You may be right.
That and Lindsay’s proposal a few weeks before the election for federal legislation to ban all abortions after 15 weeks.
It certainly made a difference in Minnesota.
“I still think that ruling was the single biggest thing that blunted the 2022 red wave.”
That and the totally worthless GOP, would you settle for a tie? Time is running out for those losers, maybe a new Speaker will get people out to vote but the same ole’ song and dance ain’t gonna cut it as they say.
John Roberts was right, politically. It would have been better for the court to do a narrow decision, slightly rolling back abortion rights. Give time for states to adjust.
Dobbs was “correct” but looks like it ends up triggering a much more extreme set of pro-abortion laws.
If Roe v. Wade were put up to a vote, I agree that it would almost certainly win in almost all states. Unfortunately, but that's where we are.
That said, a chronic problem in voter referenda over the years has been opaque and sometimes deliberately misleading language. This is not limited to abortion, and it is certainly nothing new. The tactic is, of course, quite asymmetrical. The left conceals its purposes and relies on its dominance of the media to play bait and switch. Conservatives are far likelier to tell the truth.
This has been true on abortion for many years. An appalling number of Americans think that Roe was the standard prior to the Dobbs decision. That is of course laughable; Roe was left in the dust long ago but low information voters have no idea.
At the risk of oversimplifying, Roe's trimester scheme would translate into a 12 week window for abortion on demand, with abortions subject to close regulation in the second trimester and presumptively banned in the third trimester except to save the life or health of the mother -- with most voters understanding "health" to mean extremely serious physical complications. As everyone here understands, however, the health exception was exploited many years ago by the pro-abortion lobby and activist judges to shatter all limits.
In the post-Dobbs round of referenda, many voters -- probably a plurality -- troop to the polls thinking they are codifying Roe. They have no idea that the referendum language is pure bait and switch.
There is probably still strong majority support for parental notification and, in many states, parental consent. There is an age of emancipation issue embedded in this as well, but let's put that aside for the moment.
Majorities would support informed consent, including mandatory ultrasounds, notification by an impartial party -- not the abortionist or the staff at Planned Parenthood -- about alternatives to abortion and the support available to women who choose to carry the child to term.
Strong majorities would oppose very late stage abortions. It would vary state by state, but I would guess that in most states voters would be willing to draw the line at fetal viability and fetal pain. A fair number of states would vote in favor of a fetal heartbeat standard.
And I would guess that not one voter in ten has any idea that the whole trans agenda is being smuggled in via the false flag "codify Roe" campaigns.
The success of the bait and switch campaigns to date will ensure that these issues and more will be fought out state by state over the next several decades. The difference will be that the next time around, pro-lifers will be playing offense. It will be important to choose our fights carefully. The trans issues will be among the first to hit. Beyond that, informed consent is a winning issue. Ultrasounds are a winning issue. Fetal viability is a winning issue, with fetal pain as the followup. A strong, affirmative push for a preference for adoption is a winning issue, and the whole informed consent issue can be embodied in that. Conservatives will need to write referendum language that is clear and precisely tailored to specific, easily understandable goals that are difficult for the left to misrepresent.
The fight is just beginning.