Pro-Life Conservatives Hail Court Revisiting Roe v Wade

Pro-Life Conservatives Hail Court Revisiting Roe v Wade marjorie dannenfelser speaks to press Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony List, speaks during a press conference at the Marriott Marquis Hotel, June 21, 2016, in New York City. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

By Eric Mack | Monday, 17 May 2021 12:17 PM

Pro-life conservatives are hailing the Supreme Court's announcement it is taking up the Mississippi state law seeking to ban abortions after 15 weeks.

"This is big," Father Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, wrote in a statement to Newsmax. "This is not a case simply on regulations of the procedure or the places where it is performed. This goes right to the matter of prohibitions on abortion, or as we would say, protections of the baby."

The case will strike at the heart of the 1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision and seek to unwind a woman's legal right to a late-term abortion.

"The American people have never agreed that late-term abortions should be permitted," Pavone's statement concluded. "Now we can actually take a strong step forward to shape the law in accordance with those convictions."

Susan B. Anthony's List President Marjorie Dannenfelser, who leads the pro-life women's advocacy group, added in a statement to Newsmax:

"This 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. Across the nation, state lawmakers acting on the will of the people have introduced 536 pro-life bills aimed at humanizing our laws and challenging the radical status quo imposed by Roe. It is time for the Supreme Court to catch up to scientific reality and the resulting consensus of the American people as expressed in elections and policy."

The U.S. is "one of only seven countries — including China and North Korea — that allows abortions through all nine months of pregnancy," March for Life President Jeanne Mancini wrote to Newsmax in a statement.

"An overwhelming majority of Americans agree that this goes way too far, in fact 70% think abortion should be limited to — at most — the first three months of pregnancy," her statement continued. "States should be allowed to craft laws that are in line with both public opinion on this issue as well as basic human compassion, instead of the extreme policy that Roe imposed."

Pavone, who leads the world's largest Catholic pro-life organization, hailed the Supreme Court finally seeking to deliver some clarity on the competing interests of state law, women's rights, and rights of the unborn.

"There has been a tension for a long time between the law and the jurisprudence in this area," Pavone's statement added. "More and more states, including Mississippi, have been passing laws to protect babies before viability [approximately 22 weeks]. And the courts have insisted that the states do have an interest in the life of the child throughout pregnancy.

"Yet the courts continue to strike down laws that protect babies before viability as unconstitutional. Now, that tension has to give."

Students for Life of America President Kristan Hawkins called the revisiting of Roe v. Wade "long overdue."

"Today's news that the Supreme Court has decided to accept the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health case that deals with abortion limits pre-viability is overdue but good news for the Pro-Life Generation," Hawkins wrote in a statement to Newsmax. "We are ready for a Post-Roe America, where the violence of abortion is a thing of the past and preborn children are protected in law and welcomed in life."

Mary Ziegler, Florida State University law professor and author of "Abortion and the Law in America: Roe v. Wade to the Present," noted the landmark Roe v. Wade decision is going to face arguably its most significant challenge yet.

"It's impossible to overstate what a big deal this decision is — not just the choice to take the case but the decision not to take the less controversial questions," Ziegler told The Washington Post.

"The immediate threat to Roe is very real, but the alternative seems to be the elimination of viability as the point at which bans are possible. Without viability, it is not clear whether the Court will impose any limit on abortion bans."

Original Article