Tuesday, November 29, 2005

GOP will win on Roe. If they want to ...

BBC NEWS | Americas | US abortion rights in the balance?

Update 12/4/05: This was an accidental post, I'd meant to put it in as a draft and edit it later. Nonetheless, it (oddly enough) received a comment, which was quite well written. I recommend clicking the comment link and reading Pidgas' post.

I thought the BBC news article was pretty well done, though the title is misleading -- as Pidgas suggests. It's Roe vs. Wade that may fall in the next year or so. As I've noted elsewhere the growth of genetic testing, and the desire of American parents for genetically optimal children, will enure continued use of abortion across all economic, cultural, and religious groups.

The more interesting question is whether the GOP really wants to defeat Roe vs. Wade. I rather suspect they'd hate to win that fight. It wouldn't end abortion, but it would cause them a great deal of political misery as the abortion fight moved into the legislature (where it does belong).

On the other hand, I suspect the Dems have finally recognized that Roe is a fight they can't win. It's an albatross for the Dems and funding stream for the GOP; the best strategy is to sit back and watch the GOP go into panic mode as victory becomes inevitable.


pidgas said...

The Roe vs. Wade ruling was based upon the "penumbras" of the Constitution. In other words, the right to an abortion lies in the "shadows" of meaning cast by the Constitution. It does not take a Constitutional scholar to see the dangerous misadventures this type of ruling tempts. One can both support abortion rights and think that Roe vs. Wade is an abomination. Support for "abortion rights" and support for "Roe vs. Wade" are not equivalent.

For all the hysteria conjured forth by NARAL and NOW, there is very little chance that the US body politic would currently support severe restriction of abortion rights. By supporting the type of ruling that Roe vs. Wade represents, we've essentially created a national congress made up of 9 persons with lifetime appointments. The attendant "political campaigns" surrounding each appointment serve only to illustrate the point. One needn't be a "fundie," "Bushie," or "neocon" or whatever to believe that this is a bad way to run a judicial system, let alone a country.

JGF said...

My blog post was actually accidental, I meant to post as draft and add a comment, but I posted it in its entirety.

I'll fix it up and make note of Pidgas comments at the same time.