Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Further reflections the day after pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute‘s gloomy report is issued

Posted by on Jan. 5, 2014 at 8:07 AM
  • 32 Replies


By Dave Andrusko

Guttmacher9Yesterday a few hours after it was issued, we attempted to place in context the quasi-hysterical report issued by the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute (“Guttmacher bemoans avalanche of pro-life legislation, misses entirely the reasons why”). You can read the report for yourself by clicking here.

Since yesterday afternoon, there has been a wave of interest, both from abortion advocates and the “mainstream media.” And why not? Guttmacher knows how to get attention for something that merely pulled together what it had been saying repeatedly, month after month, for a couple of years.

This, for example, will grab anyone’s attention:

“Twenty-two states enacted 70 abortion restrictions during 2013. This makes 2013 second only to 2011 in the number of new abortion restrictions enacted in a single year.”

Bad enough, right? But it gets worse, from Guttmacher’s perspective, and better from ours.

“To put recent trends in even sharper relief, 205 abortion restrictions were enacted over the past three years (2011–2013), but just 189 were enacted during the entire previous decade (2001–2010).”

Now that I have had more time to read the report, I see that Guttmacher finds the situation even worse than you would imagine from its summary. There is a separate report—“Troubling Trend: More States Hostile to Abortion Rights as Middle Ground Shrinks”—written by Rachel Benson Gold and Elizabeth Nash. Here’s how they describe what they call a “seismic shift”:

“Over the last decade, the abortion policy landscape at the state level has shifted dramatically. Although a core of states in the Northeast and on the West Coast remained consistently supportive of abortion rights between 2000 and 2011, a substantial number of other states shifted from having only a moderate number of abortion restrictions to becoming overtly hostile. The implications of this shift are enormous. In 2000, the country was almost evenly divided, with nearly a third of American women of reproductive age living in states solidly hostile to abortion rights, slightly more than a third in states supportive of abortion rights and close to a third in middle-ground states. By 2011, however, more than half of women of reproductive age lived in hostile states. This growth came largely at the expense of the states in the middle, and the women who live in them; in 2011, only one in 10 American women of reproductive age lived in a middle-ground state.”

Wow! But inquiring minds would want to know…why? Turns out that PPFA Action Fund President Cecile Richards has an answer: it’s those sneaky “out-of-touch Tea Party politicians” who “picked up key seats in legislatures across the country” by bamboozling the public into thinking they’d never pass pro-life legislation.

Yeah, right.

The Washington Post’s Sarah Kliff, who has an unmatched pipeline into the Abortion Establishment, mentioned several factors, including the obvious: more pro-life Republicans were elected in the states and the battle over ObamaCare.

But Kliff also said the following, according to the Post’s Reid Wilson:

“Lastly, the focus on late-term abortion, with the 20-week abortion bans, likely played a role, too. As the Guttmacher Institute reports, those bans proliferated quickly, after Nebraska passed the first such law back in 2010. While the majority of Americans do support legal abortions in the first trimester of pregnancy, support for abortion rights falls significantly when you get into second and third trimester terminations. That drop-off in public support could have laid the groundwork for the success of the late-term restrictions.”

Well…, yes. The Abortion Establishment has tried every which way but up to blunt the obvious truth which has been brought to the fore by discussion of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which is the law in 10 tens and has passed the United States House of Representatives.

But we can also rightly ask ourselves that if the public does not approve of killing unborn babies capable of feeling pain (now that they are learning the unborn CAN experience pain), would they accept aborting a child if they knew abortion stops a beating heart?

We’ll take one more look at “More State Abortion Restrictions Were Enacted in 2011–2013 Than in the Entire Previous Decade” next week and why California alone was able to “expand abortion rights

source

by on Jan. 5, 2014 at 8:07 AM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
coolmommy2x
by Silver Member on Jan. 5, 2014 at 8:12 AM
Hostile to abortion...very accurate.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
candlegal
by Judy on Jan. 5, 2014 at 8:17 AM

what is even more accurate is that  abortion is hostile to babies.

Quoting coolmommy2x: Hostile to abortion...very accurate.


coolmommy2x
by Silver Member on Jan. 5, 2014 at 8:18 AM
1 mom liked this
So is self righteousness and forcing one's beliefs on others.

Quoting candlegal:

what is even more accurate is that  abortion is hostile to babies.

Quoting coolmommy2x: Hostile to abortion...very accurate.


Posted on CafeMom Mobile
candlegal
by Judy on Jan. 5, 2014 at 8:20 AM

Not forcing one's belief on others, just trying to do what we can to stop the horrific murder of our most innocent and precious citizens.

Quoting coolmommy2x: So is self righteousness and forcing one's beliefs on others.

Quoting candlegal:

what is even more accurate is that  abortion is hostile to babies.

Quoting coolmommy2x: Hostile to abortion...very accurate.



coolmommy2x
by Silver Member on Jan. 5, 2014 at 8:32 AM
Thanks for explaining the difference.

Quoting candlegal:

Not forcing one's belief on others, just trying to do what we can to stop the horrific murder of our most innocent and precious citizens.

Quoting coolmommy2x: So is self righteousness and forcing one's beliefs on others.



Quoting candlegal:

what is even more accurate is that  abortion is hostile to babies.

Quoting coolmommy2x: Hostile to abortion...very accurate.



Posted on CafeMom Mobile
candlegal
by Judy on Jan. 5, 2014 at 9:06 AM

You are welcome

Quoting coolmommy2x: Thanks for explaining the difference.

Quoting candlegal:

Not forcing one's belief on others, just trying to do what we can to stop the horrific murder of our most innocent and precious citizens.

Quoting coolmommy2x: So is self righteousness and forcing one's beliefs on others.



Quoting candlegal:

what is even more accurate is that  abortion is hostile to babies.

Quoting coolmommy2x: Hostile to abortion...very accurate.




meriana
by Gold Member on Jan. 5, 2014 at 9:09 AM
2 moms liked this

Since it appears most of the time, where abortion laws are concerned, there are exceptions in the case of medically necessary abortions, I find it a bit difficult to see how a ban after 20-24 weeks is considered hostile

romalove
by Roma on Jan. 5, 2014 at 9:09 AM
2 moms liked this


Quoting candlegal:

what is even more accurate is that  abortion is hostile to babies.

Quoting coolmommy2x: Hostile to abortion...very accurate.


And pro-lifers are hostile to women.


candlegal
by Judy on Jan. 5, 2014 at 9:11 AM

Since 50% of those babies are probably going to be girls, pro lifers are trying to save the lives of women.

Quoting romalove:


Quoting candlegal:

what is even more accurate is that  abortion is hostile to babies.

Quoting coolmommy2x: Hostile to abortion...very accurate.


And pro-lifers are hostile to women.



romalove
by Roma on Jan. 5, 2014 at 9:12 AM
1 mom liked this


Quoting meriana:

Since it appears most of the time, where abortion laws are concerned, there are exceptions in the case of medically necessary abortions, I find it a bit difficult to see how a ban after 20-24 weeks is considered hostile

There are other laws that are hostile, such as making doctors have admitting privileges or requiring abortion clinics to meet surgicenter standards.

The goal of the pro-life movement at this point, since they haven't been able to overturn Roe v. Wade, is to put so many laws and restrictions and caveats into place that abortion would be de facto outlawed, even as it stands legal.

Women have gotten complacent about their reproductive rights in this country, because they think they "won".

They are slowly losing.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)



Featured