I’ve been swamped (uh, acting) so I haven’t been able to follow much of the discussion about Alabama’s bill. I only have inchoate thoughts on the strategy at this point, but: it seems like a terribly risky gambit for pro-lifers. People seem to think that these bills, if the Supreme Court were to take them, could go at the jugular of abortion rights. And that’s all well and good. But doing so within these political conditions, beneath this President, seems like it risks engendering a very serious cultural and political blowback. And if Ruth Bader Ginsberg keeps going, and Trump wins the next election–their fate would be solely in the hands of John Roberts, which has not been a very happy place for conservative interests to be.
Sed contra: Nothing ventured, nothing gained. If pro-lifers don’t eventually go for the jugular, when will we? And if it’s a contest among the states between heartbeat bills and neonatal infanticide bills…well, I like the odds that pro-lifers will come out ahead in the cultural dispute.
But this is one moment when I’m glad I’m merely a foot soldier in the pro-life cause, and not a general. I have the luxury of thinking that the jury is out on whether this is all a good idea. But then: I have that luxury because I did not vote for Trump. If this gambit goes well for pro-lifers, then my resistance to Trump looks much worse. If it backfires, then it seems like my position would be strengthened–but that would be bad for America, so let’s all hope I’ve been wrong all along on these matters.