For 50 years Republicans promised to end abortion, but they couldn't. Soon they likely can.
They have a problem.
Their goal was to put in place judges who would reverse Roe v. Wade and then to enact laws banning abortion, perhaps at conception, perhaps at six weeks when a form of fetal heartbeat can be detected, even for pregnancies resulting from rape and incest.
The anti-abortion movement had a hothouse environment to define its principles, free of real-life consequences. The movement proposed "personhood" laws, which defined the fertilized egg as a person. The movement proposed an Unborn Child Dignity Act requiring death certificates for miscarriages at any point after conception. The movement proposed murder prosecutions for women having an abortion. The cause went beyond important. It was God's will. This takes it out of the realm of politics and compromise.
There is a large squishy middle ground on the issue among the broader public. They want what Bill Clinton urged, that abortions be "legal, safe, and rare." With Roe v. Wade in effect they could largely ignore the issue. Now they cannot.
 |
| States with "trigger laws" in place already |
Ending Roe v. Wade will put abortion front and center in elections in every statewide and legislative district. In some places abortion bans will be popular. There will be news stories coming out of those red states about botched abortions, about women struggling to travel, of problem pregnancies, of bans on certain contraception systems. These will serve as red flag warnings to voters in the swing states and legislative districts.
The Virginia gubernatorial contest in 2021 reveals the problem Republican candidates will face. Glenn Youngkin won a narrow victory by casting himself as a reasonable moderate, not an ideological extremist, and someone at arms length from Trump. Democratic candidate Terry McAuliffe claimed Youngkin would "ban all abortions" and used the GOP party line on abortion to hammer Youngkin. Youngkin understood the peril and denied he opposed all abortions. Still, he refused to be pinned down about his position. He would not say whether he supported or opposed the Texas "fetal heartbeat" abortion ban.
He was trying to finesse this. His website had no comment on the abortion issue. Virginia Public Radio, VPM, reporting on the election, wrote:
Youngkin avoided giving the activists details about his anti-abortion agenda. He told them that focusing on the topic could alienate independent voters that he needs to win the election. Youngkin assured the activists he is not “squishy” on abortion and that, ”When I’m governor and have a majority in the House, we can start going on the offense.”
In Virginia and around the country, the fear of what Youngkin might do was theoretical. Nothing much could happen. It was just signaling tribe, not policy. Post Roe v. Wade, GOP candidates like Youngkin are exposed. Most are on record. If someone defines abortion as murder, how can one compromise?
The anti-abortion crowd expects results. "End abortion" is the GOP version of "Defund the Police." It is the kind of phrase that sounds good to people deep in their own bubble, and it motivates single-issue people, but it is toxic for politicians trying to win broad support.
Chief Justice Roberts understands that the Court is about to give Democrats a potent weapon against GOP politicians. Five of his colleagues don't care.
7 comments:
There's nothing nuanced about opposition to flat out in your face misogyny.
That's all it is. That's all it's ever been.
Let's not dance around the obvious.
This is and has also always been cynical pandering to religious extremists, and textbook Regressive. It's also completely in line with white supremacism...win win!
Two steps back...
What do Republicans mean by "pro-life"?
They consider life sacred, so long as it’s in the womb. Then it’s open season, and every idiot should have unlimited access to weapons that make mass murder so easy, even a child can do it.
This boy has cried wolf so many times over the decades it’s hard to realize that this time the wolf might actually be here.
Arguably, Roe v Wade took an issue that should have been left to individual states and provided enormous fodder for anti-abortion hardliners, particularly against pro-choice hardliners who wanted abortion on demand throughout a pregnancy. Ugly pictures came from that. Disproportionately amplified but huge fuel on the fires.
Most European countries allow abortion on demand in the first trimester, and in the second on medical need. Rational. Avoids the extremes.
I think most of the American public would be more moderate but the extremes have eaten the center.
Even so, it’s hard to imagine this ruling (which I thought was ill-rendered at the time for the reasons stated) would be wholesale overturned, foreseeing the uproar guaranteed to follow.
Just musing... If the court can overturn Roe v Wade, why not other rights guaranteed in the Constitution. Is Freedom of Speech next? What exactly does "settled law" mean? Will the Court become simply a political tool? If Roe v Wade is overturned these are not idle musings!
I have always thought that the power of the Supreme Court to declare things "unconstitutional" was way too unconstrained, and represented a "bug" in the design of the Constitution.
There is supposed to be a balance of powers among the three branches of our government; checks and balances, as they say. But the checks on the Supreme Court are very weak. There are only:
* constitutional amendments, and
* judicial appointments
Constitutional amendments are very difficult and time-consuming. Judicial appointments are way too long term compared to what the Supreme Court can do in the short term. it would be good if there were a stronger check on the court.
It is this unchecked power of the Supreme Court that leads to the political battles over who can be on it. What the Founders did was really good, but definitely not perfect.
Sally—
We are on the same page here. I personally am pro-choice, because true social, economic and political equality for women in our time requires choice. Roe itself is and has always been problematic in terms of legal (Constitutional) auspices, however. Outcome-based jurisprudence. Still. an overrule of Roe would be bad news (including likely for Republicans, politically, as Mr. Sage notes). Incremental modification is I hope the extent of the ruling..
One interesting interpretation of the medical/health jusrification you reference is whether or not mental health should be included, IF such medical/health gatekeeping is required in the first place.
John—
In fairness, just about any major issue upon which Americans are heatedly divided could be termed a “political” SCOTUS case, eh? Brown v. Board overturned many decades of “settled” law as well. Roe itself was a highly political” decision in this sense. Speech, gun rights, et al, are at least referenced explicitly in the Bill of Rights, unlike reproductive “privacy” as such. Anyway, some famous jurist once said that the power to regulate is essentially the power to ban. Whatever a majority of Justices hold IS the law.
If safe abortions are outlawed, next to fall will be contraception and same-sex marriage.
This is what happens when you let superstitious beliefs make public policy.
Post a Comment