Would Overturning Roe Really Harm The GOP?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Abortion, General Politics, Supreme CourtI HIGHLY doubt it. They didn’t spend the past 30 years building this majority just to have one case completely tear it apart.
The GOP has always taken strong stances, and if Roe is ever overturned they’ll have gay marriage or something else to make people choose sides. I guarantee it.
Jane Galt shares some sentiments (found via In The Agora):
Moreover, I think that they’re vastly overestimating the importance that people in the mushy middle place on abortion. Look at me: pro-choice woman, early thirties, socially liberal. But I just don’t care that much about abortion. The only people who do care that much are political activists, some health care workers, and the fairly small percentage of the population which is regularly having sex with people they don’t want to bear children with. I’m not even sure that I’d vote on the issue if it were coming up for legalisation in my state; there are a lot more pressing economic issues on my mind. Two thirds of Americans may say they support Roe, but for a large number of them the question is academic, and, frankly, not that interesting.
Something tells me that a lot of people would vote on the issue Jane, but the point is well taken. Are women becoming sick and tired of the Roe v. Wade discussion?
The reason I ask is I have a female friend who I was talking to last election and she brought up the exact same point. She doesn’t really care about the right to choose, et al. She wants the Dems or the GOPers to come up with something new to offer her besides control over her body. I questioned that, but more and more I’m hearing the same sentiments echoed throughout. Maybe it’s because these women don’t think that right will ever be taken away?
Thoughts?
This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 13th, 2005 and is filed under Abortion, General Politics, Supreme Court. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
July 14th, 2005 at 12:10 pm
Count me as one who no longer prioritizes the right to choose. From the ’60s on, I was active in, inter alia, NOW, NARAL, Planned Parenthood. Yet my response to recent action calls has been dismissive; the call content sounds like fear-mongering hyperbole. One factor in all this may well be the availability of contraceptive methods like the pill, the morning-after pill, the patch; these reduce concerns about the consequences of being ‘carried away’. Perhaps abortion could be safe, legal and rare without Roe?
At the time, as a proponent of abortion rights, I celebrated the result; as a lawyer, I viewed the rationale with some misgivings. Abortion rights have become the hinge on which swing much larger questions of where the power to make law resides, distorting the discussion.
July 14th, 2005 at 2:40 pm
I think the s would hit the fan if it was overturned so it would become law by the legistlature so quickly we wouldn’t notice - almost. But that;s my opinion. I’m in the same group as Jane Galt - pro-choice, lib, mid 30’s.
I remember the Webster case vividly and the panic induced hype by NARAL and NOW. Not that there is no concern but the public make the decision about such laws in the long run. So I pretty much agree with Jane and alene - “the call content sounds like fear-mongering hyperbole” - but will fight for my rights if it comes down to it because I still feel it’s ridiculous to have such an ideological battle when most of the Europe (and Canada) has gotten over it. Have they?
July 18th, 2005 at 11:12 am
First, I think Roe won’t fall for a long time, if ever. This will be a struggle for many generations. (And, over different particular issues, in many countries. I think being pro-life is a universal value, not limited to one country or time or the one issue of abortion.)
When Roe does fall, and not before, the Republican Party will have proved itself to its pro-life supporters in a huge, permanent way. It will have proved itself morally, which stands for lasting gratitude. It will also have proved that backing the Republican Party is the way to get important things done. That’s clout, and that’s power. That in itself attracts supporters, including financial supporters, who will want that clout working for them.
Removing Roe will return the issue to the states, which in all but a possible few exceptional cases will legalise it at the state level. Abortion will be available instantly in all but a few places, and even there you just add the cost of a Greyhound bus ticket, which a pro-abortion state will probably subsidise anyway.
The differences will be:
(1) If you think pro-life is the way to go, you now have a chance to lobby to make your state pro-life, and then you have to stand and fall on whether people agree after a while that it was a good idea, the way you did it. In other words, you finally get the chance to be proven right or wrong, politically.
(2) The exact terms on which abortion is available will be up for grabs. That can make a difference of millions of lives - a small change like just a day of waiting, or an ultrasound of the person you’ll be ending may make a huge difference. And it can also prevent relatively rare but very shocking and um, morally (insert polite negative word here) practices, especially partial-birth abortion. There’s a lot of trial and error here, a lot of politics and pragmatism. (You want to save every life possible, but you can’t save every life. This is only what institutions like hospitals deal with every budget time. You have to set priorities and be pragmatic, while keeping your basic morality firm.)
(3) There are knock-on effects. The Supreme Court restricted people from making last-moment appeals to women on their way to abortion clinics. That could fall too. On the good side, again, you get the chance to make your case clearly. On the down side, you need to shut up the crazies and the haters who can make a human appeal for mercy into harassment. As things stand, the gag both stifles pro-lifers - and protects them. Pro-life people are going to have to learn more self-discipline and a whole new politics.
In all these things, the Republican Party is the pro-lifers’ friend. The Republican Party will be more important than ever after Roe falls, even on the single issue of abortion.
It will become a more state-oriented thing though. Wouldn’t it be nice to focus more on good government - and deal-cutting, and trial and error - at the state level, and less on desperate struggles over the Supreme Court? I think it would be.
Just my opinion, as someone who keeps a friendly eye on how pro-lifers are doing in America.
July 21st, 2005 at 12:04 am
There are two major factions in the GOP who want to see Roe v. Wade overturned:
a) pro-lifers for whom reversal is the first step toward severely restricting or outlawing abortion.
b) judicial conservatives like me who want to rein-in activist courts.
Democrats have their own factions:
a) absolutists like NARAL who support abortion on a whim until the last toe is out of the womb.
b) those who favor the current status quo, give or take minor practical adjustments like parental notification.
Outright reversal of Roe will drive a wedge between the two GOP factions, making abortion a live policy question all up and down the ticket. For the Democrats it does the opposite, and makes the more extreme faction hostage to the moderates.
For these reasons I believe Roe reversal will be a political gain for the Democrats.
July 21st, 2005 at 12:24 am
Hunter,
While I disagree with your characterization of NARAL, your scenario is certainly intriguing.
And as far as the activist meme goes, can we put that to rest finally? Both sides can be seen as “activists” when cast in different lights. In short, This isn’t a place for talking points.
July 27th, 2005 at 9:38 am
As mentioned above, if Roe is ever overturned it would shift the battle over abortion to the states. That wouldn’t necessarily mean it ceases to be a national issue, though. Consider all those state referenda to ban gay marriage in last year’s election. They are credited with bringing out enough cultural-conservative voters in those states to win re-election for President Bush. Should an abortion ban ever be put on the table in one or more key swing states during a presidential election campaign (even if it’s not via referendum), you can bet that both the Democratic and Republican national committees will remember the lesson of 2004.
August 4th, 2005 at 5:58 am
Today it’s barely possible to be pro-choice and Rep; it’s not really possible to be pro-life and Dem.
Overturning Roe, making it a state issue, will result in Blue state amendments making it legal; and Red state amendments either adding many restrictions or making it illegal (with rape & incest & maybe genetic deformation exceptions).
It stays a plus for Reps until the Dems can accept some pro-life folk, maybe like Feminists For Life, who want lots of Dem type benefits: more, cheaper day care, pre-natal care, lower cost health insurance, longer maternity leave, etc.
August 4th, 2005 at 8:27 am
Is this a zero-sum game, or are benefits and costs to the pro-choice Democratic Party and the pro-life Republican Party independent? To what extent can both sides win or both sides lose?
If the contest is not zero-sum, what results would most strengthen or weaken both major parties?
Also, what are the costs of losing, especially the costs to each party of quietly throwing the contest?
I ask this because I’ve often seen it suggested, or assumed as fact, that the Republican Party, institutionally and in its higher reaches, does not really want to overturn Roe. Rather, it needs Roe in place to keep the pro-lifers permanently supporting the Republican Party, like a stupid donkey chasing a carrot that it will never get. Whether you believe that theory or not, it raises the questions: what would the long term consequences or costs of such a strategy be, and what would the long term consequences or costs of some equivalent strategy of quietly throwing the contest be for the Democratic Party?