Tomorrow marks the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade abortion decision. In "honor" of the anniversary, Time Magazine did a cover story article on the state of abortion "rights" and it is (thankfully if you're a pro-life supporter) not very good.
In January 1973, the Supreme Court made access to abortion a federally protected right. As I write in this week’s TIME cover story, that seemingly decisive victory 40 years ago kicked off a war that the pro-choice movement has been losing ever since.
I'm going to get this out of the way once for the whole post - EMPHASIS MINE.
In many parts of the country today, obtaining an abortion is more difficult than at any point since the 1970s.
There are fewer doctors willing to perform the procedure and fewer abortion clinics open for business.
As I pointed out last week, it is not just abortion clinics that are losing doctors. The NUMBER ONE medical specialty practice that gets sued the most is Obstetrics/Gynecology. There was a shortage of doctors to begin with and as more an more doctors leave medicine due to the ObamaCare payment schedules, women's health specialists are going to become a rarer thing to find. But hey - we all get "free" abortions so it's all good....if you can find a doctor.....
Pro-choice activists have been outflanked by their prolife counterparts, who have successfully lobbied for state-based regulations that limit access. Scores of states now require women to undergo counseling, waiting periods or ultrasounds prior to obtaining abortions. Minors across the country must often get permission from their parents if they want to terminate pregnancies.
OK this last line is one that has always burned me. If my minor daughter wanted to get her ears pierced or get a tattoo, I would have had to fill out multiple health notifications and permissions and waivers etc...and that is a good thing. It's called informed consent. Yet in many states, my minor daughter can have an invasive surgical procedure (which is what an abortion is) with no parental notification at all and the pro-abortion movement sees nothing wrong with that. Yet many of them were the same ones that pushed for notifications on ear piercings! It makes no logical sense.
The pro-life cause has been winning the abortion war, in part, because it has pursued an organized and well-executed strategy. But public opinion is also increasingly on their side. Thanks to prenatal ultrasound and advanced neonatology, Americans now understand what a fetus looks like and that babies born as early as 24 weeks can now survive. Although three-quarters of Americans believe abortion should be legal in some or all cases, most support state laws regulating the procedure and fewer and fewer are identifying themselves as “pro-choice” in public opinion surveys.
This is the first and only time that this navel gazing article mentions the one thing that, to me, is the most important piece of the puzzle. Thanks to the development of ultrasound technology the pro-aborts "it's just a clump of cells" theory has been shot to hell in a hand-basket. People are now able to see that (from day one) the baby in the womb looks like a human baby. It has a face, hands and feet. It has a heartbeat and it sucks it's thumb. It looks and acts like a baby and more an more people are treating it like a baby.
The full article (found here) goes into greater depth on the issues mentioned in the summary linked and quoted above. does note a couple of problems that the pro-abortion movement has with the general populace. First...
Pro-choice activists' failure to adapt to the shift in public attitudes on abortion has left their cause stranded in the past, says Frances Kissling, a longtime abortion-rights advocate and former president of Catholics for Choice. Kissling is part of a small group within the pro-choice movement trying to push the cause toward more nuanced stances. "The established pro-choice position--which essentially is: abortion should be legal, a private matter between a woman and her doctor, with no restriction or regulation beyond what is absolutely necessary to protect the woman's health--makes 50% of the population extremely uncomfortable and unwilling to associate with us," she says.
The general populace (and the mainstream pro-life movement) understands that there nuances in this debate that must be discussed. However, the pro-abortion establishment refuses to even discuss the nuances. The second problem is the one that is going to be hardest for the movement to overcome...
At the same time, a rebellion within the abortion-rights cause--pitting feminists in their 20s and 30s against pro-choice power brokers who were in their 20s and 30s when Roe was decided--threatens to tear it in two. Many young activists are bypassing the legacy feminist organizations that have historically protected access to abortion, weakening the pro-choice establishment at the very moment it needs to coalesce around new strategies to combat pro-life gains and connect with the public.
The pro-abortion power brokers are so drunk on their power and they are loathe to relinquish any of that power to the next generation. Meanwhile, the pro-life movement has taken great pains to welcome and groom new generations of leaders like Jill Stanek and Lila Rose who are making great in-roads with new generations of voters and legislators.
All that said, there is common ground to be had. The abortion industry needs to be as tightly regulated as any other elective surgical industry is. It is common sense and something that the old guard will never condescend to. Just as we can not have illegal back alley abortionists killing women, we don't need any more legal Kermit Gosnell's out there killing women.
Until that basic compromise can be made (by the old guard or by the new guard taking over) abortion rights will continue to die on the vine.