[American Thinker] A few years ago, David Brooks wrote a hypothetical memo from a campaign consultant to Democrat party leaders. It went like this: I understand that our donors (though not necessarily our voters) want to preserve a woman’s right to choose through all nine months of her pregnancy.I should add that this was written before the recent remarks by Governor Northam of Virginia and the cheering in New York.
But do we want late-term abortion so much that we are willing to tolerate President Trump? Do we want it so much that we give up our chance at congressional majorities?
Do we want it so much that we see our agendas on poverty, immigration, income equality and racial justice thwarted and defeated?
Let’s try to imagine what would happen if Roe v. Wade was overturned. The abortion issue would go back to the states. The Center for Reproductive Rights estimates that roughly 21 states would outlaw abortion. Abortion would remain legal in probably 20 others.
There’s a good chance that a lot of states would hammer out the sort of compromise the European nations have -- legal in the first months, difficult after that.
That’s what most Americans support.
Down in Texas, the "heartbeat" law is picking up steam. According to news reports, it will go to the Texas Senate and could be on Governor Greg Abbott's desk in the next 18 months.
The usual suspects are screaming "no." They tell us that this is another effort to restrict abortion rights or something like that. They also claim that this is about a woman's health care but I thought that ObamaCare covered that.
The abortion debate has now moved to a different level and the left can't see it. They are holding onto their talking points but the country is not with them on abortion on demand.
We will see how this plays out in 2020. Nevertheless, every Democrat should be asked about this heartbeat law.
The question is simple: do you abort if you can hear a heartbeat? Let's see how Democrats answer that question.