A few weeks ago, John Kasich did something rather ingenious. The staunchly pro-life Ohio governor vetoed a bill that would have barred abortions as early as six weeks into pregnancy, or once a heartbeat can be detected.

Kasich vetoed the “heartbeat” bill not because he doesn’t support protecting human life at that early stage. Rather, it was because he was worried the bill would be found unconstitutional. Similar measures have been struck down in other states, and the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected efforts to appeal those decisions.

Kasich knew that enacting the law would invite legal challenges to that and other abortion restrictions on the books in Ohio and would mean costly litigation. “The State of Ohio will be the losing party in that lawsuit and, as the losing party, the State of Ohio will be forced to pay hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to cover the legal fees for the pro-choice activists’ lawyers,” Kasich said. “Therefore, this veto is in the public interest,” he said.

Kasich’s veto is also in the pro-life interest as it takes away the vehicle abortion advocates have used to enact much of their agenda: the courts. Since 1973, when seven male justices on the Supreme Court discovered a right to privacy somewhere in the Constitution, liberals have relied on the courts to strike down pro-life laws.

But Kasich’s veto shows that pro-life lawmakers can be honest with themselves about what they can achieve and savvy in their approach to achieving it. While vetoing the “heartbeat” law, Kasich signed a bill outlawing most abortions after 20 weeks, when some fetuses can begin to survive outside the womb.

Given this new approach and the fact that President-elect Trump will have the chance, and has signaled the willingness, to appoint hundreds of pro-life judges to the federal bench, abortion advocates should reconsider their reliance on the courts. In its place, they might want to learn the art of persuasion.

That’s an art the pro-choice set hasn’t been interested in practicing in recent years. Over the last decade, they have become much more strident in their abortion advocacy.

Rarely do you hear a pro-choice politician acknowledge that abortion “represents a sad, tragic choice,” as Hillary Clinton once did. Now you’re much more likely to hear abortion advocates say abortion was the best thing that could happen to them. At the Democratic National Convention last summer, NARAL Pro-Choice America President Ilyse Hogue said that her decision to have an abortion “was best for me,” a statement that elicited applause from the assembled delegates.

During a recent podcast, actress Lena Dunham lamented that she hadn’t had an abortion, “but I wish I had.” On Twitter, #shoutyourabortion trended for a while as abortion groups promoted the idea that abortion is something women shouldn’t be ashamed of or even ambivalent about.

Bannon promises 2017 will be 'more exciting' than 2016

Also from the Washington Examiner

Bannon touted the strength of the movement that delivered Trump the White House.

12/30/16 10:28 AM

It’s been over a decade since Democrats dropped “rare” from “safe, legal and rare” in their platform language on abortion, suggesting that fewer abortions aren’t necessarily a part of their goal. Now their platform states that the widespread availability of abortion is a matter of “justice.”

The Democratic Party also now officially calls for repeal of the Hyde Amendment, a legislative provision barring the use of certain federal funds to pay for abortion under most circumstances. The amendment enjoyed bipartisan support for decades and two-thirds majority support in the public. Today’s abortion rights advocates want abortion to be safe, legal and paid for by the taxpayers. To them, abortion is not a necessary evil, but a matter or reproductive justice.

But these views clash with the public opinion. According to the most recent Gallup poll, just 43 percent of the public think abortion is morally acceptable, and most people do not support it after the first trimester except in rare cases.

Instead of shouting their abortions, pro-choicers need to learn the art of persuasion. Of course, in order to persuade the public, they must first convince them that they’re acting in good faith. That’ll mean no longer denying the science behind fetal development showing that an abortion kills a living, feeling human being. It’ll mean acknowledging that abortion involves a conflict of values, rights and responsibilities. It’ll mean recognizing that many women (and men) suffer psychologically after abortion.

In other words, it’ll mean revisiting the premise at the heart of the abortion movement: that the killing of one’s child is something the state must sanction and even celebrate.

Putin says Russia will not expel 35 US diplomats after Obama retaliation

Also from the Washington Examiner

The move is reliation for Obama’s decision on Thursday.

12/30/16 6:10 AM

Daniel Allott is deputy commentary editor for the Washington Examiner

Red-state tide could flood Minnesota

Top Story

That election near-miss in Minnesota illustrates how much the Great Lake Rust Belt has changed.

12/29/16 5:47 PM

Source link

About the Author:

Leave a Reply