Will Pro-Life Politicians Face a Backlash If the Supreme Court Lets Them Restrict Abortion?

National surveys obscure large regional variations in public opinion about abortion limits.


This week the Supreme Court agreed to review a 5th Circuit decision that overturned a Mississippi ban on elective abortions after 15 weeks of gestation. The decision suggests that a majority of justices may be ready to further limit the constitutional right announced in Roe v. Wade nearly half a century ago. Yesterday, meanwhile, Texas Gov. Gregg Abbott signed a bill that makes Mississippi's law look mild by comparison. S.B. 8 prohibits abortion when "the woman's unborn child has a detectable fetal heartbeat," which can happen as early as six weeks into a pregnancy.

Although both of these laws are clearly unconstitutional under the Court's abortion precedents, their practical consequences would be dramatically different. If it were allowed to take effect, the Mississippi law would ban only a small percentage of abortions, while the Texas law probably would ban most of them. The cutoff is therefore relevant not only to the constitutional analysis but also to the choices made by legislators. Those choices, in turn, are influenced not only by the leeway that the courts give legislators but by the views of their constituents, which vary widely from one part of the country to another.

New York Times columnist Linda Greenhouse suggests that pro-life politicians like Abbott will pay a price should the Supreme Court give them more freedom to restrict abortion. "If there is any good news to salvage from the court's announcement this week," she writes, "it is this: the free ride that anti-abortion politicians have enjoyed may be coming to a crashing end." If the Court allows laws like Mississippi's to stand, Greenfield says, politicians will no longer be able to "impose increasingly severe abortion restrictions without consequence, knowing that the lower courts would enjoin the laws before they took effect and save the people's representatives from having to own their actions."

Given the wide regional variation in abortion views, the political peril that Greenfield perceives is largely illusory. If the Court loosens constitutional limits on abortion laws, legislators in states where public opinion supports new restrictions will enact them without worrying much about voter backlash. At the same time, most states will not impose new restrictions, mainly because neither legislators nor their constituents favor them.

The Mississippi law, which was enacted in 2018, would ban abortions after 15 weeks, "except in a medical emergency or in the case of a severe fetal abnormality." Similarly, the Texas law would allow the abortion of a fetus with a detectable heartbeat only in "a medical emergency." But the cutoff choice—15 vs. about six weeks—makes a huge difference.

According to data from the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute, about 95 percent of abortions are performed at 15 weeks or earlier, and nearly nine out of 10 are performed by the 12th week. But while two-thirds of aborted fetuses are eight weeks or younger, many women reach the six-week mark without realizing they are pregnant. In 2018, according to data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 60 percent of abortions were performed after six weeks.

What do Texans think about a law that would ban most abortions? A February poll by the University of Texas and The Texas Tribune found that 13 percent of the state's voters thought abortion should never be allowed, while 31 percent said "the law should permit abortion only in case of rape, incest or when the woman's life is in danger." In other words, 44 percent of Texas voters seem comfortable with a law at least as strict as the one Abbott signed yesterday: Although S.B. 8 does not include a "rape or incest" exception for abortions after six weeks or so, it would allow abortions prior to that cutoff without any special justification.

Beyond that, the picture is murkier. Twelve percent of respondents said abortion should be allowed "only after the need…has been clearly established." Although it's not clear what sort of "need" would qualify, that position seems inconsistent with a blanket ban on elective abortions after a particular stage of pregnancy. Finally, 38 percent of voters said "a woman should always be able to obtain an abortion as a matter of personal choice."

These results suggest that a plurality of Texas voters thinks the policy supported by Abbott and Republican legislators goes too far. But the number of Texans who favor severe restrictions is nearly as large, and they may be especially likely to cast votes based on candidates' abortion positions. A 2020 Gallup poll found that 30 percent of American adults who described themselves as pro-life said they would only vote for candidates who shared their views on abortion, compared to 19 percent of respondents who described themselves as pro-choice.

Unsurprisingly, Texans' abortion views are markedly different from those expressed by residents of blue states. According to a 2014 report from the Pew Research Center, 45 percent of Texans thought abortion should be legal in all or most cases. That figure was much higher in states such as California (57 percent), New Jersey (61 percent), New York (64 percent), Connecticut (67 percent), and Massachusetts (74 percent). But the liberal position was even less popular in some states than it was in Texas. It was favored by just 39 percent of adults in Louisiana, 38 percent in Arkansas, 37 percent in Alabama, 36 percent in Mississippi, and 35 percent in West Virginia.

Greenfield notes that "four nationwide polls" conducted last fall found that "more than 60 percent of registered or likely voters" did not want the Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. That's true. But polling on abortion policy reveals a less lopsided picture, and national surveys obscure large interstate differences in public opinion.

According to the most recent Gallup survey, 29 percent of Americans think abortion should be "legal under any circumstances," while 20 percent think it should be "illegal in all circumstances" (a position that is by no means universal among pro-life advocates, many of whom would allow exceptions in cases involving rape, incest, or a life-threatening danger to the mother). Meanwhile, 50 percent of respondents said abortion  should be "legal only under certain circumstances"—a description that could cover a wide range of policies, including strict laws with just a few narrow exceptions and liberal laws that allow abortion in almost all cases.

More to the point, state politicians do not consult national polls when they calculate the likely electoral consequences of supporting stricter abortion laws. They want to know how their constituents are apt to react. Given the breakdown of opinion in Texas, and especially if you believe pro-life voters are more likely than pro-choice voters to make abortion a litmus test, supporting a law like S.B. 8 is not nearly as politically risky as Greenfield imagines.

In states where pro-life sentiment is stronger than in Texas, the political calculation is even more straightforward. In 2011, Greenfield notes, 58 percent of Mississippi voters opposed a ballot initiative that would have amended the state constitution to define person as "every human being from the moment of fertilization." But there is a lot of ground between that position, which presumably would rule out abortion in nearly all cases, and the Mississippi law the Court will consider next term, which would allow abortion in nearly all cases.

Even the new Texas law does not go as far as Mississippi's defeated Life Begins at the Moment of Fertilization Amendment, which was criticized even by some abortion opponents, who worried about possible unintended consequences. And three years after voters rejected that initiative, Pew found that 59 percent of Mississippi adults thought abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.

The Center for Reproductive Rights classifies 22 states as "hostile" to abortion rights, meaning legislators would be likely to severely restrict abortion (or at least try) when they are free to do so. Ten of those states already have "trigger" laws designed to take effect if Roe is overturned.

Yet most states will not impose new restrictions, mostly because neither voters nor legislators support them. (In some states, abortion rights are also protected by statute or by decisions applying state constitutions.) So in the absence of limits on legislation imposed by federal courts, access to abortion will be unimpeded in most of the country but severely restricted in many places.

Middlebury College economist Caitlin Knowles Myers projects that overturning Roe might reduce the annual number of abortions by about 14 percent. "A post-Roe United States isn't one in which abortion isn't legal at all," Myers told The New York Times. "It's one in which there's tremendous inequality in abortion access."

NEXT: In Strategy Call, Chris Cuomo Advised Brother Andrew Cuomo Not To Resign

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. >>National surveys

    don't mean much in Texas. go Babies.

    1. Sullum may be horrified to learn a lot of Americans like babies, and aren't quite as keen to see them dead as your average Democrat.

      1. Just the usual concern trolling.

        1. Cue Hank Phillips and his usual ‘mystical bigots’ shit, I mean schtick. Fucker loves dead babies more than anyone I know.

          1. Cue the deranged redneck who once posted as a "Shitlord" at 9:22.

            1. But you really are a shitlord, trollboy.

              1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little SSS child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
                on this page.....VISIT HERE

      2. No one wants dead babies, you weird Aborto-Freak.

        It is a liberty thing (which you wouldn't understand). A police state to supervise women's uteri on behalf of the state is as anti-liberty as you can get.

        1. This is why it is pointless to have a good faith discussion with pro-lifers. They are not interested in that. Literally nobody supports afterbirth abortions or anything like that, and very few people are in support of late term abortions. Yet they will keep strawmanning the shit out of this point, because only then does it appear, even to them, that they have some kind of legitimate moral high ground.

          1. Governor of Virginia has entered the chat.

              1. My real time work with face book I am making over $2000 a month operating low maint­enance. I continued h­earing distinctive people divulge to me how an lousy lot cash they can make on line so I selected to research it.wer All topics considered, it become all legitimate and has without a doubt changed my life.

                For more statistics visit below site here… Home Profit System

            1. Lol, and Northam's not the only one either.
              I don't know if chemleft forgot about fashionable infanticide being pushed by his "daring" team blue, or he just hoped we'd forgotten.

              Gaslighting and bitching about a lack of "good faith arguments" all in one post. What a clown.

            2. lolword

          2. What an idiotic strawman to throw out there.

          3. And yet Kermit Gosnell did not lack for referrals from mainstream abortion providers like Planned Parenthood, and survived multiple reports of what he was doing, because authorities were reluctant to stop him.

            And yet New York amended its law to allow for abortion right up to the moment of birth based on any unspecified health concerns, and removed all monitoring and reporting which would prevent abortion even shortly after birth. A non-MD can abort a 'fetus' even after delivery has begun, with no witnesses to confirm that the abortion didn't actually happen after a live birth.

            And I guess Pete Singer is literally nobody.

      3. Irrelevant point, as the discussion is not about babies but about abortion. Pro-lifers can't enter an argument without using disingenuous terms, because then they would have to contend with the unassailable logic of the pro-choice position.

        1. My neighbor had a gender reveal party for the mass of cells. They wore masks.

        2. "the discussion is not about babies but about abortion"

          Abortion is about babies, you demented ghoul. Specifically killing them.
          Who the hell do you think you're trying to kid by playing games with definitions?

        3. ^THIS! To a T..

          "Pro-lifers can’t enter an argument without using disingenuous terms, because then they would have to contend with the unassailable logic of the pro-choice position."

          A fertilized egg is as much as a baby as a corpse is a living person.

          This is where Tony should Q-Up; This is where Religion has turned into a 'cult'.

    2. Fetuses are human beings, aborting them is murder. Stupid sluts can't keep their legs closed. Then surprise they got pregnant. Abortion to get rid of the baby they conceived with ten Baby Daddies. Don't know which one is the real Baby Daddy.

    3. These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months.I am very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoyinererererererg my life.Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period.Just visit this

      website . ☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛ Visit Here

    4. My real time work with facebook Im making over $2000 a month operating low maint­enance. I continued h­earing distinctive people divulge to me how an lousy lot cash they can make on line so I selected to research it.......earn dollars.

    5. My Boy pal makes $seventy five/hour at the internet. She has been without a assignment for six months however remaining month her pay have become $16453 genuinely working at the internet for some hours. immediately from the source........APPLY HERE JOBS.

  2. One man's backlash is another man's political process. Who cares? The point is that abortion is an issue that should have been decided through the political process rather than shoved down the country's throats by robed overlords. If the voters of America decide they like the current system of abortion at any time for any reason, at least that sorry state of affairs will have the political legitimacy that comes with the Democratic process which is a damn sight better than what we have now.

    1. Anyone else find it odd that the overwhelming majority of women marching under the "My body, my choice" banner are 10 years past menopause, ugly, and childless? Feels like nature has already made the choice for them.

      This begs the question: why do they do this? I think it's partially to stay relevant and cling to the fiction that men (any man for that matter) still finds them desirable. The other motivator: resentment. I can't help but wonder if this old-maid-led movement is a way to sabotage young (maybe) attractive women who have a chance at reproducing.

      Or maybe not. We all know women would never do anything to undermine other women out of jealousy ...

      1. That’s been my theory since college. I am convinced it is correct of female feminists. Male feminists come in two flavors - cads where abortion seriously benefits them and creeps who think being feminist will get them to 2nd base.

        1. "Male feminists come in two flavors – cads where abortion seriously benefits them and creeps who think being feminist will get them to 2nd base."

          There is a third flavor. Mamma's boys who never quite managed to cut the apron strings.

      2. Also, the pro life movement is predominately led by young and middle aged women.

        1. Bullshit. The pro-life movement is dominated by middle-aged men.

          1. Nope. At an abortion clinic, you are most likely to find women. At speaking engagements, still women.

          2. No, you are wrong here. The politicians that support both the pro- and anti-abortion movements (let's call them for what they are) may be mostly men, but the groups and their leaders are mostly women.

      3. Most of the pro infanticide crowd could never get anyone to put a baby in them in the first place.

  3. Yes,Ms. Meyers that can be a consequence of federalism.

    It is fascinating that to support abortion, apparently one must reject personhood as an inherent quality of individual human organisms.

    1. Unless you're someone like Murray Rothbard, who thought it didn't matter whether the human fetus qualifies as a person. Same reasoning he gave for his position that parents should have the legal right to neglect their born children to death.

    2. It's not so cut-and-dried that it is yet a human in the first phase of a pregnancy. The organism hasn't clearly differentiated from being a generic mammal to exhibit traits of the human species.

      1. But there's no such thing as a "generic mammal." Humans beget humans. Exhibiting species characteristics happens because an organism is already that species in development.

        1. There is a human genotype, but in the early stages of embryonic development, the human phenotype doesn't express itself. A horse, pig, human embryo all look similar and go through similar development stages.

          1. And you believe phenotype, not genotype, determines members of a species? Is that genitalia and hormonal composition determining an organism's sex rather than its chromosomes?

            1. It’s not about determination. Up until a certain stage in embryonic development the embryo IS what the phenotype at the time is.

              1. No, no matter what the stage of development, it is what it's genetics say it is.

                1. Why? Seems we've just shown through our discussion that there are at least two different ways of looking at it.

                  1. Hahaha! Keep going Dee, you’re about to win!

                  2. Only for dishonest crackpots. You don’t actually believe an embryo embedded in a human uterus is going to differentiate into a dog. You are dishonest and arguing in bad faith and not using even a lick of science on this.

            2. Doesn't fucking matter. No human frontal cortex, no personhood.

              1. Why do you hate women, gamma loser?

          2. And you believe phenotype, not genotype, determines members of a species? Is that like genitalia and hormonal composition determining an organism's sex rather than its chromosomes?

            1. "And you believe phenotype, not genotype, determines members of a species?"

              Of course not. Where did I say any such thing?

          3. In the age before phrenology, this argument may've held some water. If you learned it as any sort of legitimate theory in the modern age, you were either part of some sort of cult, taught by someone too stupid not to realize they were parroting cult ideology, or went over it as observational compare/contrast skills in 3rd grade and completely mislearned the lesson.

            The absurdity of your 'theory' is evidenced by the hyper-reductionism (similar to how flat earthers' preserve their truth). A horse embryo may look like a human embryo may look like a mouse embryo, but the 11-day gestation period of the mouse, 270-day gestation period of the human, and the 370-day gestation period of the horse mean you have to work awful hard (some would rightly say cherry-pick) a 3-day mouse embryo to compare to a 3 month human embryo to compare to a 3.5 month horse embryo. Even then after the invention of modern microscopy, the features are readily distinguishable.

            1. So you’re saying Dee is full of shit? Again.

      2. It’s not so cut-and-dried that it is yet a human in the first phase of a pregnancy

        The most ridiculous unscientific argument ever. The inevitable result of a full term human pregnancy is a human 100% of the time.

        A caterpillar has very different traits from a butterfly, but only an idiot would assert they are not the same species. They are simply at different stages of development.

        1. Abortion is not carried out on an 'inevitable result'. It is carried out on a fetus in a woman's body. What it may become and what it is at the time of abortion are not the same. If you were secure in your belief that a fetus is fully human then you would not need to resort to irrelevant arguments.

          You cannot prove a fetus is a human being so base your argument on something that has not yet happened.

          1. "The inevitable result of a full term human pregnancy is a human 100% of the time."

            That was his point and he did. Quit being a dishonest prick.

        2. And a pile of building supplies is a house. A couple tons on scrap metal is a car...You cannot treat potential the same way you would an end result.

          1. I agree, you are definitely desperate in your reasoning. And uncritical in your thinking.

            Eggs and spermatozoa are 'potential humans'. Like your examples, they are the unassembled components of a human.

            A fetus is not under construction, it is fully assembled. It is not 'potentially' a human, it is the 'end result' every bit as much as a newborn or a five-year old.

            When we watched chicks grow inside eggs in kindergarten, nobody denied they were chicks or tried to figure out at what point they acquired 'chickenhood'. Fer fuck's sake people, show the tiniest bit of consistency.

      3. "The organism hasn’t clearly differentiated from being a generic mammal to exhibit traits of the human species."

        White Mike is up to his old HO2 tricks.
        If you don't understand how embryology works, don't try to bullshit your way through with stupid memes from the 1920's.

        Right from the instant the gametes merge into a zygote the organism has a full, unique and individualized complement of human DNA. Not fish, frog or rodent, but human DNA.

        Furthermore before the first two weeks are up the embryonic human is morphologically dissimilar to any other animal.

        The idea that partum human development follows evolutionary development is discredited early-twentieth century nonsense.

      4. When a woman miscarries, do people say “I’m sorry you lost your fetus/organism/zygote”?

        1. Maybe you homo types don't but most of us do.

          1. Most of who says “I’m sorry you lost your fetus/organism/zygote”?

            You know that sounds absurd, right?

            1. I love his casual homophobia. Fucking leftist really are everything they claim to hate.

          2. And just for clarification, do most of “you” say fetus, organism, or zygote?

      5. You know, except fucking science.

        Jesus Christ that has to be the worst argument for the pro-abortion side. And I have actually changed my views on abortion because of the thoughtful debates we used to have here about it.

  4. There needs to be some backlash at this point. Resolve the damn thing. These culture war issues thrive on not only not being resolved but on being the source of the sort of personal hatreds and intolerance than can only end up destroying a society.

    Maybe that's where the US should end up. If so - get the fucking bloodshed started. Fifty fucking years and the public discussion is far more retarded and hostile than it was 50 years ago.

    1. This is the backlash for forcing a resolution through the courts on something there was no political consensus on, or at least by passed the political means to come to consensus. Thos fight has largely come about because of the tactics of the aggressors in the culture wars who had Roe imposed on the country by judicial fiat.

      1. Ask some women you know whether they consider it a culture war, or a struggle to not be subjected to laws made by men, often with extreme religious beliefs, who didn't fully grok what it is like to be a woman carrying a baby.

        1. we could ask the baby what it's like to be killed, but ...

          1. dumb

            1. Yes. Yes you are.

          2. Prove that it is a baby or stop using emotional manipulation to win an argument.

            1. How the fuck is it not a baby?

              1. How is it a baby?

              2. A fetus is not a baby and doesn't look like a baby. That's why you keep calling it a baby, to cast a false mental image in the reader's mind.

                1. Of course it doesn’t look like a baby. Baby’s come from storks.

            2. Woman with chil...mass of cells.

              1. That describes every living thing that has isn’t a single cell organism.

        2. How about this? Not one red cent of taxes, govt funding, grants, free $$, etc....and i know you know what i mean, so don't parse it or look for a loophole. Then you can use your own money or the banks, or find investors to open mcabortion's every where, and franchise them like a mickey d's for all i care. Should be a snap if it's so universally popular with women or anyone for that matter.

          1. You have described my opinion on the matter. You seem to assume I am a liberal rather than a libertarian, which is puzzling, since lots of libertarians support a woman's right to choose about abortion. At least, up to a certain point in the pregnancy.

            1. I support a person's right to rid their body of a parasite. But refusing to acknowledge that the parasite in the case of an abortion is a human child is fucking evil. They can have their choice, but it should be informed without guile.

              What you advocate above is a right to abortion without the guilt and shame that should be the result of a woman cutting another human life short because the timing doesn't work for her.

              That is not a very libertarian position.

              1. So you support legal abortion but only if the woman feels a lot of shame as a result?

                1. Typical fallacious jeffy response. Here is the actual logic in my comments:

                  A human embryo is just a stage in the development of an adult human, as is a newborn, as is a five-year old.
                  To deny a human embryo is human life is unscientific.
                  In the embryonic stage, a human is a parasitic organism.
                  Abortion is the term used to describe the early termination of a human life during its parasitic stage.
                  I support a woman's right to terminate a parasite.
                  Some women (and men) will feel shame and regret that they terminated a child they created.
                  We should not use pseudo-scientific bullshit to assuage that guilt.

                  I don't give a shit if anyone feels guilt or shame. Many who get abortions will be too immature to appreciate what they have done at the time and some never will.

              2. Huh? Who said anything about the right to be free of shame? And what's with the assumption of women getting abortions for convenience ("the timing wasn't right for her"). The whole purposeful minimization of the woman's concerns in this is pretty telling of your personal bias.

                And do you suppose it is the role of government to insert shame into a medical procedure? If not then who "should" (per your comment) be inducing that shame? Because apparently you think a woman ought to feel shame for an abortion, and your main concern seems to be that she won't experience that. I can tell you that probably won't be an issue in the vast majority of cases.


                1. Who said anything about the right to be free of shame?

                  Anyone who promotes the pseudo-scientific argument that a human embryo is not a human, which was contrived to get rid of any stigma attached to abortions. If you don't realize that, you are too dumb to argue with.

                  The rest of your response is just bullshit. Abortion is always for convenience. A newborn can be turned over to a third party or the state without repercussions.

              3. Its evil to act as if you have absolute certainty the parasite is a human child. Why should we just take your word for it?

                1. really really stupid

              4. One could say an invalid or someone in a coma is also a parasite as they require intervention of others to survive. Do you advocate for their termination as well? Not simply not feeding them, but actively killing them either through dismemberment or poisoning.

            2. Maybe because you parrot leftist thought? It is amazingly consistent. For example... jan 6th insurrection, blm riots mostly peaceful.

            3. I don’t support a woman’s right to choose to kill their baby. That’s called infanticide.

            4. “You seem to assume I am a liberal rather than a libertarian, which is puzzling,”

              What’s even more puzzling, is that 90% of the commentators make the same assumption!

        3. It is men in the legislatures who vote for these laws? It is only men who vote such legislaters in?

          That is just a ridiculous, misandrist, anti-relgious bigotry of a talking point that only an idiot would buy into it as a good argument.

          Not to mention that my understanding is that the pro-life movement is actually majority women.

          1. Historically, it was absolutely men who enacted anti-abortion laws.

            1. Do not be disingenuous. I am speaking of the laws that are being discussed in this article that have bee passed in last few years.

              1. I wasn’t being disingenuous. I was speaking within a context of a much wider time frame. The original anti-abortion laws were passed a long time ago. By men.

                1. Youre just being ignorant instead.

                  A new Quinnipiac poll shows 60 percent of women prefer allowing unrestricted abortions for only the first 20 weeks of pregnancy rather than the Supreme Court-prescribed 24 weeks.


                2. Which time frame is irrelevant to the laws being discussed currently.

            2. Historically, it was absolutely men who enacted everything.

              That is not to say they didn't take the opinion of their wives and daughters into account.

              Has anybody seen WK recently? Laursen's style of fallacy that borders on stupidity is very reminiscent.

              1. WK had to run away to maintain credibility. Now the socks are back.

              2. Like it matters.

              3. Dee’s handle was Mike Liarson before it was white Knight. She went back to it because now she can mute people that make credible threats cuz that will stop them from following through. She’s not very bright.

            3. So youre ignorant to the percentage of women that support abortion regulations last 20 weeks? Why do you repeat leftist literature verbatim including misogynistic arguments based on ignorance if you're not a leftist?

            4. Roe v Wade was passed by men too. By your logic the ruling is invalid,

          2. You didnt get laid in college.

        4. It’s a culture war where human children have been deliberately dehumanized for someone, with more power, to have their way.

          It’s might makes right and the losers are the blacks... I mean the jews... oops again, BABIES. There we go.

          Signed, a woman (still of child bearing years)

    2. politicians like unresolved issues to give them something to accuse the other party as being evil. this applies to both parties.

  5. But we can't let the voters have a say about Superprecedents like Roe v. Wade!

    1. Explicit Constitutional rights to free speech, to bear arms, to due process... all open to "commonsense" regulation. Implicit right to terminate life of a child in utero based on an implicit right to privacy... sacred and inviolable.

      1. The right to an abortion is open to "common sense" regulation, which is clearly visible in all of the current, existing, legal limitations on abortion that have existing for decades.

        Abolitionists (aka: "pro-life") are not interested in common sense regulation. They are abolitionists, after all.

        1. You presume to have common sense. You do not.

          1. Wow! i just realized that the abolitionists who wanted to take away your slaves were, just being, after all, abolitionists. What we really needed was just common sense slave regulations.

  6. National surveys obscure large regional variations in public opinion about abortion limits.

    Lena Dunham: Kill it in the crib!

    The Rest of America: Not comfortable when it's old enough to have a conversation with.

    1. Even using Lena Dunham's name in vain will not bring Crusty back.

  7. ENB: "Stay in your lane, Sullum. Feticide is my shtick."

    1. The funniest and most ironic thing about it is that she doesn't even like men or their dicks.

      1. You go show her how to like men and their dicks, Mikey.

      2. Uh oh, Mikey's ENB styrofoam doll is getting rage-fucked tonight.

  8. Oh I'm willing to bet there are 5 justices who won't overturn precedent. Anyway no it's not going to have an affect on conservative states and their politicians. However it would be delicious to see Roe overturned and watch the collective leftie freakout.

    1. Abortion is so popular that politicians dare not touch it, at least according to concern troll Sullumn. Yet, overturning Roe would be the end of the world!!

    2. I think we know which side Roberts would take in the interest of not appearing too conservative.

  9. Not to me. How bout for every abortion we just trade for a BLM person? Since it's targeted at killing black babies the most, might as well get rid of some adults and start over?

    1. Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.

      1. Preemptive riot control?

        1. That's three more racists I just muted.

          1. Whatever ????

  10. The last year pretty much showed everyone who was paying attention that courts are meaningless and the American legal system is no better than those in Banana Republics.

    1. Which legal decision(s) led you to that opinion? To me, the courts seem like the most functional branch of government right now.

      1. Lol. Go investigate nationwide injunctions. God damn WK. Just sad at this point. You keep claiming you're not a leftist but you sure do post their views constantly.

  11. Hell hath no fury is all I gotta say. Good luck mfers!

    1. The abortion debate is not women vs men. Only about half of women and a minority of men are "pro-choice". Majority of Americans, including almost half of women, are pro-life. And considering how heavily skewed to leftists most polls are, I wouldn't be surprised if it's actually a minority of women who are pro-choice

      1. "Majority of Americans, including almost half of women, are pro-life"

        How long are you guys gonna keep believing the silent majority myth? You aren't the majority. Latest Gallup polling has a whopping 79% of Americans who support abortion in any case or with certain caveats.

        1. The problem is the current radical pro abortion rights regime as laid out by SCOTUS only enjoys minority support, as is a fully pro-life rule. The majority position is actually a compromise that the pro abortion rights side also finds unacceptable.

          1. Yes, and that position of compromise is still "pro choice". Almost all states have some restrictions on time lines. All but 6 ban abortion at 25 weeks at the latest.

            The pro lifers are not talking about compromise. They talk about murder and absolutes. This issue is an artificial one at the heart of it. This issue exists as a culture war focal point instigated by the GOP's strategy of engaging evangelicals, and as part of a strategy of capitalizing on the grievances of those evangelicals who were upset by Jimmy Carter taking away their tax shelter status for racially segregated Churches. You will notice to this day that the "totally not racist because I didn't actually say the n-word" crowd overlaps heavily with the pro life crowd. That is no accident.

            1. In the last few years we’ve gone from zero to now three states that allow retroactive abortion.

              You people are monsters.

            2. Yep, the pro-life movement has racist roots. It grew straight out of the segregationist movement.

                1. You tell him!

              1. Hahahahahahah, sure it was lil buddy.

              2. The Pro-Life movement has Democrat roots?

              3. ...planned parenthood, and the push for abortion, was started explicitly as a eugenics movement to extinguish blacks.

        2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/08/02/guess-who-likes-the-gops-20-week-abortion-ban-women/

          Lol. God damn son. This 20 week ban has been consistent for decades. But I expect one of the recent push polls from you that doesn't delineate the 20 week regulation. Let's wait and watch.

        1. Not sure what you think this shows. Graph 2 shows a pretty even split between self-reported pro-life versus self-reported pro-choice. Table 2 is pretty telling as well. It seems to show that a majority are closer to the life side of the spectrum than the choice side.

          1. He is being dishonest by lumping the 20 week ban people (most pro life laws) with in any circumstance people. He is dishonest.

            1. 20 weeks is pro choice. Pro life is total ban on "elective" abortions.

              1. Then I guess pro-death(choice) is 100% any time one chooses to kill it should be allowable to do so - no restrictions on ones choice.

        2. Latest Gallup polling has a whopping 79% of Americans who support abortion in any case or with certain caveats

          God what a dishonest fuck you are. You do know that "under certain caveats" is generally the 20 week designation like Europe right? And the number for that is 50% from your link, yet you put in any case (29%) as the primary in your statement.

          Dishonesty is your friend.

          1. Which is pro choice. The majority are pro chouie. pro life means total ban on elective abortion.

      2. You're right. It's not women v men. It's old farts for whom pregnancy is in the past v young farts who can see pregnancy in their future. Opinions really haven't changed over time and men/women in the same age group tend to have similar opinions re the issue.

        At core, this issue is about generational attitudes re sex.

  12. If the courts previous precedent was determined to not be correct interpretation of the constitution since it was based on flawed reasoning then the new laws are not unconstitutional and also not determined to be unconstitutional until tested by law not just because Sullum declares them so

  13. The Mississippi law at least pushes the limits into the second trimester as opposed to the date before delivery.

    Most of the world has limitations at 20 weeks or less. Canada (limitations at Provincial level), China (not specified), Netherlands (24 weeks), North Korea (not specified), Singapore (24 weeks), United States (limitation at State level), Vietnam (not specified).


    Considering a majority of citizens, including a majority of women, believe there should be some limitation, maybe this is the time to join the rest of the world.

    1. We do have limitations, you even linked an article that lists some of them.

      And 20 weeks or 24 weeks is a helluva lot different than 2 weeks, which itself is really just an attempted end run around Roe v Wade.

      1. >>And 20 weeks or 24 weeks is a helluva lot different than 2 weeks

        is it?

      2. "is a helluva lot different than 2 weeks"

        Exactly. A lot of women don't even have a clue they are pregnant until about four weeks in.

        1. A lot of women don’t even have a clue they are pregnant until about four weeks in.

          You need to quit targeting the dumb ones. It's creepy.

          1. Smart women can tell the moment they are fertilized.

          2. Home schooled? No biology or sex ed classes? Think a woman can "shut down" a pregnancy if she's being raped?

            It's not really my place to teach you that stuff. Look up "menstruation" and its cycle. It's relevant.

            1. There’s the day after pill, which actually offers a 72 hour window to prevent pregnancy. Abortions should be a rare thing anymore. Thanks to the progs, they are not.

            2. It’s not really my place to teach you that stuff.

              Responding to what is obviously a sarcastic insult to a 3rd party doesn't make you look smart, asshat.

              Every girl I ever fucked knew when she was 2 days late. Denial creates delays, but they know or they are too dumb to keep track properly. I never touched the latter.

          3. If that's some trash talkin' it's pretty damn good. LOL

        2. Exactly, Mike and DoL don't even have a clue about the law Texas signed.

          outlawing abortion as early as six weeks into pregnancy,

      3. God damn you fucking pathetic shit, the Texas law is as early as you weeks, not 2 weeks.

        outlawing abortion as early as six weeks into pregnancy,


        Youre so fucking pathetic.

        1. As early as 6 weeks*

    2. China (not specified), North Korea (not specified). LOLZ

      1. Yeah, that was funny.

  14. I think if the Supreme Court bans or severely restricts abortion it will be a winner for the Democrats. Everyone who is on the fence will be forced to choose. There's a film (sorry, don't remember its name) of interviews with women who think abortion should not be allowed but who then justify the abortion they had. All these people will have to vote Democrat to keep their abortion rights.

    1. The Court will not ban abortion. Overturning Roe will only return federalism to the issue and the States will decide.

      1. That's just semantics.

        "Returning federalism" would mean eliminating the right to an abortion.

        It is legal for a state to prosecute a citizen who leaves the state to commit an act that would have been illegal in that state but is legal in another. So if a woman leaves a Red state to get an abortion, she's in legal jeopardy when she returns.

        1. I don't know what might make you think that this is legal. Sure, Texas can enact this kind of law, but that doesn't mean the law will survive. There's a decently long line of Supreme Court precedents holding that states can't punish their residents for activities they performed outside the state. If anyone were ever charged under the Texas law, there would be an immediate due process challenge. The challengers would almost certainly win.

        2. There is no right to an abortion. It’s funny how progs see almost no real individual rights unless it comes to infanticide or homosexual sodomy. Which are considered sacred by you progs.

          Progs are monsters.

          1. There is a right to abortion among our natural rights, you stupid redneck.

            1. No, it was something rotten emanating from Blackmun's ass, not something found in the text of the Constitution

        3. But the first state (where it is illegal) doesn't have criminal jurisdiction in the second (where it is legal), so there is no way they could prosecute.

  15. I think if the Supreme Court bans or severely restricts abortion it will be a winner for the Democrats. Everyone who is on the fence will be forced to choose. There's a film (sorry, don't remember its name) of interviews with women who think abortion should not be allowed but who then justify the abortion they had. All these people will have to vote Democrat to keep their abortion rights. Plus, once the religious social conservatives achieve their big "win" on abortion, their interest in the Republican party will wane. They'll still vote Republican but won't give their passion, time and money to them. And there are no other issues that ignite the religious conservatives the way abortion has.

  16. This SCOTUS would have to be completely blind to the current political climate to overturn Roe v. Wade. If they do, the Democrats will nuke the filibuster and pack the court.

    They can spin re-establishing Roe v. Wade as something that gives them no choice.

    1. Republicans need Roe to stick around because it gets their base fired up and dangles a carrot in front of the noses of pro-life independents.

      "Vote for us, and there's a slight chance Roe will be overturned!"

      Of course, Democrats are more than happy to go along with it.

      "Republicans will overturn Roe if they get elected, and as surely as all people of color will be forced to pick cotton on plantations, millions of impoverished young girls raped by their alcoholic fathers will die gruesome deaths in shadowy back alleys from coat hangars stuck up their hoo-hahs."

      1. They won't lose this fundraiser if the court abolishes the right to an abortion.

        They'll just campaign on ending abortion in the Blue states too and saving all those poor Democrat babies. Remember, pro-lifers don't ever get abortions because they're opposed to them, (::cough::) right? So all the attacks on Roe V Wade are about forcing other people to abide by the moral judgment of the pro-lifers. There's no logical reason to think they'd be satisfied with just stopping abortion in their own states.

    2. If the Supreme Court acts out of fear of being "packed" by the legislature, then it is not the independent judiciary they tell us we have. So what's it good for?

      1. A check and balance in the future when (if) the Democrats don’t control both other branches of government.

    3. Then it will be time for a new civil war to wipe out progressivism (Marxism). Which is almost certainly coming. Sooner or later.

  17. I'll ask the same ethical question I asked the other day. If you are willing to interfere in a woman's life to force her to have a baby, do you feel any moral obligation, as consequence of your interference, to help make sure that baby grows up well. For example, if she is considering an abortion because her financial situation looks dismal for providing for the baby, do you feel any moral obligation to make sure she gets financial help? (I'm not necessarily talking about government-provided financial help, just help from somewhere.)

    1. If a woman is considering killing her one year old because her financial looks dismal are the supporters of laws against killing toddlers obligated to make sure she gers financial help?

      Why or why not?

      1. See. Right away you jump from abortion of a fetus to the murder of a child. This is what I was talking about.

        There is no goal of compromise from the pro life side. It is an emotional issue that they are simply incapable of addressing logically.

        And look up Jerry Falwell's role in establishing pro life as a GOP tenet. None of the right cared before Falwell brought it to the forefront. It was seen as a fringe issue for Catholics to worry over. The origin of pro life on the right is in the desegragation backlash.

        A primer: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133

        1. Yeah, something about libertarianism and individualism you can't grasp.

          We also don't go around killing people who are paralyzed or in comas.

          1. He is a prog. So he has no soul. He can’t understand any of this. It’s like asking a psychopath to feel empathy.

        2. The argument being made was that it is reasonable to kill a child in order to get out of financial burden of caring for it, and that people who are for laws to prevent that should take up the burden themselves. I see no logical difference in the ethics of that scenario if the child is 2 months after conception or 21 months.

          1. You see no logical difference? Are you just a moron?

            Before viability, there is no exit and no escape and no relief for a mother who is on the financial edge and for whom all burdens at that point are involuntary. She must be forced into a very publicly visible (and potentially medically dangerous) form of servitude for many months - even if someone agrees to take on the financial burdens after viability.

            After viability - and especially after birth - a mother on the edge financially can 'get rid' of that burden very easily and very quickly and move on with getting back on their feet. Not only that there are safe-haven laws and legal institutions/processes for foundlings that reduce the legal consequences for the mother.

            You seem to take the ability to get an abortion for granted for purposes of your logic/rationalist bullshit - while then declaiming it in order to further some theocratic agenda. Are you just another Mises/Rockwell crowd horse fucker?

        3. This 100%. Only need to see a map of the US pre-Roe. It was the South where abortion was legal assuming the proper excuses could be given. All conveniently forgotten

      2. A good argument could be made that they do. I’m trying to get to the ethics of interfering in another’s life then just walking away from whatever fallout comes from one’s interference.

        It’s an important foundational question to libertarianism. It’s also an important question for distinguishing between community/civil society and a screw-you society.

        1. The main issue isn't "abortion" but sexual freedom. They want there to be severe consequences for having sex outside of marriage. If you prevent or severely limit all forms of birth control, including the morning after pill and abortion, then you threaten women with at least a 9 month ordeal and associated medical costs as a price for being sexually independent.

          1. What are these severe limits on birth control? According to the CDC: "In 2015–2017, 64.9% of the 72.2 million women aged 15–49 in the United States were currently using contraception." That hardly seems like any restriction at all, let alone a severe one. Or do you mean the entirely different contention that those using birth control should pay for it? Stop putting up these ridiculous strawmen.

            1. Progs always make up this bullshit to deflect when they are losing an argument. Which is 100% of the time. My aunt always pukes up the same pablum when I corner her on this issue.

              Debating their kind is a waste. They don’t care to engage in dialogue or debate. So why should we?

              Destroy them and put things right.

          2. I guess so. I believe that many people have genuine objections to the act of terminating an embryo or fetus.

            I mean don’t like it myself. But I have a healthy respect for not butting in other’s lives. And I’ve known women who have had to go through the difficult decision.

            And then many people’s religion tells them they have to be concerned about the sanctity of the soul, even when the embryo is a little bundle of cells. Personally, I don’t do religious belief, so it is hard for me to object to a very early ending of pregnancy, such as a morning after pill.

            1. “so it is hard for me to object to a very early ending of pregnancy, such as a morning after pill.”

              I missed the argument against morning after pills here. Cite to that comment please?

              1. The Hobby Lobby case centered around the owner of that company's objection to his employees health plans including emergency contraception that some religious conservatives consider to be abortifacients, despite the research not really supporting that belief. The "morning after pill" and the like are highly unlikely to work other than by delaying ovulation, which means that no eggs are released to be fertilized. Some think that maybe they can prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg, but that seems unlikely, as implantation occurs several days after sex, not the day after or the day after that.

                It is possible that the copper in copper IUDs can prevent implantation, but that still wouldn't be an abortion, since a pregnancy would never have been established. Many fertilized eggs don't implant even without any intervention, with the woman never knowing that it had occurred, so I wouldn't understand why it would be an issue to mourn except for a woman trying to get pregnant.

                And that is the whole issue, of course. If you want to reduce abortion, the best way to is improve access and education about effective birth control. But of course, social conservatives just don't want people having the dirty sex without the consequences of their "sin", so abstinence-only sex ed that is proven to be ineffective, perhaps worse than being ineffective, and Little Sisters that don't want their employees getting free birth control is the way to go.

                1. As a PRIVATE company, it was absolutely there right to decide what things would be covered in the plans they were offering.

                  If any of those employees wanted that coverage, they could just go buy their own insurance.

                  But nice non-response to R Mac pointing out that no one commenting on this article was talking about the morning after pill going away.

                2. I see we’ve found one of the retards that doesn’t know the difference between providing something for free vs banning it.

    2. It is legal to turn a child over to the state. Sometimes the state doesn't even ask.

    3. I’ll ask the same ethical question I asked the other day. If you are willing to interfere in a woman’s life to force her to have a baby, do you feel any moral obligation, as consequence of your interference, to help make sure that baby grows up well.

      I'll ask the same ethical question that I've been asking about abortion for quite a while now. I started thinking about it in these terms a couple of years ago, and I have yet to see anyone even really try and counter it. So, maybe I am on to something, or maybe I'm wrong, but I have yet to feel challenged in this line of reasoning.

      If you are willing to restrict a woman's freedom and force her to remain pregnant, would you feel any moral obligation, as a consequence of that interference, if she were to die as a complication of that pregnancy?

      Even in the U.S., with all of our medical wonders, about 17.4 deaths per 100,000 live births occur (about 1 in 6000). (Maternal mortality is defined in the U.S. as the death of a woman while pregnant or within 42 days of giving birth from a cause related to or aggravated by pregnancy or its management. The same definition used internationally. Oh, and the figure is more than double that for non-Hispanic Black women.)

      That doesn't sound like a lot, but would a person that concerned about abortion be willing to roll the dice for a 1 in 6000 chance of dying for a embryo or fetus that they'll never know? A woman that wants a child knows that level of risk and accepts it, but if a woman does not want a child, then why force her to take that risk? Under what other circumstances has anyone ever been legally required to take even that modest level of risk to their life for another human being unwillingly? As far as I know, no one has ever been forced to donate blood, bone marrow, or anything else in order to save the life of another person, or to take any significant risk at all to aid someone in dire need. We don't even require people to be organ donors from their dead bodies to save someone's life.

      Some might say that these laws banning abortion make exceptions to protect the life of the woman, but that only applies in an emergency, when it may be too late for aborting the fetus to make enough of a difference. For an example of what can happen when a country bans abortion, ask Savita Halappanavar's husband. If Roe is overturned, will it take a woman dying from her pregnancy after being denied an abortion to get people to go back to making it legal again in Texas, Mississippi, or whatever other red states ban it?

  18. For most men who vote, abortion probably doesn't rank in their top five issues, and having an abortion is still something most women don't brag about because it's seen as an indications of irresponsibility--even if that isn't the way it should be. Color me skeptical that this is a big issue for swing voters--more important than other issues along traditionally partisan lines. If the abortion issue is something you really care about, chances are you were already either a strong Democrat or strong Republican anyway.

    The interesting thing to my eye is the delineation between Democrats and Republicans on democracy itself. Using the federal government to impose the views of the elite on states that don't share those views is perfectly appropriate according to progressives, and it isn't just about abortion. They'd impose federal regulation on guns, schools, pandemic lockdowns, etc., too--specifically because some states oppose the progressives on those issues.

    If libertarianism is about individuals being free to make choices for themselves, Republicans are by no means libertarian on certain issues, like abortion, but Democrats seem to be lining up against the idea of people making choices for themselves across the board--even within the context of democracy. No doubt, our constitutional rights shouldn't be subject to popularity contests, but who on the left is objecting on that basis? Progressive don't believe that at all.

    I don't support using the coercive power of government to force a woman to carry a baby to term against their will--even IF IF IF elective abortion is by itself unethical, but within the proper purview of democracy, local democracy is superior to the federal government making our choices for us, and if the Supreme Court rules that these issues belong at the state level, then seeing voters start paying attention in state elections could be a good thing on other issues, too, like spending and taxes.

    God knows, here in California, voters paying attention at the state level probably couldn't make things any worse. Think globally, act locally! They vote Democrat to stick it to Reagan, Bush, Trump, or whatever Republican president, and then they ignore it for four years. That's how you get such a screwed up Democrat machine like the ones that run New York City, Minneapolis, and Sacramento. If you were voting Democrat in Minneapolis because of the abortion issue before, you're to blame for the party machine that gave us the George Floyd fiasco.

    1. A bit muddled there Ken. If it is wrong for the government to force a woman to carry to term, does it matter whether it's the state government or federal doing it? If not, then the opposite is also true: it does not matter which government is preserving her right to be free from government force in her reproductive decisions. I don't think it matters much to the woman who is potentially having that force used on her.

      Why don't you just clearly state that using the power of government to force a woman to carry to term is wrong, instead of trying to shoe-horn "but democrats" into it?

      1. It is indeed some seriously muddled logic from Ken. But it is typical, as every comment of his nowadays is devoid of principle and instead more like "how can I use the current topic to construct an argument bashing Democrats?" And lo and behold, Ken doesn't disappoint: overturning Roe would make more people pay attention to local elections and boot out Democrats from power in California! (or something, lol)

        1. Everyone knows you're the resident moron. The shit you believe isn't going to get you laid. Go back to the basement.

        2. Jeffy, that you are incapable of following Ken’s logic does nothing to refute it.

      2. Made perfect sense. It's just over your head.

    2. To the topic at hand: as long as you ignore the ways the Republicans use the power coercive power of the government to enact their policy preferences while bashing the Democrats for the same thing, your argument isn't going to be taken seriously.

      Both parties do this. The difference between them appears to be tha the Dems believe in the power government to make positive change in American lives while the GOP messages about "small government" and then passes federal laws to restrict freedoms (usually on Christian-based moralistic grounds).

      It's also worth pointing out that the right to get an abortion doesn't force anyone to get one. So a pro-lifer isn't impacted by this law one bit; they just don't get an abortion. Roe v Wade doesn't use government force, rather, it prevents the use of government force in specific circumstances.

      1. "So long as you ignore the ways the Republicans use the power coercive power of the government to enact their policy preferences while bashing the Democrats for the same thing, your argument isn’t going to be taken seriously.


        "If libertarianism is about individuals being free to make choices for themselves, Republicans are by no means libertarian on certain issues, like abortion, but Democrats seem to be lining up against the idea of people making choices for themselves across the board–even within the context of democracy."

        ----Ken Shultz

        That wasn't hard to follow, and neither is the fact that just because neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are libertarian, they're both just as bad as each other. In reality, one is much worse than the other.

        The fact is that the Democrats have become the party of inflicting policies on people using the federal government, and the Republicans are being fairly consistent in saying that states should make decisions locally.

        I listed three examples in addition to the idea that states should set their own laws on abortion. There are plenty of others. Can you name an example of Democrats wanting to let states or markets make choices for themselves--rather than have the federal government inflict one size fits all, progressive solutions on everybody?

        Go ahead. I'm all ears. Name them.

        1. Yeah, Ken. CAFE standards for cars. Want another?

    3. "If libertarianism is about individuals being free to make choices for themselves, Republicans are by no means libertarian on certain issues, like abortion"

      If libertarianism means being for legal abortion, then so much the worse for libertarianism.

      But there are pro-life libertarians, whether they understand their own philosophy or not I'll leave you to debate with them.

  19. Meh, even money says abortion won't be an issue in 10-20 years when sous vide style artificial wombs start coming online.

  20. Is it any coincidence that Massachusetts has the highest pro abortion stance, and also the highest mask wearing this past year as well. I'd suggest they are less pro-choice and more do as we say or else. Conformity is important among the left.

    1. My body, my choice!*

      *Some exclusions may apply.

      1. "My body, my choice" when it comes to masks is essentially making the argument that drunk driving should be legal.

        What?! You say?

        Yup. Wearing a mask in public during an international epidemic is intended to keep you from passing your disease to other people and harming them. So if "my body my choice" is the rule, then you're essentially saying you get to choose whether you infect people with a deadly virus when out in public. This is an argument that say the carrier bears no responsibility for any harm they inflict on others. If that's the case, then drunk driving is the same. If you get the virus and get sick (or damage your car or yourself) then that's all you have to worry about. The harms you cause others aren't yours to worry about.

        1. So, you agree that bodily autonomy ends where injury to others begins. But unlike cases of abortion, which results in the near-certain death of a human fetus, government has free reign to suspend rights and impose mandates to prevent the spread of one virus with only a remote chance of killing the person it infects. Mkay.

          1. Forcing superfluous masks on the populace is ok. Preventing the murder of infants is not.

            The progtard way.

  21. Old Jake where in the Constitution does it delegate abortion as a Federal decision? The Roe vs Wade was an unconstitutional decision..abortion decisions reside with the States as they should.

    I noticed everyone quoted in this article was a far leftie of the group that puts abortion above all.

    1. In the penumbras and emanations, duh. ;-P

  22. The author of this article is more focused on a simplistic political model and not paying any attention to how people actually vote.

    Will there be backlash against conservative politicians? Hell no.

    1) You can have video of people storming the Capitol building, breaking windows, beating cops, attacking Congresspersons, and illegally searching their desks and still make a straight-faced claim that the insurrectionists were acting just like normal visitors to the building on any other day. And the right-wing media amplifies that and the Faux News crowd believes it despite having seen the videos for themselves. The facts don't matter any more. You don't even have to spin things carefully. Just make up a new narrative and sell it. The average conservative voter will believe it.

    2) Roughly 70% of the public is in favor of Biden's large infrastructure plan. Pretty much every single Republican is going to vote against it. None of them will face any backlash for it. There is no apparent connection between what their constituents want and what most of the GOP members of Congress are held accountable for. The only exception are those politicians in "purple" districts who have to tack to the center. But the vast majority of GOP seats are no longer competitive; so unless there's risk of being primaried by the Trumpist wing of the party, there's no risk.

    3) If conservative women felt that abortion was a big deal, we wouldn't have so many far-right members of Congress holding seats right now. The women might care somewhat, but balanced against other issues, they still vote for the anti-abortion ideologues. Even while many conservative women abandoned Trump's re-election bid, they voted party line for anti-abortion politicians down-ticket.

    4) Gerrymandering and GOP agreements on primaries will ensure no existing GOP member of Congress meets any resistance for their re-elections. (Unless they voted to impeach Trump, then they're toast.)

    Taken together: you can spin this so strongly that most conservative voters won't even know (or care to know) the real impact of Roe v Wade and think their own rights were advanced while those that do care are still going to vote for the same people who craft and support laws targeting women's reproductive rights because they're convinced other issues matter more. Nowhere in this do any members of Congress see any serious risk to their re-elections. Any "backlash" will come largely from the Left and be roundly ignored.

  23. New York Times columnist Linda Greenhouse suggests that pro-life politicians like Abbott will pay a price should the Supreme Court give them more freedom to restrict abortion.

    It's called "concern trolling". Linda Greenhouse is hoping and praying that pro-life politicians all drop dead and burn in Hell for all eternity, she hates their fucking guts with a white-hot passion. The idea that she is "concerned" that they may be making a mistake is laughable.

  24. This so controversial, Texas is going to stop the widescale murder of babies by mothers and their doctors.
    If this trend continues we might actually become a civilized people

    1. You just have to remember that the primary purpose of abortion is to keep the undesirables and the inferior races from reproducing and then the Democratic support for abortion becomes clear.

      1. don't forget they need fetal tissue to make humanized mice for gain of function research

    2. When Texas executes its first doctor/female patient for murder you will no doubt rejoice.

      1. You're the expert on jail and solitary, pedo.

  25. Oh look, it is all the Trump-tard jack-asses who want to ban abortion. They know the corrupt con man who quadrupled the deficit sucked ass as a POTUS but he delivered on the Aborto-Freak SCOTUS for them.

    1. I’m surprised you’re for abortion. Doesn’t that equate to a smaller pool of potential victims for you to fuck?

      Kill yourself, you goddamn pedophile.

      1. Quit lying, you stupid redneck neo-Nazi piece of e.coli.

        1. Sounds like you're getting defensive there. Maybe some time in solitary would help boy.

        2. Capitalize the “E” in E. coli. Thanks.

    2. Dumbass. Trump NEVER launched a large campaign to ban abortion. You're so full of TDS.

  26. I am always skeptical of polls on the issue of abortion because it is a private issue that people may not want to give their true opinion about. Most of these polls are soft polls asking about a person feelings on the issue. What is more telling is what as peoples action when faced with a problem pregnancy (either unplanned or medical issues). Today a large number of women will have amniocenteses and may make decisions to continue a pregnancy based on those results. Down Syndrome being the most studied with a new review study putting the pregnancy termination rate between 67% to 85%. This is larger than the general rate of abortion acceptance.
    All this leads to my conclusion that people are against abortion with certain exceptions and these are summarized below;
    - unless it is teenage daughter who is pregnant;
    - unless I am still in school or do not yet have a good job with health care benefits
    - unless the fetus has a significant long term health issues
    - unless my marriage is going to hell
    - unless we have all the children we want or can afford.

    1. Yup. Most of these pro life freaks have never been in the hot seat themselves, mainly due to a lack of reproductive opportunities. They are also the type who does not have the capacity for empathy for any situation they have not had close experience with. Thus, you get a bunch of people claiming to be pro life, who then get abortions when the alternative is having a lifelong liability in a severely handicapped child.

  27. In the future, when we (society) can remove a fertilized embryo and keep it alive outside the womb should we consider abortion to be illegal. At that point it will be difficult to find a moral ground for abortion. Until then, the fetus is reliant on another person and that person should have the final say - up to the point where society can claim full responsibility for the child without relying on the mother's life to sustain the child. As for whether society should be burdened by the financial costs of incubating a fetus to child - well that's another question all together.

    1. The situation your describe already exist for patients undergoing invitro fertilization. In the process egg are removed and fertilized, then implanted in the woman. Because the egg harvesting is invasive, excess eggs are extracted and fertilized. This always repeated attempts to implant eggs. Excess frozen embryos become an issue because what do you do with them. At some point they need to be implanted or dumped. Many are donated to researchers or just dumped.

      This would like be the same problem with an extracted embryo. At what point do you just give up and dump them?

      1. That's an interesting direction.

        As we currently only have the technology to implant embryos and not fetuses into another incubation entity (in this case another woman) then we are limited to the supply of wombs. Additionally, embryos generally last only a few year in the freezer. We can't just hold onto them forever (which would be an interesting idea to compensate for underpopulation in the decades ahead) - so that's another limitation of current technologies. Ultimately if enough women wants to abort, society currently does not have enough incubators to warrant general harvesting in place of abortion.

        So dumping nonviable embryos would become the standard practice - they simply died on their own and that's the "burial" they get.

  28. I noticed kirkland has been relatively quiet here, except he's still on volokh (with less bigotry after he got threatened with the ban hammer).

    Buttplug manages to shit post still which is mostly due to his criminal and pedo nature.

  29. Most people simply don't care if abortion is restricted to the first trimester or before a fetal heartbeat, the way it is in most other countries. There just aren't a lot of second or third trimester abortions.

    This is the kind of divisive non-issue that partisans and rags like Reason like to get people riled up over.

  30. I showed up in the comments section to witness a name-calling Donnybrook and an abortion discussion broke out!

  31. What’s amazing is how cowardly the pro-life position is. Abortion restrictions at 12 weeks are now the goal? Why? Millions of dead babies are going to be executed by abortion mills on pregnancies that haven’t reached 3 months yet. That’s killing another human and a child at that. The only acceptable solution for a child murderer and the child murdering doctor is to execute them. Let me know when you pro-lifers get some balls and some courage to advocate that, ok?

    1. Speaking of time machines, did your mom have a gofundme to pay for an abortion that came up short?

    2. See you got your Jump to Conclusions mat.

  32. The only libertarian debate about abortion is at what point in the pregnancy is there a person in there.

  33. Robert Jeffress, famed evangelical pastor, said the quiet part out loud on Fox News on Monday.

    ...I think this is the reason, by the way, that President Trump was elected in 2016 - was because of his promise of a conservative court pick. He fulfilled his promise in 2016 and 2020. We're now going to see what the Justices do and if they uphold their part of the deal.

    The evangelicals and other social conservatives that jumped on the Trump train were fully expecting that part of the "deal" was a Supreme Court that would overturn Roe, or at least severely limit it to the point where red states could ban it in practice, if not explicitly in law, even more than they already have.

    Of course, it is Democrats that politicized the courts.

    1. Anyone who's ever looked at a sonogram and isn't a perverted monster is hoping Roe is overturned.

      1. "Everyone that thinks differently about this issue from me is a perverted monster" isn't a great way to win people over to your side.

  34. And look up Jerry Falwell’s role in establishing pro life as a GOP tenet. None of the right cared before Falwell brought it to the forefront. It was seen as a fringe issue for Catholics to worry over. The origin of pro life on the right is in the desegragation backlash.

    A primer:>>>>>>> http://www.Cash44.club

  35. is there anybody who can give me more information about this news
    Also, make sure to visit this thing: best wired earbuds under 30

  36. The argument should be not if abortion restrictions should be allowed, but what restrictions are reasonable. You have the rights of two people the mother and the baby to consider. Additionally there is the father to consider. An abortion is an act of violence against the baby, but at what point does the baby acquire rights?

    Unrestricted abortion tilts everything in favor of the mother and against the baby. Outlawing abortions tilts in favor of the baby against the mother. The father is often ignored and not considered. There is the element of responsibility and situations where there was violence against the mother through rape and incest.

    This is a difficult topic that needs to be discussed while looking from various angles. Today there is the tendency to frame the topic in one side versus the other, but reality is more nuanced with multiple facets.

    1. I think the issue is far more straight forward than you may think. The real issue here is should a pregnant woman be allowed to work with her doctor and her support people to make a decision on continuing a pregnancy. If you notice the laws and many of the commenter have few issue when the pregnancy is early. This is likely the time when abortion is about a personal choice. Issues are I am not ready to be pregnant or I am not financially ready to raise a child.
      The abortions that upset people are later in the pregnancy when more difficult issues arise for the mother. In many cases, the parents. Here we are talking about making decisions about the mother's health or the child's health. I like many people believe this is a time when doctors, medical professional, and support people can best help the mother make what is likely a difficult decision. I don't want the State stepping in here to say they will make the decision, then leave and let the mother or parents deal with the consequences of that decision.

  37. #1 Issue with this -------- It is NOT the Job of the Union of States to *DICTATE* individuals healthcare, reproductive styles or removal of inner-body items.

    This is a subject that is FAR FAR FAR too personal to be any business of Government. Just as families should have ALL authority on when to pull a plug on life support so should families have that same authority over pregnancy ESPECIALLY when that life support is provided by another persons body.

    Roe v Wade was an ideal ruling. 27-Weeks is the shortest time any fetus has been survived by artificial life support. Before 27-Weeks there is ZERO (NONE, NODDA) chance of survival.

  38. Abortion is an act of aborting the womb to end a pregnancy. There are various reasons for a woman to have an abortion, including pregnancy outside of marriage, economic inability, lack of family support, and problems with her partner. On the other hand, an abortion can also be done if the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother or fetus.

    Bocoran Hk

  39. A witch told the princess that if she kept the frog under her pillow every day for 3 months, fed it and kissed it every day, there was no doubt it would turn into a prince at the end of the 3 months. Otherwise it would stay a frog and then die. The frog had no human consciousness and the same brain activity as a normal frog.

    The princess had no interest in supporting a prince. She threw the frog out of her bed and it died. Is she guilty of murder?

    I think not. The 6-week abortion bans make sense only to religious zealots who want to legislate their religion. It's dominionist Sharia law.

    1. The frog isn’t going to turn into a prince. And I’m not sure a witch giving someone an amphibian is the equivalent of consciously engaging in intercourse with protection that may result in becoming pregnant. So the analogy is rrally just a fairy tale.

  40. My real time work with face book I am making over $2000 a month operating low maint­enance. I continued h­earing distinctive people divulge to me how an lousy lot cash they can make on line so I selected to research it.wer All topics considered, it become all legitimate and has without a doubt changed my life. https://wapexclusive.com ,For more statistics visit below site here…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.