I appreciate the article saying “contrary to predictions” rather than “despite the overturning” as in the summary. Because anyone with any sense knew it would pan out this way. The summary wording sounds as it would be logical to assume the bans would result in fewer abortions. The article wording correctly allows that it’s the predictors (those pushing the forced-birth agenda) who were wrong.
Make pregnancy even more dangerous and force knowledgeable OBGYNs to abandon your state? Spur the sympathy of women throughout the land and the mobilization of pro-choice “auntie networks” who may never have understood the plight of poor women without access to care before? And do it in a pandemic-altered economy where remotely-accessed products and healthcare have become routine?
Classic FAFO.
Generally speaking, one runs for a place on the Board and the Board chooses their President. Who then needs to continue working with the other Board members. Ousting is not an option.
Getting on the Board is still a good way to get your pet peeves changed, though. Often it’s just a matter of focusing attention on it.