Stanek weekend question: What must come first, defeating abortion on the national level or state level?
Update, 4:42p: Ack, sorry, I accidentally had comments off! Just fixed.
10:33a: Americans United for Life has issued an initial summary of 2011 state legislative actions on the Life issue, current as of July 13. It is impressive!
Also, a political insider shared interesting thoughts with me while I was in Washington this week. Quoting:
Something is happening: a shifting of the center of gravity back to the states. The progress we’re making on defunding the largest abortion provider in America in the state level ought to spur the imagination of every one of us. We cannot become myopic that every battle can be won in D.C. Federalism was at the center of what the founders believed.
There is great hope and promise at the state level. States will lead this country back to the values, principles, and practices that made this country great more than this city will. On the issue of the moment, public funding of abortion, we are winning at the state level.. The closer we get these issues to the life and values of the people of our country, the more confident we can be.
The successes I’m seeing on the state level as well as that comment are expanding (shifting?) my thoughts on defeating abortion. Here is another question Father Pavone asked pro-life leaders a few months back:
Choose one:
[ ] We must solve this problem first on the national level.
[ ] We must solve this problem first on a state or local level.
Thoughts on all this?
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Local and state, because it is possible for states large and small to listen to their population and make laws accordingly. Here in Canada, it must be on a province-by-province or territory-by-territory basis. This is because they decide and fund health care with provincial taxpayer money. Shockingly, however, “health” in these regions also consists of disgusting concepts including contraceptives, abortifacients like RU486 but birth control pills plus derivatives like emergency “contraception” too, and also common surgical abortions.
Re defeating abortion on the state level – fagetaboutit. In the liberal Northeast, we will remain, proudly, pro-choice. The Pacific coast states will also remain a bastion of pro-choice options. While the Great Lakes states will attempt to curtail abortion rights, there will be a push back. Poor Southern women. They’ll just have to travel unless the states where they live will enact “border” controls for all women until they are deemed not pregnant. Those that are, will be detained. Just joking – or am I?
As far as a national law, that’s just not going to happen given that the Senate holds the cards and they are nowhere near as anti-choice as the House. The ”cloture” rule will ensure that moderates Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Mark Kirk will prevent any anti-choice legislation from reaching the president who will, for the foreseeable future, veto it. But as it stands, all anti-choice bills will be aborted in the Senate.
And Roe – “stare decisis” – according to Catholic conservatives John Roberts (Chief Justice) and Sam Alito
And “Father” Pavone – yeah, right. That will get a lot of traction. Celibate Catholic priests telling all women, regardless of their religious orientations, what they are required to do with their reproductive organs. Yeah, right.
CC, I wouldn’t scoff at the idea of “defeating abortion on the state level”. Sure, it’s a bit old, but it’s rather interesting.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-04-16-abortion-states_x.htm
“Sure, it’s a bit old, but it’s rather interesting”
Actually, the map coincides with my commentary.
One United States Senator is all it takes to get a majority vote to either block legislation, or a U.S. Supreme Court candidate, which is where the proaborts have had an easier time of things all these years. It’s much more dynamic at the state level, where democracy is much more representative.
Just look at AUL’s summary of legislative action at the state level this year alone. There is nothing like it at the Federal level. Look at how many millions of dollars in PP funding has been cut by states, compared to Obama’s influence at the Federal level.
We look to the Federal level much like some hope for a grand slam homerun, but as any good baseball manager knows, it’s the cumulative effect of base hits that wins games. The state level is far more productive for us, and will help to shape who makes it to the Federal level.
“One United States Senator is all it takes to get a majority vote to either block legislation, or a U.S. Supreme Court candidate”
While the SCOTUS votes are majority, the candidates still have to make it out of committee. Also, Senate matters are subject to “cloture” which requires 60 votes. At present, there’s no cloture proof Republican majority. And while states have cut PP funding levels (clap hands for more pregnant low income women who will, rest assured, still get abortions) there are numerous law suits with several injunctions. (Kansas and Indiana). But despite Dr. Nadal’s prayers, there are still states, like mine, which will remain pro-choice. And funny, on paper, we have one of the hightest percentages of Catholics. In reality, nobody cares what Bishop Tobin thinks about anything.
Celibate Catholic priests telling all women, regardless of their religious orientations, what they are required to do with their reproductive organs. Yeah, right.
Then listen to the women telling you here EVERY. SINGLE. DAY.
Stop killing and supporting the killing of gestating human beings-our children-in utero. Pass laws to protect them and give them the respect they deserve as both human beings and our offspring. As more and more women learn what abortion is and what it actually does, abortion supporters lose traction. As medical technology advances further illustrating the humanity and dignity of the unborn, abortion support declines. Women are screaming for it to stop, and the more you try and say this is a women’s rights issue, the more obviously insane the position of killing our children pre-birth becomes, because women are begging for it to end here and now.
And if abortion is re-criminalized, all those women who aren’t willing to be a happy mommy will travel to Canada. (About three hours from southern New England). Others, with good “connections,” like the wealthy Irish Catholic women of my girlhood parish, will obtain “D&C”s. Some will have their operation done on a European vacay. Poor women will go to the many Dr. Gosnold’s who will be springing up all over. Some will do things to themselves which could kill them but that’s what happens to bad women who don’t want babies and good enough for them. Right? And those who can’t get abortions will live happily ever after. Oh, HAPPY DAYS. And for those babies (especially the minority and handicapped babies) who can’t get adopted, there will be lots of nice orphanages where they will be raised right. Just like the good old days when women “knew their place.”
On another note, does anybody remember the Black Slavery, where North states were typically more welcoming to slaves, while the South ones had harsh laws?
“Women are screaming for it to stop”
Really? The polls don’t bear that out. Nobody screaming in my state. In fact, about 200 of us “stood for Planned Parenthood” – including clergy (Once again, American Jews are pro-choice). The anti-choicers got about 50 people. Funny, if women were screaming for abortion to stop they wouldn’t be getting abortions – oh right, they’re just silly lil gals who are forced into having abortions.
“because women are begging for it to end here and now”
They need to scream louder because our legislature (a number of whom are women) aren’t involved in anti-choice legislation. But in the recent past, when anti-choice stuff is proposed, our side screams. And we are heard.
“On another note, does anybody remember the Black Slavery, where North states were typically more welcoming to slaves, while the South ones had harsh laws?”
Right. We didn’t believe in breeding slaves then and we don’t believe that women need to be breeders now. Sorry for the reality check but there’s a whole section of this country that doesn’t believe in what you do.
Then I guess the discussion we’re having right now about the wave of “anti-choice” legislation that’s been sweeping the country state-by-state is the result of some mass hallucination. 9_9
CC,
What is it in you that makes you come here over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over…
and champion the right of a woman to have another human being ripped to shreds? It’s sick and depraved, and so are you for dedicating hundreds, and hundreds of hours to protecting this murderous institution. Being suddenly pregnant and without resources is understandable. Your advocacy, from the safety of your advanced years is not. God is waiting to take you back with an ocean of love and mercy whenever you decide that you’re tired of wallowing in your own vomit. My sincerest prayers are with you.
Thread derailment ended . Perhaps we can get back to discussing the topic at hand.
“Actually, the map coincides with my commentary.”
Kind of. It isn’t just states in the South that would move to restrict abortion access if Roe v. Wade is overturned. It’s also most of the midwest and parts of the West. Those areas which would leave abortion widely legal as it is harbor a minority of the U.S. population. A majority of states haboring the majority of the population moving to curtail access to abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned isn’t something to scoff at. Of course, most pro-choicers know this, which is why they continue to fight to keep Roe v. Wade the law of the land.
We need to solve the problem at the state and local level first. Build and support a culture that loves life at the local level, so state legislature can pass pro-life laws and show the rest of the country that the laws won’t hurt women.
I’m going to be difficult and refuse to pick.
Look at it this way: there’s enough infighting in the pro-life movement as it is. Incremental vs. personhood, graphic images vs. not, protest at abortionists’ homes vs. don’t, and on and on and on. And really, since each of these methods have been shown to be effective at various times and places we ought to stop arguing with each other about them and just all do as we think would be most effective. Maybe personhood will be adopted next year. I don’t think it will, but it’s possible so I’m not going to tell the personhood people not to try and get it enacted. But there are some people who will run around terrified that movement on the personhood level before it does have a chance of working will end the pro-life movement ~*FOREVER*~. On the other hand, every time there is an incremental victory that demonstrably reduces abortions and paves the way for a permanent end to it, out come the critics saying it’s not good enough to save as many children as you can when faced with a situation where you can’t save them all.
And of course both critics are ridiculous for exactly the same reasons: no one knows what will happen in the future so people working to end abortion from multiple avenues is a good thing. Don’t attack someone else using a different method to end abortion than you are because they may be successful faster than you and should not be forced to waste energy fending off people who are meant to be their allies. By the same token, you may get there faster than them. And who cares who puts the capstone on, anyway? As long as abortion is ended does it matter if it was ended by this person’s pet plan or that one?
For that same reason, there should be people working at both state and federal levels. There’s no need to concentrate on one to the exclusion of the other. In fact, because of the way our nation is set up, we can’t use one to bring the other right. Do both. Both is good.
States will make it very inconvenient to get an abortion before anything major happens federally.
To defeat abortion, stop paying for it, and legally remove any obligations imposed on health care workers to participate in chemical or surgical abortion.
Those two things alone will make abortion very rare.
CC seems to think that voting patterns and attitudes about abortion are not subject to change, but they are. The western world is facing a severe demographic decline and the abortion culture is a big part of it. We are just now beginning to see the terrible consequences of this anti-natalist worldview and politicians are waking up. Who would have ever thought even just a few years ago that Russia would be considering banning abortion? Voters are already trending right in Europe and believe me, folks, this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Also, consider how polls all show young people being more pro-life than older people. Now, I have not examined the data, but could it be the inevitable result of ”liberals” failing to reproduce themselves? It is well known that conservatives are more likely to be pro-life and also have many more children than liberals. Will demographic destiny finally doom the progressive, “pro-choice” liberal? Will conservative, pro-life voting blocs get bigger and bigger in the coming years?
Why is it that so many liberals yell and scream about the government “telling women what to do with their own bodies” but then have no problem with ObamaCare? Isn’t that going to be “telling” us what to do with quite a few more parts of our bodies, and/or WHEN to do those things? (such as be on waiting lists)
“States will make it very inconvenient to get an abortion before anything major happens federally.
To defeat abortion, stop paying for it, and legally remove any obligations imposed on health care workers to participate in chemical or surgical abortion.Those two things alone will make abortion very rare.”
Don’t know about all that. Of course, defunding and conscience clauses are important, but Florida has one of the highest abortion rates in the country (only beaten by DC, New York, and Delaware), and we have conscience laws on the books and funding restrictions. We also have parental notification (but not consent) laws, and I think around 70% of counties don’t even have an abortion providing clinic. Something more has got to be done, as these restrictions don’t seem to have reduced the rate of abortions as far as my state goes, and we are pretty conservative. Something at the national level would definitely help, as then state level groups would have more lee-way to get pro-life bills introduced and passed. One problem is the more liberal swing counties that block legislation with votes. A national level bill would certainly help.
neither. we must win our neighbors’ hearts first.
Maybe I’m missing something, but you can’t win at the state level without winning at the federal level…which you must win at the state level first. A state has to actually pass a ban (which, for all the state progress, no state has come close to touching) – then it has to go to court, advance through the levels and reach the supreme court, which actually has to then allow the state ban. Then all the individual states can pass legislation – though as a few readers have noted – we will just get to a point of bussing people across state lines for abortions. So a constitutional amendment will be needed to make it a full federal issue.
Fortunately for the right, over time, science (especially genetic tinkering) will force some interesting conversations (imagine if they ever found a ‘gay’ gene).
Fortunately for the left, the right sees an abortion victory these days as simply not having to pay for it. The bar for victory and progress has massively lowered.
Support Ron Paul’s “Sanctity of Life Act” and overturn Roe v. Wade. That will at least put the matter back in the hands of the States and get the Feds out of the business.
Because abortion is child murder, how would you answer the same question if it were asked about, say, one-year-olds?
Atually, it doesn’t matter. We should do whichever one we have the opportunity to do first. It looks like for now the states are the ones we can work with. We lose a lot of ground and miss the chance to save a lot of lives if we don’t work on the states while we can, especially if there isn’t an opportunity to work on the national level at this time. So for now we should work on the state level. But if the opportunity comes to do it in one fell swoop at the national level, then we should jump at that chance.
I’ll be frank; I don’t really know much about the details of how the government branches work in the U.S. (seeing as I don’t live there), so I can’t claim much authority on the matter.
But when I think of this question, the first thing that comes to mind is: why not go for both simultaneously?
Simply put, make it increasingly clear that failure to defend the unborn, the aged, and the ill at any level of government is unacceptable. The way to do this is to continue doing what we’ve been doing: pray for the conversion of hearts and a spread of the truth (for those of us who do); educate people on the reality of abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and other life issues; expose the fundamental deceptions of the culture of death and demand their elimination.
Personally, I imagine that re-establishing a culture of life at the federal level would be more effective than at the state level (again, largely speculation on my part), but I liken it to chess; as you eliminate your opponent’s pieces and position your own in order to gain better control of the board, always keep an eye out for opportunities to instead go straight for the checkmate and end it quickly.
State Personhood amendments don’t even use the word abortion. This is how, when they get to the Supreme Court, Roe isn’t overturned, but personhood for all is protected under the 14th amendment. This “train wreck” with Roe, as they call it, wouldn’t pass the issue back to the states. If successful, it would end it – as abruptly as Roe did. The opportunity is now.
The more states (and local governments?) to pass Personhood amendments/legislation, the more precedent is set when one of them gets to the Supreme Court. MISSISSPPI will do that this fall, especially if the prolife movement unites and helps!!!! North Dakota, Montana and Nevada had shots but opposition from conservation/prolife groups crippled them.
It is important that we argue this out so that our efforts can unite as much as possible. Because of advice from Americans United for Life (Clarke Forsythe) and the USCCB (Richard Doerflinger), Catholic Bishops have opposed or haven’t supported Personhood efforts in every state. These are the folks who need to be convinced to work on all levels.
Clarke Forsythe, though not Catholic, talks to the Bishops in Catholic lingo, using words like “prudence”. Richard Doerflinger instructs the Catholic Conferences in every state to oppose Personhood efforts. These guys are the ones dividing the Pro-life movement.
See Catholic Attorney Robert Muise’s arguments for Personhood: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dPR3_HlVGs
Jill, and Gerard Nadal, what do you have to say about this?
I know this is rather simplified, but I’ve always wondered about the attitudes of the so-called “pro-choice” position (we all know that there is no such thing – either you’re pro-life, or pro-abortion, since only cowards will take the middle ground on abortion). If you are “pro-choice”, why does my pro-life position bother you? It is, after all, a choice, isn’t it?
Like it or not, America is waking up and becoming more and more pro-life, not only because of advances in technology which show that it is a baby, but because of the exposure of the horrors of the abortion industry itself. Anytime you think that a legal abortion is safe, think Kermit Gosnell, Steven Brigham, Shelly Sella….I could go on.
I believe that more progress has been made at the state level, and as more and more states pass laws protecting women from the predators and criminals that infest the abortion industry, then national legislation will follow.
You can tell we’re successful by the nastiness and hatred displayed non-stop by pro-aborts. Keep it up!
Neither of those – defeating abortion on a personal level must happen first.
CORRECTION TO MY POST ABOVE:
Line 5 of paragraph 2: “conservative”, not “conservation. Sorry.
ADDITION: Kansas is also in the fray and Troy Newman (Operation Rescue) is opposing Personhood efforts saying the votes aren’t there on the Supremem Court. Troy – and when will the opportunity be better? Kennedy will be worse than an Obama appointee?
The time is now to GO FOR IT!!! How many times did Partial Birth Abortion have to be brought to the Supreme Court? How many pro-life years and dollars, only to result in instructions from the bench telling doctors how to alter their procedures a bit to get around the ban?
I am going with the local and state level while at the same time changing hearts and minds on abortion.
All of the so-called incremental state laws, which regulate child killing, not end it, supersede Roe v Wade. If Roe v Wade went away tomorrow morning, a state law that says “View an ultrasound and then you can kill your baby” would take precedent. That’s why such laws are so evil and wicked. God’s 6th commandment says, “Thou shall not murder.” It does not say, “Murder some until you can figure out how not to murder any.” Despite all of the hundreds of state incremental laws on the books right now, still tomorrow, 3,000 to 4,000 preborn children will be murdered and not even one of those state laws has the authority to stop even one of those murders.
So instead of “doing both” as someone suggested (that’s called being double-minded which the Word of God warns against), let’s all fight to lawfully establish the personhood of all human beings from the beginning of their biological development. Then neither Roe v Wade nor incremental laws which allow for the murder of some babies will be relevant.
I agree that this weekend question serves no constructive purpose. Doesn’t it stand to reason that we must work on all levels? Why set up a false dichotomy here? At most, all such talk does is pit one group of pro-lifers against another – and all for the sake of mere discussion??
I think the question is a bit misleading. It should read “What must come first, defunding and re-criminalising abortion on the national level or state level?’ because you won’t defeat it, you’ll just push it back underground and/or over the borders.
“you won’t defeat it, you’ll just push it back underground and/or over the borders.”
Sadly, this is likely very true; since before this civilization began, many other forms of murder have been illegal and socially stigmatized, and yet they continue to this day. The same goes for arson, theft, and a number of other immoral acts.
However, abortion is already falling as a socially acceptable option and in this regard, it will be defeated (quite possibly in our own lifetimes).
True, there will be those who will still insist on perpetuating this evil practice, but then, the KKK is still operating in the U.S., despite black people having been recognized as people many years ago. The inability to completely eliminate something bad is a very poor excuse for not setting oneself against it and declaring it as such.
I look forward to the day when finding that a mother has had an abortion will not be seen as an unimportant occurrence by the powers the be, but will instead be treated as the dire situation that it is. An investigation to find the reasons for her actions – be they financial, coercion, psychological, or something else altogether – would then allow a real solution to be found and for the mother to receive the help she needs. No more would she simply be sent on her way with the delusion that abortion has no significant or long-lasting ill effects.
There’s something I’d like to ask of the women here who have had an abortion, if I may; I would expect that, in their denial of the true nature of abortion and especially post-abortive problems and their extent, government aid agencies and psychiactric bodies were anywhere from insufficient to utterly useless in helping to deal with either of them. Would you say that’s fairly accurate?
You’re beating a dead horse by attempting to equate abortion to things such as murder Maestro. It’s more akin to women being allowed to vote. Or do you see that as immoral?
“However, abortion is already falling as a socially acceptable option and in this regard, it will be defeated (quite possibly in our own lifetimes)” – wow, a delusion and a dream all in one sentence! Since it’s been around since before jesus, it’s hardly likely to be defeated. Or is you not being able to see it happening mean it doesn’t happen?
So Reality, why is it beating a dead horse for Maestro to speak of it as he understands it, but not for you to speak of it as you understand it?
You two disagree. To the extent that each of you merely assert the same thing over and over, you’re both “beating a dead horse.” What’s a bit weird, though, is for one of you to imagine that only the other is doing so — and to say as much while landing yet one more blow on this dead horse.
If women’s unborn children started dying whenever they voted, I reckon all the polls would be shut down pending an enormous investigation.
Once again, the lurkers have derailed the real discussion.
The incrementalists in the prolife movement have been so used to a “prudent” inching forward, waiting for the culture to catch up. that they have grown old, unable to move fast when things change quickly, as they have in the last couple of years.
The Tea Party, demands to audit the Fed and hold the bankers responsible for looting the economy, Defund Planned Parenthood,etc., the Personhood movement, all are signs of people awakening to the hoodwinking of the culture. All the major conservative talk show guys (including Alex Jones) are vehemently anti-abortion.
My God, if Boehner hadn’t blinked, he could have brought the Federal government to its knees over defunding Planned Parenthood.
Next time, let’s up the ante – outlaw IVF. Force them to focus on the rights of children intentionally “created” in petri dishes then “chosen” by lab technicians doing preimplantation genetic diagnosis to either be inserted into the womb, frozen, or culled. No woman/mother making a choice here. Expose where acceptance of abortion has brought us – to modern day eugenics.
We are living in a Brave New World and it’s getting worse by the minute. The time for incrementalism is over. Hit em where they have no defense- at both Federal and State levels (with State taking the lead most times). There is no denying when human life begins. Keep that in the forefront of every discussion.
This is a civil rights movement and while you’re playing in the surf with incrementalism, you’re going to miss catching the big wave.
You are absolutely right, Hiawitha. It is time to get on the offensive and play aggressive. Banning IVF would be a great start.
I remember a few years ago when the Human Life Amendment was proposed some pro-abortionists were trying to say that it would outlaw IVF and this was supposedly a bad thing. IVF is very unethical and has many hidden dangers (higher risks of cancer, birth defects, etc) and has directly led to PGD which is an even more unethical procedure. Pro-lifers often ignore these issues, but they all stem from the same mindset that has given us our abortion culture. It is time to start severely restricting both the fertility and abortion industry and start promoting a culture that does not treat children as commodities and respects the inherent dignity of each and every human life.
I think I merely prodded it’s rotting corpse with my toe rasqual ;-)
“If women’s unborn children started dying whenever they voted, I reckon all the polls would be shut down pending an enormous investigation.” – well of course. It doesn’t sound like the women are having a choice in the scenario you draw.