Now that the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has heard arguments in Mississippi abortion case, talking heads on both sides of the political aisle have been busy prognosticating about how a ruling in favor of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Mississippi abortion will bring an end to Roe v. Wade.
In reality, regardless of how the court rules, murdering unborn babies will remain because abortion will remain.
When SCOTUS agreed to hear the Mississippi abortion case, their primary focus was to use Dobbs v. Jackson to answer the question on “whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.” In other words, their focus would decide when an unborn baby can be murdered, not whether or not abortion is illegal.
“Pre-viability” is a politically correct word often used by pro-abortionists to rationalize the murder of an unborn baby based on the child’s ability to live outside the womb. Unfortunately, this has been adopted by the Supreme Court and the anti-abortion groups we call “Pro-Life, Inc.” to rationalize their faux defense of life in the name of “incrementalism.”
What is pro-life incrementalism and why is it an ineffective strategy to end abortion? It is the compromising belief that saving “some” babies is better than saving “none.”
Examples of pro-life incrementalism have come to us in many forms over the years, including heartbeat bills, pain-capable bills (20-week ban), and born-alive abortion survivor bills. While these so-called “restrictions” tug at the heartstrings of those who want to end abortion and look good on the surface, they serve to create a political passivity concerning life that eases guilty consciences but does little-to-nothing to end the abortion holocaust.
Incrementalism allowed the murder of millions of unborn babies to continue, and it made it easier for Pro-Life, Inc. to feel good about itself while doing nothing to stop it. Still, the rhetoric continues about how the current Supreme Court can “protect” babies from “late-term” abortion if it rules in favor of the Mississippi abortion law.
“[The Mississippi case] is a landmark opportunity for the Supreme Court to recognize the right of states to protect unborn children from the horrors of painful late-term abortions,” said Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser in September, a person who spend four years exploiting aborted babies for a seat at Trump’s table.
In reality, a ruling in favor of the Mississippi abortion law will simply reestablish the intent of Roe v. Wade, not overturn it. When Roe was decided in 1973, the Supreme Court determined that states could not prohibit abortion for any reason in the first trimester of pregnancy (approximately 13 to 14 weeks); in the second trimester, they could regulate abortion “in ways…reasonably related to maternal health”; and in the third trimester (after “viability”), abortion had to be available if needed to preserve the “life or health of the mother.”
The non-existent constitutional right to murder an unborn baby has been reworked over the years, bringing us to today’s “abortion without limits” understanding of the issue.
Shortly after SCOTUS agreed to hear the Mississippi abortion case, Joe Biden reaffirmed his commitment to seeing Roe v. Wade become federal law regardless of what the Supreme Court decides in the case. “The president is committed to codifying Roe, regardless of the … outcome of this case,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said at the time.
Biden isn’t the only one committed to making abortion without limits the law of the land; Democrats (and a few Republicans) have already put things in motion to codify Roe v. Wade with the Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA), a law that will override the ability for the states to place limits on abortion if it becomes law.
“Our rights shouldn’t depend on what state we live in at the time,” U.S. Representatives Judy Chu, a California Democrat, told reporters in a briefing on WHPA. “Today the fight to protect abortion rights for all Americans is more critical than ever.”
The legislation aims to ultimately outlaw state-level restrictions that have been put on abortion access — largely across the South and the Midwest — and it is being promoted ahead of the SCOTUS ruling on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health.
In an appearance on NBCs “Meet the Press” this past weekend, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) said the “best way” to protect abortion rights in the U.S. is by codifying Roe v. Wade’s verdict into law (via The Hill):
“Fifty years of precedent — as Elena Kagan pointed out, 50 years of decisions and court decisions, part of the very fabric of women’s existence in this country, this is how our country protected rights. And now they’re willing to just flip it on its head. And so, what is the answer?” Klobuchar said.
“The answer may well be doing it through the political process now. I don’t think that’s the right thing to do. But it may be the way to do it. And I think the best way to do it is not a patchwork of state laws, but to codify Roe v. Wade, put it into law,” she added.
The Minnesota Democrat also noted that some pro-choice Republicans have signaled an interest in codifying Roe v. Wade. (emphasis mine)
Klobuchar also renewed the possibility of packing the Supreme Court as a backup plan to do the job if Congress fails to codify Roe — an idea originally proposed in back in April but received renewed emphasis in September after SCOTUS let a Texas law restricting abortion take effect.
With the Supreme Court decision expected to be released a few months before the 2022 midterms, it should be noted that the Trumpist Republican Party is looking for an issue to hang its hat on, and the Mississippi abortion case could fit the bill. So, be on the lookout for Trump, McConnell, and McCarthy to add abortion to their reelection strategy . . . just as they have done every election for decades.
Despite the rhetoric surrounding the SCOTUS ruling in the Mississippi abortion case, the “right” to murder an unborn baby will remain; the only difference being whether they protect it under the “stare decisis” understanding of Roe v. Wade, or if they protect it by ruling in favor of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health.
Either way, the “right” to murder an unborn child in America will remain alive and well . . . which is more than we can say for the millions of babies slaughtered in the womb and denied their right to life since 1973.
David Leach is the owner of the Strident Conservative. He holds people of every political stripe accountable for their failure to uphold conservative values, and he promotes those values instead of political parties.