The State Of Abortion Law In The States

By CHRISTOPHER MANION

The elections this November will mark a critical turning-point for pro-lifers.
Motivated as never before, defenders of the unborn will be active nationwide.
For the first time in 50 years, victorious candidates will be responsible for exercising the rights of the States and of the People — rights guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution from infringement by any branch of the Federal Government.
In the case of abortion, those rights and responsibilities have been arbitrarily denied by the court’s lethal 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, a decision which Justice Samuel Alito’s draft decision has now found to be unconstitutional.
The Dobbs decision offers us a historic opportunity. It represents a wake-up call that millions have been working and praying for since Roe was handed down in 1973.
One focus of those efforts targeted the development of legislation at the state level, much of it emphasizing the increasingly clear evidence that life begins at conception.
Over the years, most of those proposals were either defeated by state legislative bodies, or, if they were signed into law, were found by courts at various levels to violate the “precedent” of Roe v. Wade.
With Dobbs, the landscape has changed profoundly. And while the door is now open for states to exercise their rights protected by the Constitution, the path will not be clear sailing for supporters of life.
We have a lot of work to do.

Target: Pro-Life Politicians

Earlier this month, the Guttmacher Institute, a major research arm of the pro-abortion movement, identified 26 states that are “certain or likely” to pass legislation banning abortion, once Roe v. Wade is overturned.
According to Ballotpedia, elections will be held in 46 states to choose members who will serve in 88 state legislative chambers. Over 6,000 seats will be in play. Many of them will be sought by pro-life candidates, energized by the prospect of restoring and protecting the right to life across the country.
Will the Left let them campaign in peace? Or will pro-life candidates across the country be targets of pro-abortion radicals?
We recall that, when demonstrators gathered illegally at the family residences of several Justices supporting the Alito draft of the Court’s majority opinion in Dobbs, Attorney General Merrick Garland allowed several days to pass before providing protection by federal marshals around those homes.
If Supreme Court Justices can’t be sure they will be protected, what protection can over 10,000 legislative candidates for state offices across the country expect from law enforcement at any level?
Pro-life leader Steve Mosher has argued that “election integrity is a pro-life issue.” And that integrity will undoubtedly continue to be a target of the Left all the way to November — and afterwards.
We recall that it was after Election Day 2020 that election integrity was blown to bits in several key “swing states.” Efforts to prevent that this year are already underway, but Mosher’s observation is also true in reverse: It means that the erosion — and if possible the destruction — of election integrity is a pro-abortion issue.
During the coming campaign, those pro-abortion movement wants the words of Senate Democrat Leader Chuck Schumer to ring in the ears of every pro-life candidate in America. “You won’t know what hit you,”
We’d better be ready.

Another Target: Institutions

Pro-abortion forces in every state are already in high gear, acting with laser-beam focus to advance their cause in every possible way. And we should take their threats seriously: In their view the Supreme Court would “break the law” if it overturned Roe. Why should they follow the law in their efforts to restore it?
Students of leftist violence know that such threats are not mere outbursts of frustration that will soon abate when things “return to normal.”
Rest assured, for the Left, chaos is the “normal.” Their threats and the accompanying violence are designed to stoke fear, to attract new recruits, and to create and perpetuate chaos.
All of these factors are designed to discredit and weaken revered institutions like the Catholic Church and the Supreme Court, while intimidating those who defend them.
Ultimately, the Left aims to destroy them.
The leak of Justice Alito’s Dobbs opinion was designed to play such a role. A radical “source” penetrated the Court, stole the draft opinion, and leaked it to a radical Washington rag. The unprecedented theft and disclosure were a signal of defiance and destruction. Message: If the Left can’t control the court, they will destroy it.
These intended consequences were confirmed by Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the signatories of the Alito draft. “When you lose that trust, especially in the institution that I’m in, it changes the institution fundamentally. You begin to look over your shoulder. It’s like kind of an infidelity that you can explain it, but you can’t undo it,” he told a group in Dallas on May 13.
Yes, sacred institutions are under attack, and one of the most sacred to the survival of our Republic is the safety and integrity of free and fair elections.

Canon 915: Another
Turning Point?

Many questions have arisen in the wake of San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone’s statement Friday, May 20 applying Canon 915 to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., San Francisco). One of the most practical addressed the application of Archbishop Cordileone’s instruction regarding her suitability to receive the Eucharist in dioceses beyond San Francisco.
According to records found by CNS News, Mrs. Pelosi owns a home and a vineyard in St. Helena, in Napa County. In a statement this week, Santa Rosa Bishop Robert Vasa wrote that “I have visited with the pastor at St. Helena and informed him that if the Archbishop prohibited someone from receiving Holy Communion then that restriction followed the person and that the pastor was not free to ignore it. The new Canon (1379§4) makes it clear that providing sacraments to someone prohibited from receiving them [carries] its own possible penalties.”
Mrs. Pelosi also frequents parishes in the Washington, D.C., Archdiocese. Fr. Kevin Gillespie, SJ, is pastor at Georgetown’s Holy Trinity Parish. Last year Gillespie said that he supports the position of Wilton Cardinal Gregory, who not only opposes applying Canon 915 but also strongly opposed the USCCB’s decision to issue its instruction on “Eucharistic Coherence” last year.
Cardinal Gregory has made no public statement regarding Cordileone’s instruction. Mrs. Pelosi and Joe Biden are thus likely to be permitted to continue receiving Holy Communion at Holy Trinity.
Across the Potomac in Virginia, Arlington Bishop Michael Burbidge addressed Cordileone’s statement in his weekly podcast this past Wednesday.
“I do know Archbishop Cordileone, very well,” he said. “And I think we can commend Archbishop Cordileone for the careful way he announced this, and for giving a full context of what transpired up until this point.”
“I trust that he did everything possible,” he continued, “and we should bear in mind, this is important that he has offered Speaker Pelosi a path back to the Church.”
Regarding other Catholic public figures who persist in supporting abortion, Bishop Burbidge says that he first follows Pope Francis, who encourages dialogue.
“You always offer. And sometimes people don’t even acknowledge the offer. Sometimes they reject the offer. Sometimes they accept it, but don’t dialogue. They only restate their position. And there are some moments and I’ve had that in my tenure as a bishop, where the dialogue really led to something very fruitful. So we can never tire of doing that offering to dialogue,” he said.
When asked if he would uphold Archbishop Cordileone’s instruction regarding Mrs. Pelosi in the Arlington Diocese, Bishop Burbidge said, “In short, yes, I would.”
(See p. 3A for more on bishops who are following Archbishop Cordileone’s lead.)