He quickly added -- probably because he knows that we all know now --"I have experienced the pain of abortion in my own life and know the long-term effects it can have on families." Because a comment he had made on social media in 2012 -- long before he knew the pleasures of tickling the prejudices of white men -- amounted to an admission that he had paid for an abortion for his then girlfriend over three decades earlier. “I’m not saying abortion is wrong cause I said so it’s wrong cause God says so. It’s wrong when others do it and it was wrong when I paid for it to be done to my unborn child in 1989.”
Maybe Robinson had been talking directly to God, and vice versa -- I won't argue it couldn't happen -- but he's making it up that The Word of God, the Bible, says even one word against abortion. That's number one. The mandate-pregnancy crowd is forever projecting their ideology onto Scripture and assuming that God would have said it if He hadn't been busy that day. Number two: The complete erasure of Yolanda Hill as another player in the drama and the decision at the time -- if she actually had a voice in the decision -- makes Robinson's "regret" look like a cover for just more bullying.
You cannot escape the psycho-sexual needs of men to control the bodies of their women. Now, with the celestial reasoning of Samuel Alito behind it, the psycho-sexual component expands to include tacit exploitation of those bodies to insure a steady new cohort of workers. That's been one of the arguments, that an absolute ban on abortion will insure a steady supply of babies to grow up and do the work and pay the taxes. And incidentally guarantee the supposed survival of the white race. (Peace to you, Mark Robinson.)after the Roe decision, indicated that when Republicans achieve veto-proof majorities in the two houses of the General Assembly -- they only need three more seats in the House and two in the Senate -- they'll be delighted to follow their leaders over the cliff of no abortion. Even before that, with no veto leverage, Moore promised they won't wait to do their worst: “North Carolinians can also expect pro-life protections to be a top priority of the legislature when we return to our normal legislative session in January” (emphasis added). They'll think of ways to chip around the edges. And they might get help from a handful of anti-abortion Democrats, which will be followed by bad moments for everyone.
But Republicans won't have the support of a majority of the women of North Carolina. The most recent polling I've seen, completed during the second week of June, solicited reactions to the following statement: "The Supreme Court of the United States should overturn Roe v. Wade." Some 8% of women responded "somewhat disagree," but 41% strongly disagreed. Those numbers versus the 27% of women who strongly or somewhat agreed with the statement. Women who want to protect Roe included a substantial portion of Republicans: "Of the 1,100 North Carolina residents polled, 33% identified as Republican, 29% identified as Democrat and 32% identified as independent."
One other problem (but an opportunity for Democratic outreach) ... the disturbing 24% of polled women who said they were "Not sure" about ending Roe. That's almost a quarter of the state's women who seem weirdly detached from the realities, and that has to change.