Be careful what you wish for

July 4, 2005

The unstated secret of abortion politics is that the right likes Roe v. Wade. They don’t like the ruling, of course, and they certainly don’t like the reproductive rights that the decision protects, but as a matter of politics, this ruling helps provide a foundation for conservative ideology, activism, fundraising, and recruiting.

And, though it can cause uncomfortable conversations for both sides of the divide, some are quietly beginning to make note of the fact that the demise of Roe could have unintended partisan consequences.

[T]he political irony that few on either side readily acknowledge — but many are pondering — is that Roe’s demise could transform American elections by crippling the conservative political majority that opposes abortion and by giving new life to hobbled liberals who support the ruling’s preservation. […]

[T]he prospect of progress toward overturning Roe — and the realization that President Bush could have at least two chances to make transformative appointments to the court — has exposed a disagreement between conservatives who want abortion criminalized and pragmatic Republicans concerned that shifting the issue from the courts to the ballot box would lead to massive GOP losses.

Of particular concern is the party’s fate in closely contested battlegrounds such as Ohio, Florida and Michigan, where the resurgence of the abortion issue could alienate moderate voters who have helped Republicans make gains on all levels.

“Smart strategists inside the party don’t want the status quo changed,” said Tony Fabrizio, chief pollster for the 1996 Republican presidential campaign of Bob Dole.

“This may cause Republicans like Arnold Schwarzenegger — who are strongly committed to being pro-choice — to flip or to push for a third-party movement,” he added. “If they did outlaw it, it would ultimately turn the Republican Party into a theocratic-based party rather than an ideological party, and the party would necessarily start shedding people.”

Abortion is a top political issue in every election cycle, but that’s as a political abstract. Those seeking public office can legislate on peripheral issues relating to abortion, but the matter remains a legal one so long as Roe is on the books.

If Bush shifts the court and Roe is overturned, every political candidate at the state and national level will have to make clear how he or she will shape reproductive policy through government. And with most Americans remaining pro-choice, it’s not a dynamic forward-thinking Republicans should look forward to.

Be careful what you wish for, GOP.

Facinating concept: Rethugs “lose the election wars” by “winning the battle” on abortion, yet Dems “win the election wars” by “losing the battle” on abortion!! Then, once Dems control all of the state legislatures, the Congress, and the White House, we can pass legislation permitting abortion — which the Supreme Court packed by Bush will promptly overrule as unconstitutional!!

I’m not sure whose wet dream this is, but I’m not holding my breath. Even if we can gain electoral victories due to the reversal of Roe v Wade, the process will take many, many election cycles, and in the meantime millions of women will be denied their freedom of choice over their own bodies and their lives. That is an unacceptably too high a price to pay to win at the ballot box.

Better that we should stand up as progressives and proudly proclaim all that we stand for, right in the middle of America’s middle of the ideological spectrum — where most Americans live and reflect Dem values!!

  • Analytical Liberal,

    There’s nothing to fear from a conservative court in terms of striking down a law permitting abortion. If done correctly, Congress would simply repeal laws prohibiting abortion. Remember, everything is legal unless there’s a law against it, so we don’t need laws on the books permitting anything. And without a law, there’s nothing the court can do (ahem, theoretically).

    More difficult would be a federal law overriding any prohibition passed at the state level, but that’s to be expected in some parts.

  • The process DID already take many, many election cycles, with many women and girls suffering and dying as a result. Some enlightened states acted earlier on their own; others were forced to by Roe v. Wade in 1973. Too bad the last thirty of years of new voters have been so oblivious to the historical realities, but that seems to be the way they want it. Well, real-worlders, there are consequences for such indifference.

    I strongly favor choice and gay rights, but I don’t believe either should be part of anyones NATIONAL programs. If the hillbillies want to live in the middle ages, in THEIR states and localities, so be it. I wish it were otherwise, and I’d support any programs designed to encourage them to think otherwise. But I doubt I’ll be spending much time in rural Kansas, or even eastern Washington, so as long is these issues are off the national agenda that’s fine with me. And if they think they can impose their medievalism on the urban archipelago, they don’t know us very well.

  • I strongly favor choice and gay rights, but I don’t believe either should be part of anyones NATIONAL programs.

    I did not mean to imply, as two emailers have suggested, that no one should have national programs along these lines (choice, gay rights). Obviously, abortion rights advocates, and gay rights advocates, and their allies ought to have such programs. I simply meant that laws covering these things ought to be, it seems to me, a state and local matter, not federal. I think that’s fairly clear from my subsequent remarks (and in many other posts I’ve made here). If some future hillbilly region were to become truly obnoxious over the long haul, as with Jim Crow in the South, I suppose federal laws would need to be passed to correct the injustice, but that should be way down the road. They are more properly non-federal matters.

    Till then, if the boobs want to support statements like TX Gov. Rick Perry’s — “Texans made a decision about marriage and if there’s a state that has more lenient views than Texas, then maybe that’s a better place for them to live” — fine. Their state will be that much worse off for having driven them out, and the receiving states will be that much better for having added them to their workforce. On important social issues I think the corporate world is parsecs ahead of the pharisaical bible-thumpers and snake-handlers who pose as religious these days.

  • I suppose it is natural to use the rhetoric of “turn back the clock.” But, that rhetoric should not lead to some complacent view that a conservative triumph will lead a situation at all resembling any ex ante universe.

    I don’t think the Republican coalition really wants the Supreme Court to overrule Roe v. Wade, by simply finding the Constitution silent on what States can do to regulate abortion or reproductive rights in general, or even individual rights, in general.

    If there is a division on the judicial right, it is between Scalia and Thomas. Scalia would preserve the formality of due process of law, and the immunity of speech and press from “government” suppression. Thomas would effectively abolish all of these, on the grounds that the concerns and problems of individuals are too trivial to rise to the grand level of constitutional issues.

    Both Scalia and Thomas would pave the way to rule by business corporations. Their libertarianism will free business corporations to oppress individuals without restraint and without legal recourse for the individual. The authoritarianism of a Gonzales would free the President to act without legal restraint or oversight from the Congress. In short, we are staring a 21st Century Fascist State in the face.

    On abortion, I would expect the Supreme Court to not just reverse Roe v. Wade, but to find in the Constitution, a positive obligation on the States to regulate abortion, to protect the rights of the unborn. But, really, that is hardly the only thing to worry about. And, dreaming about a consequent change in electoral majorities assumes that we will continue to have elections, which, after the experience of 2000 and 2004, really ought to be in doubt, in any thinking person’s mind.

  • Ed,

    I usually agree with you 100%, but in the event that Roe is reversed, I think it is extremely necessary to for federal legislation to legalize abortion. To do otherwise sets up several scenarios that are anathema to equal protection of the laws: we would have 50 sets of laws simply based on the accident of one’s residence; taking a woman across state lines to obtain an abortion has been criminalized in some cases (akin to the Mann Act) and that would be aggressively pursued by the anti-abortion crowd, and especially in the “hillbilly” states and likely elsewhere too; and the bombing of abortion clinics will still continue and likely accelerate … they’ve “won” a part of the battle, and they want the rest of it — and these acts are RICO violations; failing to apply that law is aslo a lack of equal protection of the law.

    Just as the SCOTUS recently ruled taht the federal Controlled
    substances Act trumps state medical marijuana laws, so too do we need federal abortion rights law to trump 50 sets of state laws to make sure this right can exist in any one state.

  • Hmm. I see your point, A.L. I guess what I’m saying is that I don’t think this sort of thing (or gay marriage) should be Constitutionally or Judicially federal. I obviously haven’t worked that belief/hunch out in any detail, nor am I even sure I’d know how to categorize such a notion. There is certainly enough public support for choice to push for Federal legislation making it legal everywhere; and, given the further complications you point to, I believe it should it should be.

    I guess I still think it’s better to become civilized (the islands of blue) than to have civlization thrust upon you (the sea of red) – I refer to the urban archipelago – we gotta have some hillbilly havens to laugh at, don’t we?

  • I hate playing the political speculation game when so
    many real people are affected. We sound so callous,
    talking about strategies if Roe vs. Wade is overturned, rationalizing the action as ultimately
    beneficial to the cause, when millions of women will
    be so irreparably harmed by a reversal. And so many
    unwanted children brought into a world that doesn’t
    need them, and has enough on its hands trying to figure out what to do with all the sewage 6.5 billion people dump on the land and in the waters.
    To say nothing of trying to feed and care for everyone, that the Repugs don’t seem to give one
    damn about.

    I think our course is clear. Do not let this happen,
    under any circumstances. Fight like hell for the
    preservation of individual rights in matters like
    these, and forget about political theory.

    • Comments are closed.