Supreme Court to hear ‘anti-abortion case’ that will protect incrementalism
The Supreme Court has set a date (December 1, 2021) for hearing arguments in a Mississippi anti-abortion case that many say will bring an end to Roe v. Wade, but regardless of how the court rules, incrementalism and the murder of unborn babies will be protected.
The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, concerns Mississippi’s ban on abortion after 15 weeks. According to the Court, the question of “whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional” will be the primary focus.
In other words, SCOTUS will decide when a baby can be murdered, not whether or not abortion is illegal.
“Pre-viability” is a politically correct word often used by pro-abortionists to rationalize the murder of an unborn baby based on the child’s ability to live outside the womb. Unfortunately, this has been adopted by the Supreme Court and anti-abortion groups we call “Pro-Life, Inc.” to rationalize their faux defense of life in the name of “incrementalism.”
What is pro-life incrementalism and why is it an ineffective strategy to end abortion? Writer and editor Philip Jeffery answered these questions when he wrote these words two years ago:
“Incrementalism is a losing cultural strategy. The left did not gain the cultural upper hand by incrementalism. The sexual revolution that gave us the current abortion regime did not come about by baby steps. Cultural battles are won with bold claims and striking images. The left has been winning the culture, especially on issues of abortion, sex, and gender, by offering materially comfortable middle- and upper-class Americans the chance to imitate Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, and Malcolm X. Abortion thus becomes a great and noble cause. This strategy works because many Americans, especially young men, feel that their lives are unmoored, banal, and hemmed-in by forces beyond their control. They have an itch for moral heroism.
“The pro-life movement needs to take a clear stand. Vigorous action and bold law-making does not mean giving up on caring about mothers and children alike. And no organization understands this as well as Planned Parenthood itself. Planned Parenthood has managed to convince millions that it “cares no matter what”—even as its supporters march in the streets, rage on the Internet, and pressure legislatures in New York, Virginia, and elsewhere to do their bidding. How much better could the pro-life movement be at playing that game, by providing actual care and actual results in statehouses?” (emphasis mine)
In other words, murdering unborn babies has continued, but Pro-Life, Inc. can feel good about doing nothing to stop it. Still, the rhetoric continues about how the current Supreme Court will “protect” babies from “late-term” abortion even though incrementalism is all that’s being protected.
“[The Mississippi case] is a landmark opportunity for the Supreme Court to recognize the right of states to protect unborn children from the horrors of painful late-term abortions,” said Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser, a person who spend the past four years exploiting aborted babies for a seat at Trump’s table.
Pro-life incrementalism has taken many forms over the years, including:
These so-called “restrictions” tug at the heartstrings of those who want to end abortion, and they look good on the surface. Ultimately, they only succeed in creating political passivity concerning life that eases their guilty consciences but does nothing to end the abortion holocaust. Oh, and it keeps the dollars rolling into the bank accounts of Pro-Life, Inc.
Shortly after hearing of the court’s decision to take the case, Joe Biden reaffirmed his commitment to seeing Roe v. Wade become federal law regardless of what the Supreme Court decides in the case.
“The president is committed to codifying Roe, regardless of the … outcome of this case,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said at the time.
Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver also released a statement saying that the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the Mississippi case “is a positive step toward finally overturning the tragic decision of Roe v. Wade made 48 years ago and subsequent abortion precedent. Abortion takes the life of an innocent human being and has enormous physical and psychological consequences on the mother. It’s time to stop committing human genocide in this nation, and Mississippi now can take the lead.”
The words “a positive step” is merely Pro-Life, Inc. politispeak for incrementalism.
Democrats (and a few Republicans) in the House and Senate immediately went to work ways to help Biden achieve his objective of codifying Roe.
Biden got the ball rolling by introducing a $6 trillion spending proposal that had removed the Hyde Amendment — an amendment passed every year since 1976 to prevent taxpayer financing of abortion — and Democrats in Congress joined the battle by introducing the Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA), a bill to codify Roe v. Wade.
WHPA took a back seat to other issues for a short time, but with the Supreme Court’s recent decision to allow a Texas abortion law to take effect, it has received new life along with a renewed call to expand the court and pack it with enough activist justices to save abortion.
With the Supreme Court decision expected to be released a few months before the 2022 midterms, it should be noted that the Trumpist Republican Party is looking for an issue to hang its hat on, and the Mississippi abortion case could fit the bill. So, be on the lookout for Trump, McConnell, and McCarthy to add abortion to their reelection strategy . . . just as they have done every election for decades.
Republicans love abortion as an election issue, and they’ve become experts at promoting incrementalism to make it look like they’re actually defending life. We see examples of this in the Republican Party’s 2016 platform (it was called the most pro-life ever) and in meaningless show votes like the one we witnessed in 2018 with the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Act.”
None of the Republican pro-life promises ever became law, and even if they had, it wouldn’t have prevented a single abortion . . and that’s exactly the way Republicans want it. They don’t really want to see abortion outlawed because there’s too much money in it. But by adopting the incrementalism approach used by Pro-Life, Inc., they can tickle the ears of donors and voters until the next election when they’ll do it all over again.
How did incrementalism become the official policy of so-called pro-life organizations like Susan B. Anthony and others? Quite simply, it happened because they have compromised their values and seared their consciences in order to leverage the millions of murdered babies to make money and gain political influence.
Despite the rhetoric, the Supreme Court ruling in the Mississippi abortion case won’t protect babies . . . only incrementalism.
The “right” to murder an unborn child in America will remain alive and well . . . which is more than we can say for the millions of babies slaughtered in the womb and denied their right to life since Roe was decided in 1973.
David Leach is the owner of the Strident Conservative. He holds people of every political stripe accountable for their failure to uphold conservative values, and he promotes those values instead of political parties.
Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook.
Subscribe to receive podcasts of his daily two-minute radio feature: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS
sp;
