There’s no disputing it, the Democrats have nothing to run on. What can they run on? A collapsing economy, historic inflation, high gas prices a sky rocketing crime wave and an invasion at the border, to name a few.
It’s no wonder Joe and Kamala are hiding out.
There is one issue they will run on though. ABORTION. We lose the vote on this one issue because we let the Democrats write the narrative. They’re good at that. Of course it’s easier for them because the media works for them.
They do some clever wordsmithing. What am i getting at? It’s time for us to write the narrative.
Let’s get some background first. When i was growing up abortion was illegal. Worse than illegal it was a horrible thing performed in back alleys by unskilled people. You rarely heard of anyone going that route. It wasn’t just illegal and dangerous-it was unthinkable. Back then you rarely heard of an unplanned pregnancy anyway but you did hear about a ‘shotgun’ wedding from time to time. As an adult with more world experience i realized it was a time when a woman got pregnant outside of marriage the partner would feel an obligation to marry the woman. It was probably partly a matter of conscience and partly pressure from the culture at the time.
There was about to be a culture shift.
The case began in 1970 when “Jane Roe”—a fictional name used to protect the identity of the plaintiff, Norma McCorvey (1947–2017)—instituted federal action against Henry Wade, the district attorney of Dallas county, Texas, where Roe resided. The Supreme Court disagreed with Roe’s assertion of an absolute right to terminate pregnancy in any way and at any time and attempted to balance a woman’s right of privacy with a state’s interest in regulating abortion. In his opinion, Blackmun noted that only a “compelling state interest” justifies regulations limiting “fundamental rights” such as privacy and that legislators must therefore draw statutes narrowly “to express only the legitimate state interests at stake.” The Court then attempted to balance the state’s distinct compelling interests in the health of pregnant women and in the potential life of fetuses. It placed the point after which a state’s compelling interest in the pregnant woman’s health would allow it to regulate abortion “at approximately the end of the first trimester” of pregnancy. With regard to the fetus, the Court located that point at “capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb,” or viability, which occurs at about 24 weeks of pregnancy.”
I remember the slogan of abortion advocates; that legalizing abortion would make it rare, safe and affordable.
Norma McCorvey never had the abortion. Later in life Norma would become a pro life advocate and eventually converted to the Catholic faith.
Then “In 1988 and 1989 the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, led by Governor Robert Casey, enacted new abortion statutes that required that a woman seeking an abortion give her informed consent, that a minor seeking an abortion obtain parental consent (the provision included a judicial waiver option), that a married woman notify her husband of her intended abortion, and, finally, that clinics provide certain information to a woman seeking an abortion and wait 24 hours before performing the abortion. Before any of these laws could take effect, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania brought suit against the governor, protesting the constitutionality of the statutes.”
Robert Casey was a pro life Democrat.
Finally in June 2022 the court overturned Roe v Wade and Casey vs Planned Parenthood. We have to be clear what this decision did and did not do.
First of all, unlike some false claims and misinformation, the court did not make abortion illegal again. The court sent the issue back to the states for the state to make the decisions and enact laws of its own meaning it could run the gamut from state to state;banning abortion altogether in some states to removing all restrictions in others.
So where do the Republican candidates go with this? Here’s how i would go with the issue.
- i’m pro choice and the choice is life.
- ask the Democrat candidate if he/she would be willing to abort the baby up to the moment of birth and their position if the infant survives the abortion-the question is, then what? Truth is abortion advocates want abortion protected no matter what. It really isn’t an ethical question for them. Next, ask the other candidate if they support adoption. If they say yes a reasonable question would be why don’t they promote it as much as the promote abortion as a choice and disregard the other 2 choices, life and adoption.
- if a woman wants an abortion she is going to get an abortion. That’s just reality.
- there is a very false narrative that pro life groups want a woman to die from an unsafe pregnancy. That is 100% false. They are referring to an ectopic pregnancy. This occurs when a fertilized egg grows outside of the uterus. It can threaten the life of the mother and often requires immediate surgery. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy the infant is not deliberately killed because the purpose of surgery is to save the mother’s life with the unintended consequence of the death of the infant-it is not an abortion. The infant has no chance for survival-inside or outside the mother’s body- and the mother herself will die. Source: https://www.webmd.com/baby/pregnancy-ectopic-pregnancy#1
- .NOBODY supports forcing a woman to die along with the infant in an ectopic pregnancy. Most people understand it. It’s totally disingenuous to say pro life groups want women to die, especially from this disease.
- Make it clear we condemn ALL violence. Anyone who would bomb an abortion clinic can’t make a claim to be pro life. Anyone who would kill an abortion provider can’t make a claim to be pro life. Ask the other candidate to condemn the pro abortion group Ruth Sent Us. It’s an odd title since Ruth Bader Ginsberg herself believed that the Roe V Wade ruling was faulty. Ruth supported abortion but she wasn’t thrilled with the Roe decision either.
- Ask the other candidate if they oppose pregnancy centers and sonograms. If so, why. If the whole objective is giving a woman choice then there shouldn’t be a problem with helping a woman make an informed choice or with helping her out if she chooses to go through with the pregnancy.
- The state legislators are closer to the people than the 9 justices on the court are. This is where the laws regarding abortion should be made and the people have their say in it. Naturally the more liberal Democrat run states are going to be less restrictive about abortion and the more conservative Republican run states are likely to have more restrictions and some may ban abortion altogether. At least the state legislatures answer to their constituents. i think we have every right to oppose tax payier funding of abortions. I would definitely bring it up.
IMHO there wasn’t enough debate re abortion back in the 70’s when Roe V Wade came up in the Supreme Court. The pro abortion groups were very vocal and determined. They set the narrative. All the pro life groups could do was respond to it. Worse, there were individuals who thought resorting to violence was the answer. They were few and far between but it still tainted the pro life movement from the beginning.
i’m pro choice and i choose LIFE.