The pro-life exercise plans for a future without roe

The pro-life exercise plans for a future without roe

Last week the Supreme Court heard arguments about a Mississippi law banning abortion after fifteen weeks of gestation in direct disregard of the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion case. At least five of the court’s six Conservative justices appeared ready to uphold the law and forego Roe altogether, allowing states to ban abortion to any extent desired. The court is also reviewing a Texas law that bans abortion after six weeks and allows citizens to sue anyone who performs or “aids and supports” an abortion that violates that restriction.

With the pro-life movement close to achieving its long-cherished goal of defeating Roe, I spoke to Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, a nonprofit that supports pro-life politicians. Dannenfelser, who has headed the organization since 1993, attaches particular importance to portraying the pro-life movement as promoting women. Although initially skeptical of Donald Trump, she supported his campaigns in 2016 and 2020 and was his pro-life coalition leader last year. During our conversation, edited for length and clarity, we discussed their expectations of the Mississippi ruling, the prospect of a national abortion ban if Republicans regain power, and the pro-life movement’s plans to support people who may no longer have access to abortions in many states.

How did you find the oral presentation last week?

I went in cautiously optimistic and went out very hopeful – based on the questions asked, based on what I believed to be the relatively thin arguments of the Democrat-appointed judges. It’s possible that Mississippi law could be upheld by a 6-3 or 5-4 decision. The reason I hope is that if so, they answered the question, “Is it constitutional to limit abortion before viability?” With an answer of yes. This is the first change in abortion law in 48 years, something we have been working on for quite some time.

How would you view Mississippi law compliance without a more formal or clear statement on Roe?

I know there’s a lot of discussion about a middle ground – a new test that’s hard to imagine, but I’m not a lawyer. If fifteen weeks are observed and we then have to grapple with another new rule for other states, we would of course see that for exactly what it is: a partial success. Either way, whether it’s partial success or total overthrow, we have our work to ourselves in states across the country. In fact, each individual state could have a period of fifteen weeks. We’re not going to go into fifty states right away because you need to triage. There are at least thirty states that could potentially exceed fifteen weeks and that would save many lives and there will be many women in need who need our help.

How do you think of Texas law versus Mississippi law in terms of your goals for the pro-life movement?

I think it’s going to be a moot point soon. the [Texas] The enforcement mechanism grew out of frustration, almost 48 years of nothing being enforced. I can hardly imagine that in the future, after the Mississippi decision, the same type of law would be required with this type of enforcement mechanism. It will be the traditional means of enforcement. Is that what you meant

I was just curious how you see the two laws and whether you find either of them a better or a worse law.

The big win, by far, is keeping Mississippi going, knocking Roe down, and then we go back to traditional enforcement. In Texas, I would never have opted for the Heartbeat bill. I understand how it arises from frustration. I think it actually saved many lives. It also gave us an unexpected snapshot of what might lie ahead. We have long been in the planning phase to be successful. That was an important test run.

In what sense?

There are needs of women that we need to meet and more children are being born whose needs and those of their mothers need to be addressed. I think we will have much better preparation if Roe is knocked over or given a minimum of 15 weeks. We have a card. We know what to do.

What did you mean when you mentioned traditional enforcement mechanisms? If abortion is banned after about fifteen weeks, how can this best be enforced with regard to doctors and affected women?

Well, my view, and the view of the entire movement – without exception that I am aware of – is that the doctor who tries to break the law is the culprit. The law is enforced against this person, not the woman.

What if we talk about a woman who gets abortion pills?

Well then the people who sell these pills and bring them to their house are mighty guilty. You obviously planned ahead of time to break the law.

If a woman is doing what you think will end a human life, do you think she shouldn’t be punished because it’s politically unsustainable, or do you think she doesn’t deserve punishment?

I understand your question. I think she is in a very difficult place. She is unhappy, stays up all night, does not know the way out and needs mercy, and there has to be justice too. My view is [that] All the mercy we can give her, we should, and the guy who benefits from her misery should experience the sharp end of justice. It also agrees with the suffragists who really thought women were being exploited. One of my favorite quotes from Susan B. Anthony’s newspaper The Revolution is, “It,” what abortion means, “will weigh on your conscience in life; it will weigh on your soul in death; but alas! whoever is guilty three times. . . drove them into the desperation that drove them to the crime. “

Imagine a man or woman procures an abortion pill for his or her daughter. How do you see such a case?

You can ask it in many different ways. The third party, I think, is the people who make the pill, don’t monitor where it goes, don’t regulate where it goes, they just mail it out.

To leave Roe aside for a moment, is abortion an issue that Congress should address?

The twenty week limit was the federal standard – or was the main bill we lobbied for and voted on over and over again. The same law was passed across the country. It is an academic exercise because of course it never comes into effect. Wherever there is a legislator who must respond to consensus and enact laws that reflect that consensus, that legislator should act. That should be states plus federal government.

Politics aside, what is the ideal abortion law for the federal government?

Source link


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here