Dick Morris has an op-ed arguing that the strict anti-abortion laws just passed in states such as Alabama and Georgia are harming the pro-life movement by giving Democrats a rallying point to inflame their base and get voters to the polls.
He says the nation was already moving in a more pro-life direction, and was repulsed by the heartless late-term abortion bills in states such as New York. But these state anti-abortion laws, even though they’re purely symbolic unless or until Roe v. Wade is overturned, create a distraction that allows the media and leftist politicians and activists to change the subject from science and their own cruelty to “men trying to control women’s bodies.” It’s a nonsense charge (there are slightly more women than men who identify as pro-life; and their concern is protecting babies, not oppressing women), but one that’s very effective with their supporters.
Morris says that when the opposition is committing suicide, it’s best just to give them enough rope (not the best metaphor for the pro-life side, but he only means it figuratively.)
I’m not sure that whether the states passed anti-abortion laws or not, it would have made much difference to the pro-abortion forces’ reactions. They could sense public sentiment swinging against their position, and they can’t defend it scientifically, since science has been more and more on the pro-life side. So it was inevitable that even if the pro-life side hadn’t responded at all, they would have soon turned to deliberately inflaming emotions. I warned last week, when the Alabama bill passed, that even though it wouldn’t go into effect, it would spark a lot of political theater (it even has costumes: those ludicrous “Handmaid’s Tale” outfits that are kept hanging in the closet, ready to be pulled out for any occasion.)
If Roe v. Wade is ever challenged, it will have to be by a state wanting to change abortion laws. Personally, I think it’s best to stand up for what you think is right, and if people attack you for it, then just respond to them.
But I’ll let you respond in the comments: do you think it’s a tactical error to pass very restrictive abortion laws (including punishments for doctors and no exceptions for rape or incest) to ensure they end up in the Supreme Court because it might spark a backlash that helps the opposition distract from the real issue (protecting innocent life in the womb)? Should the states have waited until President Trump appointed another conservative to the SCOTUS? Or pass less restrictive limits to avoid giving an issue to the other side? Or would there have been just as much of an overboard, distracting reaction to any limits on abortion? Feel free to voice your opinion below.