Why the pro-life side won-- for the foreseeable future-- and the bullshit we can debunk by understanding the answers

 The first point to be made is that some questions are settled, and some are never settled.  Abortion falls into the latter category because it is rooted in a fundamental, philosophical difference.  When does a clump of organic matter become a human being, with associated rights?  At any point during which that clump of carbon-infused mostly-water is just carbon-infused mostly-water which happens to have some interesting proteins but nothing more, then the only relevant question is the woman's bodily autonomy.  At any point at which we grant that carbon-infused mostly-water humanity and personhood, the question of murder-most-foul enters the discussion.  Since the earliest stages of development are stages without a functioning cerebral cortex, or the other physical manifestations of what makes humans humans, those who take the pro-life position tend to root their belief (if not their actual argument) in religion, yet the very real question is where we draw a line.  Regardless of how one arrives at an answer to the question of when we imbue humanity into that clump, the philosophical difference is one that cannot be bridged, unlike say, how much should we spend sending arms to Ukraine when we generally agree that we should?  Moreover, since the Constitution says nothing about abortion, and most people are insufficiently sophisticated to hold a cross-pressured belief such as a) it should be legal, but it is not constitutionally protected, or b) it should be illegal, but darn that Constitution and its protection of abortion, abortion will never go the way of slavery, where we collectively decide that it is an abomination, or alcohol, where we collectively decide that the attempt to ban it was just wrong-headed.  This is a forever-fight.  Like, Delta blues versus Chicago blues.  (Delta all the way, with apologies to some wonderful Chicago musicians I know.)

There is a current line of silliness from the left, that passing a federal law enshrining the right to an abortion into federal law would settle things, and that the Democrats should abolish the filibuster to do it, ignoring, as always, that Manchin wouldn't play along.  Think for two seconds about this.  It took the right-to-life movement decades to reverse Roe v. Wade.  How long would it take them to reverse whatever statute the left wants to pass?  About two years, especially with the filibuster abolished.  That statute goes away as soon as the GOP gets unified control, which they'll have.  In two years.  Please, learn to think, Democrats.

And this is kind of my point.

When one side loses in American politics, it reverts to its preferred boogey-men.  For the left, the boogey-men tend to be "big money," "corporations," and such.  If there is a three-letter acronym that they can pretend is an all-powerful demonic force rather than just some marketing scheme that's actually a for-profit operation masquerading as a non-profit that never had any power except to get inside the heads of scaredy-cat lefties?  So much the better.

What actually wins?  Long-term strategic planning, preparation and organization.

The structure of the American political system is biased towards the status quo.  The founders believed that the masses were prone to stupid ideas, and that stuff needed to get in the way of them getting their stupid way.  The left looks at all the stuff they want to do, all of their failures, and they attribute their failures to nefarious forces, as opposed to the basic, structural force of inertia, built into the system.

The pro-life side recognized this thing called inertia.  True, a bunch of them are riding the short bus, convinced that Democrats are using abortion mills to provide them with the baby blood they drink in their satanic rituals, but they aren't the ones who made Dobbs happen.  Gibbering yokels, while they worm their way into Congress with distressing frequency, are not the ones who formulated the plan, organized, nor did anything but drool on their flag lapel pins.

The status quo is hard to change, hardest when it becomes Supreme Court precedent.  Changing that requires changing the composition of the Court.  That requires organizing within law schools, and creating signaling mechanisms.  Remember, Nixon appointed Blackmun.  George H.W. Bush appointed Souter, appointed after the coining of the verb, "to Bork."  How does a Republican president find nominees who will be as extreme as Bork without the written record?  The people themselves have to prepare themselves accordingly, the organization (the Federalist Society) has to manage the signaling process, the Senate has to work through that signal and, for example be willing to reject Harriet Miers.

Everyone involved has to subsume their other goals to abortion, which brings me back to a core point about pluralism and Robert Dahl.  This is a committed minority, working for decades.  Yes, the committed minority can win, but when the status quo is what the committed minority is opposing, they are fighting uphill.  The left's normal puzzlement over their losses come from losses in which they fail to defeat the status quo, but this was a decades-long project.

Lessons?

First, money is bullshit.  It usually is, but Dobbs should be an interesting exemplar.  Same goes for "corporations."  Is there a relevant interest group?  A whole cluster of them.  Single-issue voters, but the most important?  The long-term project of the Federalist Society.  And none of this is about money or corporations.  It is about signaling and the role of information, when like-minded legislators need information from a like-minded interest group.

Second, the importance of the status quo.  The bias is always towards the status quo.  The left misinterprets damn-near everything because they fail to understand the importance of this point, but the right won because they planned based on it.  They knew it would take decades to defeat the status quo.  So they worked towards that.

Third, prioritization.  The pro-life movement had to work over the long term, and in order to do that, and to work as a one-issue group, it had to make a deal with a lot of devils.  Purity politics get you no where.  Is this getting through to you, you silly lefties?

Fourth, don't try to run a marathon after shooting yourself in the foot.  Yes, this is about Ginsburg.  Technically, she shot you in your foot, but I suppose none of y'all know the rules of "safety," which is ironic given your new terminology.  Yes, I notice these things.  No, I'm not impressed.  Mostly, these are stupid games.

Fifth, extremist outcomes result from extremist/"constitutional hardball" tactics.  I am not really a fan of Tushnet's term, "constitutional hardball," but he got there first, so he got to name it.  Regardless, when McConnell blockades a Supreme Court vacancy after Scalia's death to steal a seat for the right, and then refuses to follow the phony "rule" he made up at the time, to confirm Barrett in 2020, the right gets its way.  Is it that the left is just too honorable?  Biden is a sap, and most on the left are strategic fools, so I wouldn't say that they are too honorable.  Whether or not Biden would be considered honorable or a dupe is a matter of some dispute, but he came into office still telling himself and the country that he was dealing with Bob Dole and Bob Michel.

And Ocasio-Cortez?  Equally dishonorable, differently abled.

Yes, Dobbs is an extreme ruling.  It would not have happened were it not for the fact that the GOP uses tactics that the Democratic Party does not.  Not because the Democratic Party is the party of fair play, but because they don't have a Mitch McConnell.  Pelosi can pass anything in the House, and yes, that is a unique thing, but it is also narrow.  She can't solve all their problems for them.  She is also aging, and the idiot children won't listen to her anymore, being more interested in getting clicks on social media than accomplishing anything.

Well.  I bet y'all'll get lots of clicks out of this, so hey!  Enjoy the clicks and righteous indignation!  Or I suppose, if anyone wanted to accomplish anything, you could try reading something about how the real world works, but that doesn't have the instant gratification of having your social media followers affirm you.

McConnell didn't give a shit about that.

That's why his side won.

How about some music?  Strangely, I have not posted Roland Kirk in a long time.  Here's "Search for the Reason Why," from Volunteered Slavery.