This post appears to undermine a number of dialogue principles (such as 8, 16, and 9) that provide the foundation for productive dialogue with non-pro life people.
Given ERI's general reticence to engage on divisive political topics and avoid the wider ethical connotations of pro life support in the United States, it's a bit irresponsible to make a post expressing unconditional support for pro life politicians and pro life judicial appointments, especially in the current climate. A post like this, that takes a specific political stance and raises principle 10 questions makes these topics unavoidable.
"Pro-life states should begin preparing for the post-Roe era of American politics now. If they don’t, they may share the same fate as Kansas and find themselves strangled by pro-choice judges and inadequate state constitutions."
Thanks for a good article. Is there reason to believe that pro-lifers in the potentially pro-life states are not already aware of this and are not doing all they can? Is Kansas a lesson in not having done all they could, or were both sides in KS aware what was at stake and was the pro-life side simply outgunned when the constitution was being drafted? (I don't know anything about the history myself.)