Thoughts on the Death of Roe

My prediction is that abortion rates will remain steady nationally (since women in red states will go to Blue ones or attempt to use abortifacients themselves). That will lead to higher maternal mortality rates in Red States. This will absolutely happen if (as seems quite possible) the GOP takes control of the Legislative branch and inflict more economic sadism on the poor or, worse still, takes the Executive in 2024 as well. Miscarrying women will, in Red States, be subjected to suspicion and investigation, on top of the grief they bear, because the cruelty is a feature, not a bug for the Cult. Compassion is an emphatically minority view for MAGA “prolife” superstars.

This prediction is based on evidence.

My other prediction is that pointing this out will go largely unnoticed by people whose monomaniac goal for 40 years has simply been OVERTURN ROE! Because the overturning of Roe has become an article of the creed and the focus of millions of MAGA “prolife” people has become performative piety, not actually pursuing policies that save lives. That’s why they are silent about and do not care that Trump raised abortion rates by 8%, reversing a 30 year downward trend that saw its greatest declines under the hated Clinton and reached its lowest point under the hated Obama/Biden.

“I am committed to overturning Roe” long ago became a shibboleth that you were supposed to say in order to pass muster as a “real” prolife person and, above all, a “real” Christian. The question, “But suppose that actually makes everything worse, including for the unborn” was not permitted among the Performatively Pious.

Now that day has come and they have what they want. The dog caught the car. And I am morally certain it will be as successful as Prohibition. Abortions will hold steady or continue to rise if the GOP claws its way back to power and maternal deaths will spike. And Consistent Life Ethic people like me, whose interest is in actually saving lives and not performative piety high-fives over empty culture war spite, will be smeared as “pro-abortion” by the Righteous, even as they drive up abortion rates and maternal mortality rates.

Way to go. You sold your souls to Trump for this.

“To get the man’s soul and give him *nothing* in return–that is what truly gladdens the heart of our Father below.” – Uncle Screwtape on the triumph of the MAGA cult of death.

More discussion of the road ahead tomorrow.


50 Responses

  1. It is interesting how you can be so right and so wrong at the same time. The only estimate I have seen for a decrease in abortions resulting from Dobbs that is based on some actual research (by a pro-abortion group, not just a pro-choice one) is 13%. That sounds optimistic to me. With New York, California and Pennsylvania actively promoting abortion tourism I am dubious the impact will be even that great.

    The pro-life movement has been around since Donald Trump was cheating on his first wife. That is something you know. Why you believe that people who have poured so much time and resources into crisis pregnancy centers supporting mothers with pre and post natal care as well as formula, diapers and all those other baby necessities are just a bunch of stooges for some Donald come lately is beyond me. They were around before MAGA was a thing and will still be around when Trump is worm’s meat. I understand that you have been injured by Trumpistas. Most of the people I know in the pro life movement were Democrats and still would be if the Democratic party had not so joyfully gone out of its way to make it known that we were anathema. I managed to stick it out until 1999 when I had to finish a journey out of the party that they forced me to start when the so proudly humiliated Bob Casey, Sr, (as in Casey v Planned Parenthood and not to be confused with his son, the senator who does not have his dad’s eyebrows), then Governor of Pennsylvania when they could not find a time for him to speak at the national convention but made some for a pro abortion Republican attorney from Harrisburg (his state capital, for those not realizing.) When they started supporting primarying incumbents who were pro-life they succeeded in making them an endangered species, so much so the Henry Cuellar and John Bel Edwards may be the only ones left. Extinction is the goal and will soon be achieved. Most of them are no more comfortable in the evil stupid party than we were in the stupid evil party. They are G W Bush Republicans, the ones Trumpistas call RINOs.

    Don’t make the mistake of thinking Dobbs was the end the pro-life movement wanted, it is just a necessary win along the way. We are not going away, and we will keep going about trying to give mothers a choice that does not drive them to the despair of killing a child because they have been terrified into thinking there is no help and no hope.

    1. On a scale from 1-10, how happy does it make you that children will be forced by the state to bear their own siblings in pro-life nirvanas like Texas and Alabama?

    2. I would pray you are right that the pro-life movement will be involved in providing mothers and fathers the pathway to not being in tge place of seeking an abortion. However, to do so means providing affordable healthcare, housing that is not substandard, affordable childcare, the much needed paid maternal and yes paternal leave to ensure an appropriate beginning to life, an economy that supports families and not merely making money. Unfortunately, given the political name up of the pro-life movement I don’t see that happening.

      1. @ Andy

        One can only hope, but allow me to be sceptical. What I see, is mostly the old conservative-liberal stuff becoming more entrenched.

        On the one side, we have the blushing pro-choice Catholic who is afraid of his or her own shadow. These people have been pro-choice for a long time, and all they can come up with now is some hollow call to more social justice for women. This won’t satisfy them, because deep down they are already liberals, and they just loved Roe.

        On the other hand, we have the type of pro-life conservative Catholic who says things like ”And no Ms. Eden, we don’t get to equate political legislation to the Gospel call to feed the hungry and clothe the naked” (in response to some post by D.E. Goldstein). They think that handing out a few diapers is all it takes, blissfully and tragically unaware of the entire social doctrine of the Catholic church.

        PS: I can imagine that trying to convince some in the pro-life movement of what you propose, is .. trying. Have you ever tried to talk to pro-choicers about maternal leave, while making clear you are in favor of legally restricting abortion? Try it. I’d say it’s hilarious, if it wasn’t so tragic.

    3. David Gerard, two things to share from a very mainstream Catholic source, EWTN’s Sonrise Morning Show:

      – Morning host Anna Mitchell saying, Now that Roe is about to be overturned we will have to get busy providing all the support that’s necessary for women in problem pregnancies. And I wonder, what was the reason for waiting til then? Why are the Catholic Bishops coming out *now*, responding the decision with a commitment to love for mother and child, what was the reason for waiting?

      -Teresa Tomeo, full disclosure that woman annoys me no end, said recently that the Catholic Church provides enormous support for women in crisis pregnancies, no matter what their difficulties are, and it’s “the Church’s best-kept secret”. And again I wonder, why is that?

      Why, if you and others like you are pouring time and resources, providing diapers and medical care and formula and on and on and on — why is this not widely known? I want it to be true, that the Church is putting huge efforts into fighting for things like medical care for pregnant women and new mothers, and just wages and affordable childcare. So why hide the light under a bushel basket?

  2. Well, as of right now, women no longer have the right to carry a pregnancy to term. You weren’t expecting that? Well that’s the thing about choice: it cuts both ways. Now its up to the states.

    That means that a state can now decide that so called “anchor-babies” are a problem, and force abortions on undocumented immigrants, non-citizens or any other group deemed “undesirable”. It also means that states can implement policies similar to the one-child policy in China. Even some well-meaning, but misguided liberals, can now determine that women should not be allowed to undertake certain types of high-risk pregnancies and mandate abortions for those cases, instead of letting individuals make their own choice at their own risk.

    You might think that there is no current significant political demographic that is advocating for such things, and you might be right; however, once you eliminate a women’s right to choose as a fundamental legal principle, it is now completely contingent on the whims of the future cultural shifts of whomever is in charge.

    Keep in mind that some of the things I’ve pointed out have been implemented by the government in some place, at some time, including by our own, so can’t rule out the possibility of that happening down the line, especially once we’ve eliminated the legal recourse that would’ve struck down any such provisions. If such thing ever does come to pass, we will have this moment to point to as a catalyst.

    OF course, you can also make the case that functionally speaking, its already been happening for some time now. Sure, technically speaking, red states are implementing policies that make it harder to get an abortion, but they’re also making it harder to survive childbirth and early infancy, in a way that disproportionately affects certain groups:

    “GOP Senator: LA’s Maternal Death Rate Is Bad If You Include Black Women”

    So those higher maternity rates? For many in the “pro-life” movement, I’d say they’re not a bug: they’re a feature.

    1. “however, once you eliminate a women’s right to choose as a fundamental legal principle”

      This sounds as if there were no pro-life women or as if support for legal abortion among women was significantly higher than among men than among women in a given population and that women are oppressed by men who restrict abortion for women.

  3. @Artevelde

    “Have you ever tried to talk to pro-choicers about maternal leave, while making clear you are in favor of legally restricting abortion? Try it. I’d say it’s hilarious, if it wasn’t so tragic.”

    OK, serious question. So, you slice the world into “conservatives” and “liberals”, and assign all the pro-choicers into the liberal box, yes? But in the States, the liberals are the ones who think there should be universal healthcare, and parental leave, and similar. It’s American Conservatives who say that those things are Socialism, or Communism, or a restraint on the Capitalist system. My question is, what have I misunderstood about the situation above?

    1. I think Artevelde is saying that it’s very difficult for pro-choice people to perceive that a person can be both against abortion and in favor of social justice programs.

      1. @ Suzanne

        That is a very charitable reading of what I’m saying, and it may be true for some. I think it’s worse though. Most of them *can* perceive it, but they’re only marginally interested in people like me. Abortion on demand is their main thing, not maternal leave.

        As Joe Biden says ”this fall, Roe is on the ballot”. He could have said ”this fall, maternal leave is on the ballot”.

      2. You could be right about that. The Consistent Ethic of Life voice is small compared to roar of the MAGAs, and most of the latter seem to be full of anger and hatred. It might easily be the case that a pro-choice person has never heard anybody express the view that society has an obligation to make sure all its members flourish, and then explain why that would include life from the moment of conception.

        I understand the passion that underlies that last bit. It would be helpful in dialog if those voices could be heard. It would also be helpful if those same voices didn’t have to overcome the lies and rage of the MAGAs.

    2. @ Elisabeth.

      What you have missed is that the chance that a liberal is mentally unable to even grasp the concept of maternal leave legislation without page one saying ”ABORTION IS HEALTHCARE”.

      I’m serious, I’ve tried it. Try talking to the average liberal about ANY form of helping women, while making clear you are in favor of overturning Roe, and you won’t get anywhere. You’d be violating their first commandment.

      1. I’ve seen the way you conduct these arguments, and you always frame it as liberals having to make some kind of “deal”, where they can get expanded healthcare policies in exchange for them giving up their advocacy for a woman’s right to get an abortion. That prerequisite is completely asinine and disingenuous, because we both know that one thing is not contingent on the other.

        Democrats constantly propose legislation that would help struggling families and the Republicans oppose it almost unanimously every time, regardless of whether or not it has any provisions related to abortion. So please spare me this idea that its “liberals” who are standing in the way of such policies being implemented.

      2. You probably aren’t trying to insult me, right? Because you can deduce from what I’ve written here and elsewhere that I’d be put in the Liberal box? “Mentally unable” and “first commandment” and so forth?

        I grant that some don’t or can’t see womens’ rights issues without including abortion. Those are difficult conversations to have and almost never successful at first. It’s not because I’m always talking to stupid people, or to moral idiots. YMMV. And a person can believe, and even try to persuade another, that abortion is a serious moral issue without making the case that it should be outlawed in every situation.

      3. @ 3vil5triker

        You misunderstand or misconstrue what I’m saying.

        1. I never said that it is Democrats who stand in the way of legislation that would help struggling families. Like you said, it’s (with some caveats, and if we restrict ourselves to fiscal policy) the Republicans.

        2. I do suggest some form of ”deal”, but this is less a reflection on what is feasible in American politics, as it is a reflection on my own convictions and the position of the Catholic Church. For a politically active Catholic, the non-legality of abortion and working towards social justice may not be contingent upon each other; but they both *are* part of being a follower of the living Christ. In other words: if you want my vote, earn it. Half the cake may not be enough if the other side’s offer is just as good. apart from that, I’m always willing to work togetehr on what we agree on. THAT is the deal.

        3. If someone is pro-choice and wants to expand maternal leave, and I’m pro-life and want to expand maternal leave, then why do so many of the former find issue with me, if maternal leave is the crux of the matter, and not abortion on demand? why is it that the ”progressive” catholic keeps repeating the mantra that I want to hurt women, if ”hurting” women means ”not enough maternal leave”? is it perhaps because what they really want is my support for their pro-choice position?

      4. @Artevelde:

        You said:
        “Half the cake may not be enough if the other side’s offer is just as good. apart from that, I’m always willing to work togetehr on what we agree on. THAT is the deal.”

        The problem with your assessment is that we’re not talking about two opposing sides with different approaches to governance. What has happened with the Right in US politics, is that over time, they’ve conditioned their target audience to have no expectations from the government to actually solve any problems affecting the average constituent.

        You’ve heard the talking points. Any and all government assistance is “Socialism”. Government regulations are bad. Its best to leave everything up to the free market. And so on.

        As a result of this dynamic, for what passes for the pro-life movement in the US, their opposition to abortion is almost like a game to them, where their advocacy is completely disconnected from any other real life consequences.

        So the reason why you would be “hurting women” by supporting the Right, is because they’re not merely content with being indifferent to things like maternity leave; they actively oppose and fight against the implementation of such policies.

        Bottom line is that the other side does NOT work together on these things because they DON’T agree on them. Otherwise we would’ve gotten all kinds of healthcare reforms and family assistance by now.

      5. @ Elisabeth

        No, not trying to insult you personally. While ”mentally unable” may be a bit over the top, surely ”first commandment” is just a colorful metaphor? And no, I don’t know much about your opinions. I’ve only read one of your comments before today.

        By the way, I was really puzzled by your comment Re:Gerard. I can’t speak as to the impact of crisis pregnancy centers, and I’m generally somewhat suspicious of those, because they often tend to be populated by ”charity good, social justice bad” people (at least, that’s what I gather from online comments by those who profess to be volunteering in said centers).

        What I *can* say with some certainty is that many aspects of the social teaching of the Church are quite ”socialist”, which is why it’s generally ignored or scorned by Anglo-conservatives, and I was wondering why you think the Church is not on your side in that respect. As for the Catholic media, EWTN is not my cup of tea, nor is the NRC. I do enjoy Crux.

      6. @ Evilstriker

        Sure, they actively oppose such policies. Is it not also the case that your side actively opposes making abortion illegal, and that your side does NOT work together to make abortion illegal? Perhaps your side could start with taking a more neutral, distanced approach to the legality of abortion?

      7. @Artevelde:

        “Sure, they actively oppose such policies. Is it not also the case that your side actively opposes making abortion illegal, and that your side does NOT work together to make abortion illegal? Perhaps your side could start with taking a more neutral, distanced approach to the legality of abortion?”

        We never claimed we want to make abortion illegal, but you claim you support policies like maternity leave and comprehensive healthcare. See how that works out?

        Its also noticeable how you focus on the legality of abortion and not the demand or incidence. Truth be told, while we would prefer that it remained both legal and accessible, we would have no problem if the actual number of incidents reached zero. Whereas the other side is the exact opposite: they don’t care by how much abortion rates increase, as long as they get to wash their hands of the whole affair and blame liberals and progressives for the inevitable results of their own policy prescriptions.

    3. Elisabeth Patterson. @3vil5triker

      @Artevelde is making an argument in ill faith. You will not succeed using logic with him.

      In his world, the pro-life people have no agency. They have no responsibility to expand the support for pro-life cause.

      So black people should give up civil rights, workers should give up labor rights and the poor should give up all claims on social schemes and vote Republican. That’s the right thing to do since , hey,. pro-life!!!

      So @Artevelde has this mythical liberal who never partners with the Right to do anything. (It’s not just him, the entire Catholic hierarchy has become a slave to Mammon.)

      But he never talks about the responsibility of the pro-life people who have made this unholy alliance with the Right. He never ever talks about the pro-life people in the Right. They don’t have any responsibility to expand the tent. They are passive victims who have no agency. In his view even the Catholic bishops have no agency for that.

      Which is criminal.

      The right could yield on racism and civil rights and expand their tent. (Blacks and minorities are inherently socially conservative)
      The right could yield on workers rights and unions and expand their tent. (Workers unions are not exactly socially liberal)

      Abortion would have been solved decades ago with that expanded tent.

      But, no, that is a n-no. A mortal sin. That would require the rich and powerful will need to sacrifice for the pro-life cause. The Pro-lifers will never ever do that to their masters.

      Instead, like Artevelde, they will insist that the poor and weak should make sacrifice for being pro-life. The pro-life poor should pick a fight with the abortion liberals and lose whatever leverage they have in the political process and sacrifice their rights.

      It’s never the case that the pro-life people aligned with the insist that the Right should make any sacrifices to expand their tent. They are innocent folks without any agency at the mercy of the poor and the marginalized!!!!! If only the poor should do the right thing!!!

      It’s always has been about looting the poor.

      1. Au contraire. I have the beating red heart of a staunch unionist. Well, it’s green actually, but you get the idea. Or most likely, you don’t.

      2. @raph: Unfortunately, this is a very myopic argument that only applies to USA. In Europe, the pro-choice groups are growing very selfish and since they accommodated young professionals (who have no qualms about accessing legal abortion on demand as a contraceptive), they started to abandon all ties to the socialist left and are more openly calling for abolishing social spending which they deem is excessive because it’s not aimed at them, as most social spending is on children (that they don’t have and don’t intend to have), pensioners (that they consider useless and redundant), sick (especially terminally ill under expensive care that should be euthanized), and children (who should be born only in families that can afford to have a child, including to pay for its upbringing, healthcare and education, otherwise they should be aborted).

        @Artevelde: I know exactly what you’re talking about. The current Polish government is the one responsible for installing current Constitutional Tribunal judges who ruled in 2020 that eugenic abortion (on the basis of lethal, terminal or incurable health condition of the unborn child) is illegal in light of the constitution.
        This sparked nationwide protests ostensibly to influence the decision of the Tribunal, but with an additional motive of deposing the government.

        It was very illuminating to listen to the arguments of the pro-choice groups which recruit not only from the political left, but also from centrist and right-leaning and libertarian parties. People naturally aligned themselves with one of these parties, with virtually none that would offer another point of view.

        As background, the current government instituted a monthly allowance per child up to 18 years of age and an extra monthly allowance per child for one or two years (in the latter case, it’s half the size of the former) up to three years of age.
        They also increased minimum pension to 2/5ths of minimum salary (up from something like 1/15th), instituted two additional monthly pensions (for an increase of 16.67%) for qualifying groups of pensioners (all except the very highest income and those who also work during retirement), reformed income tax (no tax up to 26 years of age, no tax from pensioners, significantly increased tax threshold) and started providing nursery credit since this year.
        So, they’re as old-school socialist policies as they can possibly get.

        So what do anti-government protests demand? In short, other than legalized abortion on demand, they also expanded to demand LGBT rights and abolishing all social spending. Not ostensibly, of course, but through reforms that would essentially nullify it (such as replacing monthly allowance with a tax credit that would mean less than 40% Poles who earn above average would match the allowance for one child in tax return, less than 5% would match the allowance for two children and less than 1% would match for three or more children).

        Surprisingly, this garnered widespread approval, helped by the official line held by the opposing broadcasters. This is especially audible among young people (who have no children of their own) and high earning professionals (who have no children or just one child) and it’s being discussed openly. Perhaps it’s only a minority, but it’s a very vocal minority that made it a virtue to support an open policy of selfishness. So yes, the groups which participated in the protests, also want social spending cut. Traditionally vulnerable groups (impoverished, old, sick, dependents) are no longer seen as valuable to society, their condition is seen as self-inflicted, so they’re no longer worthy of protection. Causes that are worthy of support are currently LGBT and environment conservation. The latter to the point where only the richest will have access to any energy and the poor and even middle class will spend inordinately much on energy to just survive and will have essentially no chance of upward mobility due to cut access to transportation.

        In a way, they’re effectively a pro-choice Republican party where LGBT groups replaced clergy and environment conservation (to the point where only the rich will afford it, effectively crushing the poor) replaced devotion to the rich.

      3. @Yahoo

        @Artvelde is chiming in on a post about the American pro-life movement. It is he who is mischaracterizing American people.

        It goes without saying that here in the USA, there is a very high correlation between states that now ban abortion and states with the highest maternal and infant mortality rates.

        These states had plenty of time to pass pro-parent, pro-child policies. They refused.

        Mississippi has horrifically high rates of maternal mortality, Republican lawmakers *refused* federal funds to provide mothers with a year of Medicaid coverage after giving birth. So new moms get kicked off after Medicaid after two months.

        The states with the most generous, comprehensive health care and social services for new mothers and babies? They’re almost all blue states that also provide abortion access.

        The states that kick new moms off Medicaid and deny them social services? Red states that ban abortion.

        Pro-life activists are not, by and large, lobbying Republicans for more generous state benefits to new moms and babies! They are not putting any meaningful political pressure on the GOP to expand welfare! The whole thing is a fantasy!

        Let’s not pretend that red states will reverse their anti-parent, anti-child policies now that they can ban abortion. All evidence suggests that these states will continue to punish new mothers and babies with horrifically cruel policies designed to make them suffer and starve.

        This is a direct consequence of the anti-abortion movement signing on to the Republican Party’s broader agenda. The same politicians who want to ban abortion also want to obliterate the social safety net. Being anti-abortion all but guarantees you are anti-welfare, too.

        So @Artvelde is being coy and disingenuous when he comes here to lecture about American pro-life politics

  4. @ Artevelde
    I have tried talking to folks from both sides of the “aisle” if you will. Both sides are equally as frustrating. The “pro-choice” side is so focused on “reproductive rights” that cannot imagine a world without legalized abortion. This was so disturbing that I walk away in tears almost. The “pro-choice” side was do worried that the mother not get something extra or that she wasn’t entitled to, that I almost threw up. Both sides forgot the humanity involved. In all cases the folks I talked to were committed Catholics. It was these conversations that chased me from our parish Social Justice committee. Because both sides were so firmly entrenched and unyielding. I found the pro-choice side more unwilling to believe me when I said I was committed to a true life ethic, which was personally hurtful. I found the responses of the pro-life dude more painful as tge y flatly said that the I dud not understand the church’s teaching on social Justice and that write need only give the minimum. On a humorous note it did give a reason to visit my favorite micro-brewery with my wife and our dog, a Siberian husky who adores popcorn, as I knew neither “group” would be found in a place like that.

    1. @ Andy

      I would have joined you on that trip, if possible and allowed. Nothing like a nice retreat to get away from all that ”debate” eh? 🙂

      1. You would have been more then welcomed – it serves a wide range of beers, ranging from s Triple IPA, nit my favorite, my do -in-law though, anther story, to a nice lager and most often live music, most often bluegrass. Do you would have enjoy fiddle, mandolin and banjo playing. As far as the debate goes I think that both sides gave list eight of the human toll it is taking. We have lost sight that for abortion to “go away” we gave to change how we view life – life in not about what it gives us, rather it is what we give life. We need t recall that we are all here by the grace of God and not for someone else.

  5. “I am morally certain it will be as successful as Prohibition.”

    Your prior moral certainty on this topic was that Roe would never be overturned. You didn’t hedge. You were certain.

    This certainty colored your assessment of the folks on the pro-life side. They were rubes, they were suckers, they were hopeless idealists who couldn’t see cold hard reality like you could. Others (GOP politicians in particular, vile reprobates like Donald Trump) knew that Roe couldn’t be overturned and wouldn’t try and were cynically exploiting the naive but good people.

    You were certain. You were wrong.

    Your best move now is to examine what brought you to this point: What did you assume to be true that turned out not to be true? Where were the flaws in your reasoning? Where were you getting information that turned out to be false? Whom did you trust whom you shouldn’t have trusted? Who lied to you? Who was right where you were wrong, and why did you reject their opinions?

    Because as far as I can tell, you haven’t changed a thing about your understanding of abortion politics in America. More predictions that track 100% of your prior views, unchanged by reality. Dobbs is your notification that you’re a member of Dunning-Kruger Club. Embarrassing, but the bigger mistake would to keep going, without a moment of introspection.

      1. You left out that the Roman Catholic judicial nominees had taken a Bible oath to tell the truth. In some circles that would be considered Bearing False Witness. So it’s even worse than just lying. Ugh.

      2. When did “GOP justices” say that Roe v. Wade was “settled law”? Please provide a source.

      3. Shame on you, K50.
        Snopes says that the Meidas Touch video is edited in a deceitful way.
        Not that the judicial candidates actually told the truth

      4. What Alito is saying here is that Roe v. Wade is clearly a precedent whose conclusions have been repeatedly reaffirmed by the court, and would not lightly be overturned, taking into account the doctrine of stare decisis — the legal principle of deference to precedent expressed in the Latin phrase, which means “let stand what has been decided.”

        What Alito is not saying — indeed, what he is scrupulously avoiding saying, despite Durbin’s best efforts — is that Roe v Wade is beyond overturning, like various other landmark precedents he had mentioned elsewhere in the hearings, such as Brown v. the Board of Education.

  6. @Artevelde

    I just figured that I would be an obvious “Liberal” from my comments today; no assumption that you’d be giving me particular attention.

    As to Gerard, you write:
    ” I can’t speak as to the impact of crisis pregnancy centers, and I’m generally somewhat suspicious of those, because they often tend to be populated by ”charity good, social justice bad” people.”

    My impression is the same, and I don’t really know the impact of their work. If any. That’s precisely my point. I am a Communicating Catholic, I pay attention to what’s going on in my Parish and Diocese. If crisis pregnancy centers are doing, even, small things with great love, I would expect them to let the people in the pews know about it, push it, ask for support for it. If I knew a young woman with a problem pregnancy, I would not have any idea what help, if any, she might get from the Church.

    If it’s an important thing that the Church is doing on a significant scale to prevent individuals from ending a pregnancy (as opposed to, say, getting up a bus trip to the March for Life) why is that done on the quiet? The phrase “best kept secret” has the sense that something that ought to be widely known but is not — and if an on-air personality *also* feels that the good work is being kept — well, that seems wrong, and I wonder why it’s the case. Or, sadly, whether it’s true.

    Also: “What I *can* say with some certainty is that many aspects of the social teaching of the Church are quite ”socialist””
    Yes, I understand that. Why I think the Church is “not on my side”, so to speak, is the relative paucity of that social teaching in pulpits and parishes. It’s an aspect of Mark’s complaint against MAGA Christians, specifically where Catholics are concerned.

  7. I have a very ominous feeling in the pit of my gut.

    After decades in the pro-life movement, I only saw one empty-nest pro-lifer open up her home to a desperate, pregnant woman. She was the real deal. I’ve been thinking about that saying of St John Chrysostom who claimed that the man with two coats had stolen from his shivering neighbor without one.

    I also keep thinking about that moment in the gospel when Jesus shocks his followers who claim “Lord! Lord! Didn’t we prophesy in your name?” and, “When did we see you cold and hungry?”

    There will be a lot of shocked “pro-lifers” who think the march for life, and heated, religious arguments qualified them as being pro-life.

    Also, I hadn’t thought about what Evil Striker talked about. I have seen doctors and nurses behave coercively and unethically when it came to the pregnancies of the poor women (and their babies) that they had no respect for.

    I’ve always pictured evil as a kind of icy, letter-of-the-law perfection *without any trace of love*.

    1. Here’s the thing: as distasteful as you might find the behavior of some pro-choice doctors and nurses, the absolute worst they’re allowed to do is to attempt to persuade you of something you might not agree with.

      A “pro-life” doctor will watch you die, and then pat themselves on the back for maintaining their pro-life bona-fides.

      And with the new legal standards being put in place, ordinary doctors will face far more liability by complying with their patient’s wishes and performing an abortion, than they would by just letting their patient suffer or even die, so for their own legal and financial interests, they are incentivized to do so as well.

      I heard it mentioned on an online show I watch, that this is already happening in some places. Its an example of that “letter-of-the-law perfection” in action:
      Don’t Be Fooled By Abortion Ban Exemptions For “Life Of The Mother”

      1. I remember when that case happened in Ireland. The doctors were grossly incompetent. At around the same time my friend, (Catholic mother of seven and member of Opus Dei) was having an operation to remove an ectopic pregnancy. It was sad, but nobody questioned the legitimacy of the procedure.

        I don’t generally trust doctors without vetting them. It isn’t the noble profession it used to be. I’m sure part of the problem is the culture of death, which includes how we treat doctors these days.

      2. Since the Constitutional Tribunal decision in 2020, the pro-choice media desperately looked for cases of women who were “killed by the tribunal decision”.
        They found one. A pregnant woman was admitted to hospital. The fetus inside here was supposedly dead, but doctors didn’t want to be accused of illegal abortion, so they didn’t remove the dead fetus until she developed a sepsis and died.
        That was the official line that was dragged until some facts were made known:
        She was in the fifth month, the baby was alive and had no symptoms of bad health, let alone risk of death up until that fateful hospital admission. The mother went to hospital fully expecting to recover and carry her child to term. The medical personnel (doctors and nurses) did not respond to her calls when she felt pain, took hours to get to her bedside, didn’t take blood tests, didn’t perform any diagnostics and when sepsis developed, they responded with too little and too late. Then they tried to cover up this fact.
        The additional damning factor was that the newspaper that covered this story first had written an article about that hospital four years prior, describing absolutely abhorrent conditions and expressing surprise that there aren’t any more mothers’ and children deaths there due to utterly hostile conditions. The Supreme Audit Office responded to that article, audited the hospital, found numerous shortcomings and ordered relatively high damages to be paid. The newspaper covered those in detail, but covered up those articles when people started questioning why they weren’t bringing up the shoddy conditions.
        Afterwards, the case was shushed when a second potential case occurred.
        A pregnant woman was admitted to hospital. This one was closely monitored and well-diagnosed, but still died a month after being admitted with both her children dead.
        Media immediately jumped to the assumption that doctors didn’t want to remove the dead fetus and wanted to “force the mother to be a walking incubator”. Woman’s family members claimed that doctors acted too late because they didn’t want to be accused of an illegal abortion. Protests ensued.
        Then some facts were made known: Those family members were some fourth cousins who had zero contact with the woman. Her close family knew that she wanted to carry the children to term and that she was doing all that was advised by the medical personnel to keep her children alive.
        Autopsy results were inconclusive, but sepsis was ruled out as a possible cause, as supported by perinatal specialists who pointed out that uterus is a sterile environment and in a multiple pregnancy, it is contraindicated to remove a dead fetus when the other one is alive specifically because it carries a very high risk of infection that will endanger the other child. And even if all fetuses die, it’s still better to wait for a natural miscarriage than to perform surgery.
        She’s still being mentioned as a victim of the “inhuman abortion prohibition”, though with much less emphasis than before.

        That morbid search for the poster victim continues, but it’s pretty telling that in almost two years, only two potential cases were found and both turned out to be completely unrelated to the abortion ban, even though supporters of abortion claimed that the law change would cause thousands of women to die each month because they didn’t receive the health care they need.

      3. @ Yahoo

        I noticed that of late part of the American right no longer likes Poland 🙂

        Conservative poster child or … Liberal mainstream Russia haters? Tune in next week for another epoisode of ”Poland yay/Poland nay”.

  8. This is just one step along the way. Dobbs is one more sop to win more power, on the way to dismantle solidarity in this country. The abortion bans will remain as long as it is useful to destroy labor and solidarity. And only so long.

    Once labor and solidarity is made powerless, this too shall pass. Abortion laws will be loosened in all states.This is the playbook of the rich and racists, and the priests who feed off them. The real goal is always looting labor.

    This is standard for the right wing everywhere in the world. See Argentina, Chile. Brazil is now on the part where they are relaxing abortion laws. Poland is in the process of destroying labor, too early in this play, but on this same path. Hungary did not need the abortion bogey since racism and xenophobia did the job. So it was not used, and abortion is allowed. Putin? Same.

    I give it a decade or less, before workers in this country get screwed, social security is looted, and labor rights are next to nothing.

    Doubt this? Read the history of those countries.

    Above all read the Supreme Court decisions. The **pro-life judges** have a record which is written in black and white with their rulings. That record is a testament to screwing workers and destroying worker rights.

    Those rights will not come back, but abortion will.

    Destroying the New Deal is the real pro-life agenda, funded by elite plutocrats for over 75 years using their looted wealth. It has always been about the theft of labor.

    The corruption of the Catholic Church in this country is beyond description. I am 100% confident that the Church will benefit from this looting. The plutocrats will donate more to the Church and you will see edifices getting built. And the misery created by the looting will fill the Churches.

    1. I remember when I used to think that being human meant being evil. To be evil is to be inhuman.

Leave a Reply

Follow Mark on Twitter and Facebook

Get updates by email