She Helped Kill Roe v Wade - Now She Wants to End Abortion in America

BBC ^ | 6/23

[nickcarraway]

SNIP

But Hawkins has a new, more ambitious goal: she wants to make abortion unthinkable and unavailable across the US.

In the year after Roe was overturned, Hawkins has gone into overdrive, growing the size and reach of SFLA and using that power to push state legislatures to pass increasingly severe bans. "That's the momentum thing, right? Like, ok, all of America is watching, push the gas pedal down on everything, right now," she said. "More, more, more, more, more."

Hawkins, now 38, is bolder and more unyielding than her predecessors, reflective of a new generation of activists moving towards their ultimate goal: a federal abortion ban, beginning at conception. "She's representative of the rightward shift in the movement… and how far the movement can go," said Mary Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California, Davis, and a leading expert on the US abortion debate. "Kristan is really important to understanding what comes next."

[No name given]

God bless Miss Hawkins!

[Rurudyne]

Sounds great!

[nickcarraway]

Ping

[Navy Patriot]

Can we abolish the BBC along with abortion?

[thefactor]

"She's representative of the rightward shift in the movement… and how far the movement can go."

I don't find this to be correct. Most people, in either party, agree on abortion. They support few restrictions in the first trimester, more restrictions in the second trimester, and severe restrictions in the third trimester.

Of course with today's media we only hear from the people who want zero abortions or the ones who want abortions up until a kid's third birthday. All of those people are crazy, IMHO.

[jacknhoo]

Well, it is murder and all murder should be not only illegal but abhorrent to every sane person.

In a civilized world, that’s how it will be.

[Dr. Sivana]

People who want zero baby killing are not crazy.

[HamiltonJay]

“Hawkins, now 38, is bolder and more unyielding than her predecessors, reflective of a new generation of activists moving towards their ultimate goal:”

Funny how when they describe leftist activists which such adjectives they are badges of honor, but someone fighting against the left, well those terms are all derogatory now.

[nickcarraway]

When Roe was decided, the majority were not for it, it took decades of propaganda for that.

Also, do you know trimester is not a medical term, the Supreme Court just made that up?

You should read Ronald Reagan's book on it.

[jdege]

I opposed Roe because it was a decision without support 8n the Constitution, and because it shortcut any political movement towards a reasonable compromise.

[thefactor]

I never said trimester is a medical term. Separating gestation into three equal parts is an easy (and lazy) way for normal people to think about abortion.

Personally, I think abortion laws should be left up the each of the States, so I was very happy to see Roe overturned. It also cost Republicans dearly in the mid-terms.

[Dilbert San Diego]

If we want federal abortion restrictions, why was there so much criticism of Lindsay Graham and his proposal for federal abortion restrictions? He was roundly criticized, here on Free Republic, for that proposal.

Was Lindsay Graham condemned here on Free Republic, because of people here disagreeing with his proposal, or was he criticized because people here dislike him for other reasons?

[nickcarraway]

It also cost Republicans dearly in the mid-terms.

Do you have any proof of that? Because I always see abortion as not a very important issue to voters who might switch, and especially below pocket book issues etc.

Also, do you think overturning Roe was necessarily a pro-life action? Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Roe was wrongly decided. You don't think she's some kind of right winger, do you?

[rottndog]

Feds don’t have jurisdiction. It’s a state issue, period.

[bankwalker]

Because he said it when he did to sway the election.

[nickcarraway]

Well, there are three reasons. I think some people are so swayed by the media, even when they think they aren't. I think a lot of people just listened to the media.

Secondly, there is an artful and and artless way of doing things. The way Graham did it seemed almost calculated to inflame the other side. It just wasn't a smart way to do it.

And the third reason is, conservatives just don't trust Graham, and I don't think they've ever seen him being a pro-life ally, not matter what it says his official position is. So when he did it in such a ham-fisted way it triggered their instincts.

But sadly, I think it was the first for many people. They just go along with the media.

[nickcarraway]

But they did have jurisdiction for the last 50 years?

[rottndog]

No, they legally didn’t. SCOTUS just corrected its’ previous mistake.

[thefactor]

There's data that single women voted in higher-than-expected numbers in the mid-terms mostly for Dems. The smart assumption is that they were scared by Dems into voting for them by saying Republicans were going to ban abortion outright.

Roe was wrongly decided. They just made it up. But the makeup of the court allowed them to make it up. Overturning it wasn't a pro-life action. It was a pro-Constitution action that righted a vile legal wrong.