(No, not the Israel-Palestine conflict.)
Just a fly-by, but in reading the February ABA Journal this morning (yes, I am still behind on my magazines) I came across this article about the aftermath of the defeat of the South Dakota abortion ban.
The cheerful little gist of this story is that the ban (and its repeal) exposed a rift between the anti-choice zealots. One side wants a total ban with no exceptions; the other thinks that that incremental assaults on female bodily autonomy (e.g., parental notification, requiring fake "counseling" before the procedure, etc.) are the way to go.
That these two groups are in conflict is good news. Given how conservative South Dakota is, the fact that 56% of the state rejected the total ban is encouraging. It's a radical position and Americans are not radicals. But it's the incrementalists that have been ascendant in recent years. Perhaps the fact that there is very vocal group who will accept nothing less than a total ban -- and who Americans are, it seems, prepared to reject -- will make them think twice about some of their radical tactics.
Either way, I'd like to see them waste resources fighting each other, instead of trying to control bodies and lives that aren't their own.