A spoke previously about post Roe policy and pro-choice Anna Quindlen’s Newsweek article, How Much Jail Time?. In his August 15 op-ed for the West Branch Times, Gregory R. Norfleet reflects on that column and the pro-choicers’ ultimatum for pro-lifers: either throw women and jail for having abortions or keep abortion legal:
Quindlen’s column seems to imply that she’s getting tired of abortion opponents’ constant pounding away at the law as written. Indeed, since Roe v. Wade, abortion opponents have successfully chipped away at it with things like parental notification laws, rights for the unborn and “partial-birth abortion” restrictions. Quindlen does not try to advance the discussion, but to end it.
Here’s another question: Put yourself in place of the baby — how would you feel if your mother weighed the pros and cons of an abortion based upon how it affected her future without giving the same weight to how if affected yours?
When John Roberts was facing a Senate panel before becoming Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, abortion proponents in the Senate wondered how he would handle an abortion case, and kept referring to the 1973 decision as “settled law.” It should be easy to argue that a law that has stood for 34 years is “settled,” but not when it comes to abortion. The fight still rages, and it has been a major question of presidential, congressional and gubernatorial races ever since then.
It could be that Quindlen and other “pro-choicers” realize they are starting to lose ground and would rather someone come along and say the game should end while the abortion proponents are still ahead.
It seems unlikely.