From the article:
"And if the overturning of Roe v. Wade proved anything, it was that a large swath of Americans will readily accept the lies of abortion apologists to prevent even a hypothetical complete ban on abortion"
At some point off in the future, historians are going to look back and reasonably conclude that the overturning of Roe v. Wade was one of the worst strategic events ever made in the history of traditional-minded Republicanism. It was something they wanted for years, and when they finally got it, they found that it came with "unintended consequences".
By then it will be too late, and abortion-nearly-until-birth will have become ensconced in nearly every state either through the leftist legislatures (blue states) or by popular referendum (red states).
I've said this before and I'll say it again:
"The unborn" had better chances UNDER Roe than they now do without it.
Reason why:
Harry Blackmun's decision was based on the "trimester":
- first trimester, state had no say ("woman and her doctor")
- second trimester, the development of the fetus presumed that the state -could- have a rising interest in protecting the life
- third trimester, the state had considerable (full?) right to protect the fetus.
But with Roe gone, this has dissolved into the wind, and now the state legislatures and referendums aren't bound by it. They can pass anything they wish.
Again, the "right to life" was MORE protected under Roe, than it is now.
I invite those reading this to challenge and rebuke me.
