In the wake of that abortion ban decision…

Speaking of Justice Kennedy (below), his notorious opinion in the Carhart decision upholding the ban on partial birth abortion stunned abortion supporters and, briefly, knocked the wind out of their movement.

They seem to have recovered.

Critics of the Supreme Court’s April 2007 decision Gonzales v. Carhart (“Carhart II”) — the abortion industry, its lobbyists and friends on Capitol Hill — are already exploiting the decision for fund-raising, legislative, electoral and general scare-mongering purposes. Their efforts involve playing fast and loose with the reasoning of the ruling — and with the facts.

They accuse the court of overturning recent precedent, “Carhart I” (Stenberg v. Carhart in 2000), being hypocritical (because “the ban won’t stop a single abortion”), selling out women’s health and striking a near-fatal blow to Roe v. Wade. None of this is true.

This Register commentary is a good piece of analysis on the significance of the ruling and the current state of the strategic battle for life.

It calls to mind a letter I recently received from a woman in Minnesota concerned over a door-to-door public awareness campaign abortion activists are operating in her area. Here’s part of it:

The other night members of NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota came to our home soliciting support.  My husband answered the door along with our extremely curious seven year old daughter.  I was appalled that the anti-life movement was sending people door-to-door!  I’ve written a letter that I will be sending to their executive director asking that we not be solicited again by them in the future.  I’ve also asked them to send me confirmation that they’ve received my letter along with the promise that we will not be solicited by them – in any way – again in the future.
 
I thought it would be easy to keep their way of thinking out of our home, but I guess our own homes aren’t considered off-limits anymore.
 
I was just wondering if this is something the anti-life movement has always done and I’ve just not been exposed to it.  Or is this something new for them?

It’s news to me, and seems right in line with this Register article. The strategy always shifts to adjust for changing law and public sentiment. As Susan Wills concludes – or rather, warns - in the commentary:

The spin cycle on Carhart II began the day after the ruling when pro-choice members of Congress introduced the “Freedom of Choice Act.” It calls for taxpayer funding of abortions and nullifying every state and federal law or policy that “interferes” with abortion. Expect more of the same in the foreseeable future.