Friday, June 24, 2022


Make no mistake, Divine Providence worked through President Donald Trump to bring this day about. Divine Providence also worked through all the prayers offered for the overturning of Roe V. Wade. Alleluia!


And make no mistake, it is no mistake that this decision is made today, on the Solemnity of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus!

Do I hear an AMEN?



TJM said...


ByzRus said...


ByzRus said...

Keep in mind, this removes such decisions at the federal level, it doesn't bad abortion. The states will now make such determinations. Likely, availability will become more limited if not eliminated in some places and remain unchanged/fully accessible/available in others.

James E Dangerfield said...

We still haven’t changed the minds of the bulk of childbearing age women. Now, there’s no excuse for lacking missionary zeal to change minds. Abortion has never been about “privacy.” It’s murder.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Indeed JD! But this is huge, but hearts must be changed and the Sacred Heart and Immaculate Heart can do it! But, we listen to the two practicing Catholics, President Joe Biden and Speaker of the House, who quite contrary to what Vatican II taught about the laity upholding Catholicism in the public square, doing the exact opposite, not following Vatican II and trying to reverse its teachings in this regard. I am scandalized by these two Catholics Scandalized is a mild term for it too.

TJM said...


Democrat run States will pass the most extreme abortion laws, so bishops and priests living in those places will have a lot of heavy lifting to do! Catholics will no longer be able to hide behind Roe when casting their votes for the Dems!

Anonymous said...

Rorate Caeli endorsed the following tweet:

"Mitch McConnell, who had a larger role than anybody in building this Supreme Court, celebrates the end of Roe:"

Several pro-lifers I have encountered online today have also assigned to Mitch McConnell the lion's share of the above-mentioned credit.

Even in the face of today's wonderful Supreme Court decision, politics will go on...the pro-Trump folks will claim that he is responsible for today's decision in folks will side with Mister McConnell.


What upsets me greatly on this glorious day, is that America's top-of-the-list politicians, namely, President Biden, and Nancy Pelosi — each a Catholic — have led the charge today against the Supreme Court's decision in question.

It continues to amaze me that, via their pro-abortion stances, they favor today Satan's Culture of Death over God's Culture of life.

Rather than rejoice in today's pro-life, Supreme Court's decision in question, President Biden, and Nancy Pelosi — not to mention additional Catholics — have shaken their fists at said decision.

It is beyond belief that two self-identified "devout" Catholics favor death, rather than life, for unborn children.

But fortunately, for the Holy People of God, Pope Francis' numerous, powerful condemnations of abortion have led God's People to defend, and support, the Culture of Life.

Unfortunately, President Biden, Nancy Pelosi, as well as additional pro-abortion "devout" Catholics, prefer to stand outside the Culture of Life. Said folks prefer to stand with Satan, rather than with Pope Francis.

Said folks have refused to join countless pro-life Catholics who stand with Pope Francis.


Mark Thomas

TJM said...

Biden is already yammering about making Abortion a federal right. The only problem, it would be overturned because of today's decision. This decision is not just about Roe but re-establishing our constitutional order. What Biden is signalling is that the Democratic Party depends on Planned Parenthood and other lefty organizations for contributions. The Archbishop of DC praised the decision so Mr. Catholic may want to rethink his belligerent position.

FYI, President Trump, not McConnell, nominated 3 of the justices responsble for overturning Roe v Wade. McConnell simply followed through on President Trump's nominees.

TJM said...

I have been watching some of the protests from the left. These folks come across as demonic. Much of the evil national media is in meltdown. Honest liberal constitutional scholars will readily acknowledge that Roe was made up out of whole clothe.Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg said the decision was a mistake.

TJM said...

Here is a libertarian law professor's take on the fall out:

Mark said...

I understand, of course, the impulse to celebrate, and I hate to have to pour cold water on things, but ByzRus is quite right. This is not the end of the struggle over abortion; it is just the beginning. The following article will give you an idea of the legal mess that will now follow in the short term:

Moreover, I would not be surprised if the decision had little impact on the number of abortions performed (through a clinical procedure or through medication). I have long firmly believed that the ONLY way to reduce the number of abortions is to change hearts and minds, which is where I focus my own efforts and will continue to do so. And James, you will NOT change them by calling women murderers.

The issue of abortion will continue to be highly politicized at both the state and federal levels, not to mention war that we can now expect to be be waged on the legitimacy of Supreme Court rulings. It would have been far better to adopt Chief Justice Roberts’ gradualist approach.

Again, I am sorry to ruin the party.

Mark said...

I also agree that Roe v. Wade was poorly reasoned. But this doesn’t mean that a sounder basis for recognizing a constitutional right to abortion cannot be articulated. Indeed, I believe Justice Ginsburg held that view herself. So again, presumably we can expect further litigation challenging the constitutionality of state abortion restrictions on these other bases going forward (if not on the equal protection basis favored by Ginsburg herself, which this Supreme Court seems to have foreclosed). The legal nightmare will continue for many years.

In the meantime, let’s focus efforts on changing hearts and minds—with love and not by demonizing abortion supporters (although I do agree some of the protesters do look demonic, especially when editors have done their work in choosing just the right photographs—we all know how that works, I hope).

Anonymous said...

Excerpts from Catholic News Agency's article: Seven myths about overturning Roe v. Wade

-- Myth 1: Abortion is now illegal in the United States.

"Abortion — which the Catholic Church teaches is a “grave evil” — is still legal in many areas of the country. Now that Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortion is governed by state laws, and for years some states have been legislating in a pro-life direction, and others in a pro-choice direction.

-- Myth 2: Women will be harmed by this decision.

Virtually all states with “trigger” laws to ban abortion include an exception for medical emergencies..

-- Myth 4: A majority of women will live in states with no surgical abortion.

Because several of the most populous states in the nation — such as California, New York, and Illinois — have moved to codify abortion into their laws, a majority of women will likely live in states where surgical abortion is still accessible.

Many of the most pro-life states in the country have relatively small populations, despite being geographically large.

-- Myth 6: Women in states where surgical abortions are banned will be unable to get abortions, unless they travel.

Again, the reality is that abortion will remain accessible for many women who seek it out.

Part of the reason for this is the proliferation of the “abortion pill,” also known as medication abortion. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control's most recent Abortion Surveillance report, for the year 2019, “early medical abortions” made up 42.3% of abortions that year.

The two-pill regimen is fully approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which in late 2021 authorized doctors to prescribe the drugs online and mail the pills, allowing women to perform early abortions — up to ten weeks of gestation — without leaving their homes.

-- Myth 7: Now that Roe v. Wade is overturned, it’s a done deal. States will always be able to restrict abortion from now on.

This is true currently, but the federal government under President Joe Biden has attempted to pass a bill codifying Roe v. Wade into federal law, which if passed would supersede state-level pro-life laws; but such attempts so far have failed.

But just because such efforts have failed so far does not mean the federal government will not continue to try to pass such measures.

For pro-life people, the work continues."


Mark Thomas

Mark said...

Sorry, I posted the wrong link two comments ago. Here is the correct link:

Unknown said...

Sophia says: Amen! Alleluia ! Thank you Jesus. And yes Father I also agree that having it announced on this august day, the Feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, puts a crown on this momentous decision! Obviously both President Trump who courageously nominated these 3 pro- life Justices and Senator Mitch McConnell who fought ever so valiantly to have them confirmed in the Senate share the credit equally- although Senator McConnell had to put more effort and skill into accomplishing his part. Neither man alone could have accomplished this. So we are immensely grateful to both these earthly agents whom God used to make yesterday’s victory possible!
The effort to reduce the demand for abortions should necessarily include a return to basics-abstinence based sex education. Abstinence until marriage or short of that, for as many years as possible is the surest way to reduce the number of abortions! “It’s elementary my dear Watson”! I notice that that bit of biology is seldom even hinted at any more!

Jerome Merwick said...

Well Father, I've been watching from the sidelines, and I cannot help but notice what TJM noticed on an earlier post: This blog is turning in to a forum for one very verbose person to have a long conversation with himself. In short, it's one long yawn.

No offense, but you've let it happen.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Jerome you have the power not to read the comments but simply post a comment on about the post that people comment on. It really is simple.

TJM said...

There is an Insurrection fomented by Abortion Protestors (Democrats). The police had to disburse this Democratic mob with teargas because the state senate was unable to leave.

The media and federal response will be to side with these thugs because they are their thugs. Rule of Law is just a buzzword they toss at their opposition.

What say you Mark? Or are these “mostly” peaceful protests? I view these folks as Satan’s minions

TJM said...

Jerome Merwick,

I think this blog is therapy for MT.

TJM said...

The Vatican put out a statement that fake Catholics Biden and Pelosi will ignore

rcg said...

TJM, vomiting is a violent act, but it ejects the poison. We are now offered the opportunity to direct prayers, good works towards these people who are in the grip of this evil. It will be unpleasant but so is caring for any violently sick person. The heart of this evil is the dehumanization and objectification of women. That is the next battle.

Dave Thoman said...

Mark –I have a question to one your remarks in your 5:19pm June 24 post, but first some context. I think that you and I agree: (1) winning hearts and minds will be key in the long term in making abortions rare, (2) there are more legal battles to come, and (3) the impact of the ruling in reducing abortions is unknown. Why would you prefer that Justice Robert’s position had prevailed? My understanding is that he supported upholding the Mississippi law but not the overturn of Roe. I am celebrating the ruling and am hopeful that it will lead to a reduction in the number of abortions. I am putting my trust in God that His blessings will be upon righteous efforts to seek a moral good.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

"O God, source of all life and goodness, you fashion human lives in your image and likeness, and through your love, give each human life dignity, sacredness, and priceless worth; awaken in every heart new reverence for the least of your children, and renew among your people a readiness to nurture and sustain your precious gift of human life at all stages, and in all conditions.
Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, for ever and ever.

Mark said...


I think you already know the answer to your question. I am an ardent defender of the Rule of Law, as I make clear in Chapter 7 of my book. Clearly, I do not condone violence or the threat of violence by these protesters, any more than I condone its use at the U.S. Capitol on behalf of Trump. This said, massive protests in the wake of yesterday’s ruling are predictable—a ruling which, I fear, has weakened the Rule of Law and the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. This is something that Chief Justice Roberts well understands. As I said in a comment yesterday, it would have been far, far better to have adopted Roberts’ incremental approach.

Even if Justice Alito and the four Justices who signed on to his Opinion (not just the judgment as Roberts did) wanted to do what they did, the Opinion should have exhibited greater judicial statesmanship than it does. A judicial statesman writes an Opinion that reaches out to the losing party, at least by expressing empathy. Why? Because to maintain the Rule of Law, you must preserve what Anthony Kronman calls “political fraternity” and the willingness of people to go along with the system. See Anthony T. Kronman, The Lost Lawyer: Failing Ideals of the Legal Profession (1993). I do not detect much empathy in Alito’s Opinion. The dissenting Opinion makes this clear. Perhaps a concurring Opinion by the one woman in the majority would have helped. Sadly, Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not write one.

Exhibiting such judicial statesmanship is even more important when the country is already so riven by division. As I said yesterday, this decision by the Supreme Court is just the beginning of a war that will now be waged at both the state and the federal levels. It will never, ever end unless and until the political football of abortion is taken off the political table. I don’t see how this is going to happen except by changing hearts and minds. Do you? I discuss a process for changing hearts and minds in political conversation in Chapter 8 of the book—and it has nothing to do with our corrupt two-party system and everything to do with respectful grassroots conversation among the people. Certainly, force and coercion, including the force and coercion underlying enforcement of the law, are not going to change hearts and minds. Please show me how I am wrong--if I am.

Exhibiting such judicial statesmanship is also even more important when the popularity of the Supreme Court is already at its lowest ebb ever (I believe polls indicate something like a 25% approval rate). And why is it so unpopular? Because it is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as being far too politicized and ideological. This can only threaten the Rule of Law.

I write this comment not only as a Catholic who wants abortion to be an unthinkable option but as a lawyer deeply concerned about the serious threats to the Rule of Law and our Republic that we currently face.

TJM said...


You just described the Democratic Party a poison to be vomited! Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton and hair sniffer Biden who took showers with his daughter. Basta!

If you look at news stories of the pro abortion protestors they look angry and possessed. I guess in their world that’s “civility.” And I place blame on decades of Catholic bishops giving this Party a pass. Pius XI they are not. I have never been so ashamed of my Church. I now understand why millions have walked away

TJM said...

I want our two resident lefties to defend this. Using the "N" word by your Party against Justice Clarence Thomas:

I wonder if Wilton Gregory will condemnd this?

Mark said...


Those tweets are appalling and completely unacceptable. And for the umpteenth time, it is not my Party (assuming you included me as one of “our two resident leftists”). Read my book. I explode your narrow political categories.

Mark said...

Father Kavanaugh:

Thank you for the lovely prayer. I hope everyone takes it to heart--in its full depth and breadth.

Thomas Garrett said...


I like your new header photo(s). They tell a story that too many Catholics don't get: Marriage is about raising a family.

When I got married, in the typical fashion of my age, I didn't really want children. I thought of them as a pain. I reluctantly accepted that I would probably have children at some point, but I wanted the "good life", not diapers, sleep loss and responsibility.

When I found out my first child was coming, I went into an emotional tailspin for several days. I was selfish, plain and simple. I nervously anticipated what was coming in a few months and, on the day my first child was born, my life changed. Lightning did not strike. God did. I realized that I wasn't the center of the universe any more.

Four children later, I can honestly say that the ONLY worthwhile thing I have done with my life is have kids. The only deeply rewarding thing that continues to give me any satisfaction is being a father. I am not discounting my gratitude for the blessings God has given me, but I am simply saying that THIS blessing stands out among all the others. God forced me to grow up and, in doing so, I got something I would never have been able to appreciate if I stayed stuck in the "me" zone. My life isn't about me. My life is about my children and my relentless vocation to make sure that they all make it to Heaven. There's far more satisfaction in that than any other empty pursuit I've given myself to. Everything else I've done is meaningless by comparison.

TJM said...


What happened on January 6 (if we ever get to the truth of what really happened) pails in comparison to what the Democratic Party is doing: fomenting rebellion and attacking the Rule of Law and Democracy, from Biden on down. One Democrat protestor screamed “I love killing f-cking babies” which was captured on tape. The “N” word is now acceptable again. Such “measured” discourse. The national media is a disgrace. Normal people are appalled by the ferocity of these protestors. They are unhinged. At least the Vatican is pleased which should cause Pelosi some angst.

TJM said...

More "measured" words from Nancy Pelosi:

“Trump’s Supreme Court just ruled to rip reproductive rights away from every single woman in this country,” the hysterical email reads, seeking to whip up your emotion.

“I don’t say this lightly,” it continues. “We can either sit back and admit defeat to these far-right extremists,” it says, then it goes full-bold, highlighted in red, “Or we can RISE UP, meet this ONCE-IN-A-GENERATION moment, and marshal a response so HISTORIC that we make every last anti-choice Republican REGRET what they’ve done.”

So Faithful Catholics are far-right extremists? At least they are not rioting over the decision, like Democrats are, in the very cities they control! LOL

Mark said...

We should hope and pray that all politicians, especially those who characterize themselves as “pro-life,” will now act consistently and be truly “pro-life” and not just “pro-birth.” See

“After the United States Supreme Court’s historic decision Friday overruling Roe v. Wade, the Vatican’s top official on life issues has said the decision is an opportunity to both strengthen societal support for mothers and to launch a deeper reflection on human life. . . .

“[I]n terms of the broader social context, he stressed the need to provide ‘adequate sexual education, to guarantee health care that is accessible to all, and to prepare legislative measures to protect the family and motherhood, overcoming existing disparities.’

“‘We need solid assistance for mothers, couples, and the unborn child that involves the whole community’ and which encourages expectant mothers in difficulty ‘to continue their pregnancy and to entrust the child to those who can guarantee their growth,’ he said.

“This, Paglia added, is a commitment every Catholic structure ought to make throughout the world, ‘in every diocese, in every nation.’

“In a statement issued immediately after yesterday’s historic decision, the Pontifical Academy for Life urged citizens to overcome division and to toss ideology aside, instead joining forces to build a more just and equitable society capable of protecting life and caring for everyone, especially mothers.

“The Pontifical Academy for Life joins the U.S. bishops’ statement on the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. Archbishop H. Gomez of Los Angeles, president of the conference, and Archbishop William Lori, head of the bishops’ pro-life committee, said that ‘the Court’s opinion shows how the issue of abortion continues to arouse heated debate.’ . . .

“‘The protection and defense of human life is not an issue that can remain confined to the exercise of individual rights but instead is a matter of broad social significance,’ they said, stressing the need, nearly 50 years after Roe v. Wade first went into effect, ‘to reopen a non-ideological debate’ on the place that protection of life issues have in civil society.
“At the heart of the debate is the question of ‘developing political choices that promote conditions of existence in favor of life without falling into a priori ideological positions,’ the academy said, saying this implies proper education and accessible health care, as well as legislative measures that protect families, and especially expectant mothers.”


Mark said...

See also

“Lori, in a statement with USCCB president Archbishop José Gomez of Los Angeles, proclaimed that it is a ‘time for healing wounds and repairing social divisions; it is time for reasoned reflection and civil dialogue and for coming together to build a society and economy that supports marriages and families, and where every woman has the support and resources she needs to bring her child into this world in love.’

“Cardinal Seán O’Malley of Boston outlined what needs to happen next. He said that the decision ‘calls [Catholics] to recognize the unique burden faced by women in pregnancy; and it challenges us as a nation to work together to build up more communities of support – and available access to them – for all women experiencing unplanned pregnancies.’

“O’Malley also noted that ‘those who have opposed and supported Roe can and should find common ground for a renewed commitment to social and economic justice in our country,’ adding that he hopes ‘this new chapter may be a time of a different tone and focus in our civic life.’ . . .
“Other points U.S. bishops emphasized in response to the ruling were the need to make sure the full range of life issues are adequately addressed, showing mercy to anyone who has received or participated in an abortion, and make sure other life needs – healthcare, affordable housing, good jobs and decent housing among them – are taken care of for all people.”

“Gloria Purvis, host of ‘The Gloria Purvis Podcast’ emphasized the latter, especially for Black women, saying that ‘they don’t want abortion as a solution to a crisis pregnancy, they want help with the things that made it a crisis.’

“‘I know what Black women want and need isn’t abortion,’ Purvis told Crux. ‘They want actual support, they want safe housing, they want access to healthy food, they want a good education for their kids, they want job training – all of these things that most people also want.’

“Purvis also noted that she wants to see the abortion conversation also focus on young men, and the responsibility they have towards the women they impregnate and the children that result from that. . . .

“On changing hearts and minds, Lori said that happens in neighbor to neighbor conversations, and when the ‘Church is reaching out lovingly, reaching out truthfully, reaching out with practical services.’ He acknowledged that there are those who might not want to dialogue, but expressed confidence that there are a lot of people ‘troubled by this deep down,’ that leave a lot of room for dialogue.


Mark said...

Contrast this approach with the approach adopted by Mississippi (which enacted the law at issue in the Dobbs Case), at least as described by the dissent (see page 41-42 of the dissent):

“Mississippi’s own record illustrates how little facts on the ground have changed since Roe and Casey, notwithstanding the majority’s supposed ‘modern developments.’ Ante, at 33. Sixty-two percent of pregnancies in Mississippi are unplanned, yet Mississippi does not require insurance to cover contraceptives and prohibits educators from demonstrating proper contraceptive use. The State neither bans pregnancy discrimination nor requires provision of paid parental leave. . . It has strict eligibility requirements for Medicaid and nutrition assistance, leaving many women and families without basic medical care or enough food. . . . Although 86 percent of pregnancy-related deaths in the State are due to postpartum complications, Mississippi rejected federal funding to provide a year’s worth of Medicaid cover age to women after giving birth. . . . Perhaps unsurprisingly, health outcomes in Mississippi are abysmal for both women and children. Mississippi has the highest infant mortality rate in the country, and some of the highest rates for preterm birth, low birth weight, cesarean section, and maternal death. It is approximately 75 times more dangerous for a woman in the State to carry a pregnancy to term than to have an abortion. . . . We do not say that every State is Mississippi, and we are sure some have made gains since Roe and Casey in providing support for women and children. But a state-by-state analysis by public health professionals shows that States with the most restrictive abortion policies also continue to invest the least in women’s and children’s health. . . .” [citations omitted]

I realize the reference to contraceptives will be controversial here, but I think one gets the point.

Mark said...

Clearly, I have a problem keeping up with links. The first link in this series should be:

Sorry about that.

TJM said...


More "measured words" from the Mayor of Chicago:

Mayor Lightfoot shouted, “If you read Clarence Thomas’ concurrence he said,” she paused for a moment to acknowledge an audience member. “Thank you!” she shouted in a raspy voice. The angry mayor in the most classless possible way then shouted, “F*ck Clarence Thomas!” at the audience. The MC at the concert echoed her vulgar remark as the crowd that Lightfoot whipped into a frenzy cheered.

The Left is certainly nasty, no?

Mark said...

Of course, it’s not just those on the left who have debated and coarsened our public speech, is it? See, for example

By the way, do you have any reaction to the statements from the Vatican and the U.S. Bishops on the reversal of Roe v. Wade that I posted? One hopes that the calls for any needed government support for mothers and children will not be dismissed as left-wing socialism. Sadly, I am not holding my breath. This said, I really do hope I am pleasantly surprised. Perhaps all of us in the Church can lead the way by setting an example of civil, respectful conversation that seeks to promote life in all its breadth and depth.

Mark said...

Spelling correction – debased, not debated.

Dave Thoman said...

Gov Kristi Noem of SD appeared Sunday on ABC This Week and explained how SD will be “walking along side” women in need to get them “resources that they may need during that pregnancy to support them financially, get them the health care that they would need, make sure they're connecting with pregnancy centers, and also making sure that they can connect with adoptive families, should they choose to give that baby up for adoption.” SD is coordinating efforts with nonprofits and churches.

Here is link to the transcript:

Here is the link to the video:

TJM said...


I know you enjoyed Lori Lightfoot's "measured remarks." But this one takes the cake from Hillary Clinton still nursing a grudge for the 2016 election. I think she is describing herself rather than Justice Thomas.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemned Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as a man of "grievance" on CBS News this morning.

"I went to law school with him He’s been a person of grievance for as long as I have known him resentment, grievance, anger. Women are going to die, Gayle. Women will die," Clinton said.

Thomas Garrett said...

That Hillary Clinton would make such comments about Thomas is typical for someone of her vindictiveness and coarse personality. I give more credibility to the words of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, another person who usually disagrees with him (she made these remarks about two weeks ago):

"I suspect that I have disagreed with him more than any other Justice...and yet, Justice Thomas is the one Justice in the building that literally knows every employee's name. Every one of them. And not only does he know their names, he remembers their families' names and histories. He's the first one to go up to someone when you're walking with him and say, 'Is your son okay? How is your daughter doing in college?' He's the first one that, when my stepfather died, sent me flowers in Florida," Sotomayor said.

"He is a man who cares deeply about the [Supreme] Court as an institution, about the people who work there, but about people. He has a different vision than I do about how to help people and about their responsibilities to help themselves. I've often said to people Justice Thomas believes that every person can pull themselves up by their bootstraps. I believe that some people can't get to their bootstraps without help. They need someone to help them lift their foot up so they can reach those bootstraps" she continued. "That's a very philosophy of life, but I think we share a common understanding about people and kindness towards them. That's why I can be friends with him and still continue our daily battle over our difference of opinion on cases."


There are still some adults in the world left, people who can get along with people they disagree with. Likewise, I would argue that "Ruth DIDN'T Send Us" and would probably not approve of the terrorist tantrums of the group invoking her name. Her friendship with her ideological opponent, Antonin Scalia, was the stuff of legend.

Mark said...

Thomas Garrett:

Justice Sotomayor’s impression of Justice Thomas rings completely true with what I know of him, not so much directly (although I have heard him speak) as indirectly from many of my colleagues and students who had more opportunity than I did to personally interact with him during his two visits to our Law School.

And yes, of course, adults should act like adults and be able to disagree with one another without being disagreeable. The Scalia-Ginsburg relationship provides a model for all.

Mark said...


I read the transcript and watched the video. I am not sure, but I think this may be the website Governor Noem is referring to:

I don’t know how South Dakota compares with the other thirteen states discussed in the Commonwealth Fund source Martha Radditz referenced in the interview, but here is a link for that source:

The Commonwealth Fund notes:

“14 states (Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Texas) with the tightest restrictions around abortion as measured by seven factors . . . also have trigger laws in place to immediately implement an outright ban on previability abortion.

“As the public health brief argues, these states underscore the ‘central paradox’ in the debate over the future of abortion: those with the most restrictive abortion policies also show the weakest maternal and child health outcomes and are least likely to invest in at-risk populations.”

As this passage indicates, the Commonwealth Fund is summarizing an amicus curiae brief submitted in the Dobbs case. The details of the amicus brief argument are summarized by the Commonwealth Fund and set out more extensively in the brief itself in the following link (see pp. 25-35):

Mark said...

Here is a thoughtful piece in The Atlantic (“America Is About to See Just How Pro-Life Republicans Actually Are”) discussing the need for government as well as private support for pregnant women, mothers, and children and the partisan ideological obstacles to providing such support, especially in those Republican states enacting abortion restrictions: