Four challenges for the pro-life movement | National Catholic Reporter

Four challenges for the pro-life movement | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: I would have voted with the majority on the Court and against the law in Texas because it clearly did not meet the undue burdens test established by O'Connor and supported by Kennedy. This case never had a chance. It was the pro-life movement "looking busy." As for MSW's rationale for voting with the minority - that these should be state decisions - the answer is absolutely not, never, no. Equal protection matters have the last call in federal court for a reason. States are horrible in protecting the rights of minorities, especially women - and by minorities, I mean people not favored by the upper crust of society, regardless of numbers. Whites are likely soon a minority in the South, but they have found a way to keep power. Men are a minority, same thing. Federal common law should tilt towards the less powerful - and that is not those who favor abortion legislation. This attitude that states should be dominant on this issue must be excised from the pro-life movement for the simple reason that no justices believe it - not even Thomas. And shame on Alito and Roberts for voting on ideological and religious grounds rather than on the law and precedent.

I agree on the Washington State case that capitalists have no conscience rights, provided individual clerks are not forced to do something they object to (if only that were true with everything in business). Of course, I also believe that the evidence demonstrates that life begins at gastrulation, so there is nothing morally objectionable about Plan B. The issue is, of course, past its prime. Last I checked, Barack Obama is not running for the White House and Hillary does not need wedge issues to get liberal, and even conservative, women to vote for her.

The Democratic Party Platform is an interesting development. With a female candidate and a very strong NEA/NOW delegate base, it is not surprising - which means it does not mean much. Of course, I wonder about the pro-life Democrats. Their hearts are pure but they are no more welcome in the movement than any non-Republican. They need to strongly highlight economic measures to prevent abortion rather than hoping for the impossible dream of the state using the criminal law to somehow limit it. Monday's decision essentially put most of those issues into stone - the only one open being an effort by Congress to pass a law on abortion resetting the personhood limit - but that likely won't be in the first trimester or even anytime that the fetus could be born but still require life long supportive care. A law that says 28 weeks is essentially ratifying the status quo - and the pro-life side would hate that because it would kill fundraising. The pro-choice side would too.

I am not sure Cuomo has had his shots, so kissing Donohue is out of the question. That LifeSiteNews and Bill are against gay sex, which is always for pleasure/unity (sex for domination is not, technically speaking, consensual homosexuality). They don't like that as a motivation for straights either. Too bad. It is in our DNA and we will keep doing it. Efforts to stop it have never worked. Even regulating it with marriage has had dubious effect. As far as using genetic tests to abort, you can't. Epigenesis is not genetic, its an adaptation that is likely but not certain due to genetics and it happens late enough in the first trimester to make gays and lesbians safe from gender selective abortion. LifeSiteNews is another group that should be demanding more money for families. They don't. They are obsessed with thwarting sex for pleasure (an evolutionary trait). The different route for the pro-life movement, however, is to accept and celebrate sexuality (even and especially teen sex - as some teens abort so as not to be found out as sexually active) and fund every family, young or old, whenever a new child is born, to the tune of $1000 per child per month through tax credits to employers distributed with payroll. I doubt the movement has the courage to do that - even to the extent of convincing their supporters to go along. While it would be nice if the bishops adopted a wage hike for every new child, without waiting for tax law changes, I am not going to try to hold my breath until they do. Sadly, there is no bang for the bucks from donors for standing up for people who need more income.