadonors have grown up in and since the 60s and have been molded by its runaway idealism. Too, their wealth insulates them from the many unpleasant consequences of their advcacy. Limousine liberals: a familiar and noxious faction.Eg the Kennedys sneering at blue collar families devastated by the busing they championed but naturally sending their own kids to safe,airy academic retreats.A plague on such types; as for Soros, he is old enough to know how empowered marxist idealists ravaged his native Hungary in1956.What hell is his major malfunction?!
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Those secular humanists who are militant and activist about it should be well apprised of the moral and spiritual wasteland they foster. To casually scoff at the existence of God is the height of intellectual presumption. Doubt? Of course that is amenable to discourse but to deny Him out of hand? Responsible, courteous consideration of the many plausible and monumental factors which have motivated belief in HIM in incalculable millions, including some of the most powerful intellects of all time(eg Einstein, St. JohnPaul II) deserve principled questioning and sound argument. The sacred and profane are creditable issues when pursued with integrity. That's a tall order in such a profound setting.
ReplyDeleteRay, there used to be a lot of Americans like you: against abortion (morally), but tolerant of it (legally). Why, it wasn't so long ago that Bill Clinton said it should be "safe, legal, and rare". I suppose most ordinary Americans are still somewhere in that squishy center (not that you're remotely squishy yourself, Ray): they think abortion should be kinda legal, but kinda restricted too, i.e. they like women's rights and they like fetuses too, and somehow want to appease both. The problem, as you observe yourself, Ray, is that "life" is not something to be valued on a sliding scale. Anytime we take a life, or authorize the state to do so on our behalf, it should create qualms and should only be undertaken as a last resort, surely. Additionally, because the fetus is, in a sense, as much potential life as life itself, do we really want to create the precedent that even the potential of personhood is disposable? What would that say about personhood itself? Egad!
ReplyDeleteJack, I personally don't set much store in gory images. Most surgeries look pretty gross too, up close, but that doesn't make them immoral -- just gross. I obviously lean strongly in the pro-life direction myself, but I'm not so dense that I don't see logic, of a sort, in most of the arguments for "choice". For instance, one major problem with outlawing abortion is that the kind of women who have them are, in many cases, the kind of women who ought not to be mothers. I mean, how would you like to be raised by a woman who, all things being equal, would have liked to see you dismembered at an early stage? Frankly, most of the women HAVING children these days are pretty bad at raising them, and generally they get precious little help from the men who impregnate them. That's to say: parenthood isn't remotely what it used to be, and, if we outlawed abortion, that problem would only be exacerbated. I don't have a solution for this dilemma either. It seems to me that "family values", once lost, are very, very difficult to get back.
Richie, you are trying to get to the heart of the issue: when is it okay to take a human life? Is it a question of who has consciousness or self-awareness and who doesn't? Is it a question of innocence or culpability? Is it a question of maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering? Is it a question of self-preservation and the rest of humanity be damned? Is it a question of overpopulation and/or the elimination of those least likely to lead productive or fulfilling lives? There are a thousand different reasons why people may feel justified in ending human life, and it's awfully hard to get to the bottom of who's right and who's wrong. I think the simple (but deeply dissatisfying) truth is that all human life has ZERO "objective" value, which means that the urge to preserve life is entirely subjective, and therefore...discretionary.
Actually the point I was attempting to make is that controlling or offering the "means" of killing the unborn doesn't justify the act itself nor make it morally acceptable. (coat hanger vs doctor)
DeleteAnd... how can someone equate those in authority taking a stance on abortion (the taking of an innocent life) to a stance on our (debatable) national interest and war (involving self-aware individuals choosing to defend those interests)?
Dr.Waddy from Jack: The woman and her doctor. YES! But what of the fetus? The lowest animal forms instinctively resist death. Surely that he or she in the womb would be pro life. The definitively abortionist left has made its choice; afford the fetus no choice (why even a female). The left in power made similar hellish choices with the lives of disapproved, powerless born humans and used sophistry analogous to that of the abortionists to justify them. It would surely do it again! A civilized world rejected
ReplyDeletetheir sociopathic presumption although it unwisely countenances its return. Civilization must stand advocate for fetuses while they enjoy the haven afforded them by an infinitely higher heart.
FROM RAY TO DR. NICK, RICHIE, AND JACK
ReplyDeleteI have done a rethink on this abortion issue, and have decided that I am for abortion, but ONLY for Leftists, who are the primary ones who are advocating it. The more abortions for them, the better? That means many less Leftists to clog up the world with their Marxist and related bullshit. Clearly, this means that Conservatives need to have more children.
Richie, I take your point: pretty much the only salient issue with abortion is whether or not the fetus is a human life. If it is, then the practice must be abhorrent -- unless all human life is worthless, which even the leftists aren't proposing (yet).
ReplyDeleteJack, that's true that we can't consult the fetus regarding its fate. Are you suggesting that, in cases where we can consult a human being about its earthly predicament, and it affirmatively chooses death, that we should respect that choice?
Ray, the irony is that most of the fetuses being aborted are in demographic groups that would, in all likelihood, lead them to become Democrats. That need not concern the Dems, of course, because they can always import millions more people of color (and they are!), and, conservatives, they can always turn your children and grandchildren against you (and they are!). Human reproduction really has lost its charm for the progressives. Now, the Mormons and the Amish may worry them a bit. Those groups really do get down to brass tacks and crank out more than their fair share of babies. But those groups are also tiny, so there's little or no chance of the right winning a demographic victory over the Left.
DR. NICK FROM RAY
DeleteAll we can do now is hope The Rapture comes soon. Ha! All lame humor aside, you made a good point. Seems to me that EFFECTIVE birth control might be the answer.
No lame humor detected. The sooner the better!
DeleteEFFECTIVE (real) transformation might be the answer.
Dr.Waddy et al from Jack: The arguments ya'll have expressed are plausible and creditable. I think implacable opposition to abortion serves to ensure that it will never be casually countenanced so I stick to that side. See lefties? Courteous dialogue on issues is doable! Try it sometime.
ReplyDeleteRay, birth control is plenty effective, which I guess is good news, if you want to head off abortion, and bad news, if you want to propagate the human race. I say: let the insects have Planet Earth. I admire their team spirit!
ReplyDeleteRichie, if you believe in a transformation of public attitudes on abortion, the good news is that not much ground has been lost since 1973 (somewhat incredibly, given the media's take on it). The disappointing news is that not much has been won either.