Briefly Noted: Abortion Politics, Excess Mortality

Actually, two separate topics, although they may appear to be related.

First, abortion politics. Scott Rasmussen has an article today, explaining what has always been obvious to anyone who has followed polling on abortion. However, the obvious truth is one that the GOP typically avoids during campaigning, preferring to make abortion into a weapon reserved largely for judicial nominations. Rasmussen articulates the state of public opinion—which hasn’t really budged over the years, except in the pro-life direction:

Why Overturning Roe May Help Republicans A Lot More Than It Helps Democrats

Rasmussen’s point is simple enough. The Dems, he says, are wildly out of step with public opinion—their policy positions on abortion reflect the views of elite and radical anti-human activists, not the views of normal people. Further, he explains why a disconnect between public opinion and polling results exists. None of this should surprise readers, but it’s nice to have numbers to back up what would otherwise be inexplicable realities that continually emerge in American politics:

Let’s begin with the reality that any poll asking whether voters want to overturn Roe is meaningless. Why? Because voters don’t know what overturning that decision would mean.

Seventy-seven percent of voters mistakenly think it would make abortion illegal in the United States. Forty-one percent simply don’t know what it would mean (36 percent). Just 22 percent have some understanding of the issue. If people don’t understand what overturning Roe would mean, how can you possibly interpret polling data showing that people don’t want it overturned?

This strongly suggests that the point of many polls is NOT to figure out what people really think on a given issue. It’s to validate a pre-selected result and use that to persuade people to go along with what they are presented as a majority view—most people feel more comfortable going along with the crowd. Surprised? No?

To get a true sense of public opinion, it’s necessary to ask polling questions without D.C. political jargon. When you do that, it becomes clear that most voters will be okay with the result of overturning Roe.

With Roe in place, the abortion laws are set by judges. However, 65 percent of voters think abortion laws should be established by voters and their elected representatives. That’s exactly what will happen if Roe is overturned. Just 18 percent want to preserve the status quo.

Dems, Rasmussen suggests, are most outraged at the prospect of Roe being overturned because people will find out that the result matches up with their own preferences, while highlighting the untruth and unpopularity of the policies that radicals have pushed for decades. Rasmussen than presents Dem proposals—one of which was defeated yesterday—to illustrate the problem. Dems are catering to their radical base and to their donor class, not to public opinion:

Consider, for example, the legislation that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has scheduled for a vote this week. Presented as an attempt to codify Roe v. Wade, the legislation is loaded down with extremely unpopular provisions.

…

…, why would any swing-state senator want to be on record voting for late-term abortions, taxpayer funding of abortions, or the elimination of popular and very modest restrictions? Why would Schumer force them to do so?

There is no easy way out for Democrats. Their progressive base is demanding policies wildly out of step with the broad consensus of American voters. Seventy-three percent of voters agree there are two lives to consider in this debate — the mother and the baby. Voters may disagree on precisely when life begins, but there is a strong sense that at some point fairly early in the pregnancy, the fetus becomes a baby.

...

More broadly, 66 percent of voters agree it’s important to protect a woman’s right to choose, but that decision should be made early in the pregnancy. Not surprisingly, therefore, voters strongly prefer a candidate who says abortion should be allowed only during the first three months of pregnancy (56 percent), rather than one who thinks it should be allowed at any point during the pregnancy (23 percent).

The 2022 elections are shaping up to be a difficult year for Democrats. However, overturning Roe will not save President Biden’s party. It will simply highlight one more issue: the progressive party is out of step with the American people.

Moving on.

We’ve seen various studies for the past several months that draw on data gathered by life insurance companies to show that excess mortality is up significantly. Obviously life insurance companies keep track of trends like this because any increase in mortality in excess of well establish baselines causes the companies to lose money. When they see that sort of thing they need to adjust. The really troubling trend is not simply that mortality increased during a pandemic—for life insurance companies that would be water over the dam. They could make adjustments for the future, but they can’t change what happened. No, what’s troubling—and what could make a very big difference for life insurance companies if they pursue this—is that the most notable increase in mortality has occurred within the months following the start of the mass injection experiment. That suggests that many of the excess deaths could be the result of insured people participating in a dangerous experiment, one that avoided normal testing to verify safety.

This morning I came across this Twitter thread from a guy who appears to be knowledgeable on the subject:

Aaron Kheriaty, MD

13h • 4 tweets • 1 min read

They can’t hide the bodies. Excess mortality by age in quarter three of 2021 from life insurance claims data. Our public health establishment is entirely ignoring this disaster. These younger people did not die of Covid.

Source (p. 23): Society of Actuaries Research Institute report. Actuaries are paid to calculate insurance premiums: they care only about the numbers. soa.org/48ff80/globala…

Wall Street is aware of this--take a look at stock prices for certain companies that may be implicated.

I'm working with insurance company executives and regulators who want answers. They are a large and powerful industry that historically has intervened to improve workplace safety, automobile safety, fire code safety, etc. They lose money when people die unnecessarily.

• • •

This SHOULD be a major issue in the upcoming election. Whether or not it WILL be is up to the candidates. Does the relative silence suggest an explanation for all the moves put in place to control public discourse? Sure, there are multiple motives, but this is a potentially huge issue that could blow American politics sky high. Suppression and its uses.