It's the oldest and largest national anti-abortion organization in the United States, hardly the fringes. They do a lot of campaign financing.
> It's the oldest and largest national anti-abortion organization in the United States, hardly the fringes. They do a lot of campaign financing.
IHMO, whether it was fully understood by the GP or not, "extremist organization, way out on the fringes" was probably in relation to the US Democratic Party, not American politics in general.
It's toxic, misleading, and annoying, but I think a lot of rhetoric nowadays is trying to manipulate the "Overton window" to partisan advantage rather than debate the issue itself.
Even more so if you were to present this explicit situation - I'd bet even some of the most religious people you find would be hard pressed to say that a ten year old girl should be forced to carry that pregnancy to term.
> More than a third of abortion opponents (36%) say it should be legal if the pregnancy results from rape, with 27% saying “it depends” and 37% expressing opposition to legal abortion even in this situation https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abo...
...and the largest anti-abortion organization in the country agrees with the decision to deny her healthcare. Does that match their constituents' beliefs?
Is the agreement by the largest anti-abortion organization in the country to deny her healthcare in line with their constituents' beliefs?
Yes. Also, I was specifically talking about contraception, not abortion.
Even in this extreme case though, if said 10-year-old victim were 1 hour away from being able to give birth, I don't think it would make sense to allow an abortion (though of course a C-section can be performed at any time). So clearly there is some line, even for the most extreme cases.