Posted on 05/07/2022 2:12:02 PM PDT by Morgana
If a text leaked to Politico is to be believed, the Supreme Could be mere weeks away from overturning both Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey, the two decisions which enshrine the “right” to end the lives of unborn children in national constitutional law.
The return of the most divisive issue in US politics to the state level is likely to usher in a new era of political engagement outside of Washington — and it could bring with it a new debate on the issue within political parties themselves.
For decades, both political parties reflected the national spectrum of opinion on abortion. Pro-abortion Republicans were not unheard of (and actually are still not unheard of), and pro-life Democrats were part of a sizable coalition of social and religious conservatives with their party.
But, over successive election cycles since the 1990s, the parties have effectively polarized on the issue, creating a political binary in which Republicans pitch themselves as institutionally opposed to abortion and Democrats commit to its total protection — at least at the national level.
Pro-life Democrats, like former Illinois Congressman Dan Lipinski, were, for 20 years, targeted for repeated primary challenges, and gradually excised from office. Other national-level Democrats, like President Joe Biden, abandoned previously “moderate” positions, like opposing federal funding for abortion procedures, as party support came to require they wholly endorse the project of enshrining “the full scope” of Roe v Wade in federal law.
During the 2020 primary campaign, various Democratic candidates, including Biden, were asked if there was any place in the party for pro-life members. Different candidates couched their answers to different degrees, but all the responses were variations on the word “no.”
State level exceptions to this rule, like Louisiana governor John Bel Edwards, have been largely treated as embarrassing aberrations within their party — and tolerated to the extent that opposition to abortion in that state is so broad that a pro-abortion candidate might simply not be viable, but with the clear understanding that they are not welcome at the national level of the party.
But is Edwards’ exception about to become a more accepted rule for state-wide Democratic parties?
Absolute support for, or opposition to abortion has come to define both parties at the federal level, in large part because of the Supreme Court’s ownership of the issue.
At the state level, with Louisiana being one of a few exceptions, the local party and candidates have largely adopted the national platform as a necessity for personal advancement and for access to central party campaign funds. Even in otherwise culturally pro-life states, state level candidates rarely have to campaign on their abortion views for the simple reason that it has been a matter of settled federal law for so long. That would change in a post Roe world.
Should the court return the regulation of abortion to the states, more than a dozen of which have so-called trigger laws in place to ban the practice immediately, party officials will have to decide if holding to an absolutist pro-abortion test for candidates is workable — or if it would mean alienating swaths of voters whose views on abortion have not previously figured into the state-level political calculus, and perhaps locking the party out of statewide office.
Those states with a settled pro-life consensus could begin incubating a new generation of pro-life Democratic candidates (and voters) who could force themselves into the national conversation in perhaps less time than it took to purge them from the party’s ranks in the first place.
Much has been written over the last two election cycles about a political realignment underway in the United States, with many nothing shifts in what both parties have traditionally considered their own policy orthodoxies.
With “conservatives” increasingly comfortable with government spending policies more often associated with the left, and “liberals” often attracting the support of corporate interests, abortion has provided one of the few fixed points in an otherwise shifting political landscape.
If that changes, following a Supreme Court ruling and a newly charged state-level political process, it could mean an even more fluid conversation within political parties, one in which pro-life voices could, for the first time in decades, speak from a position of strength.
when the moon turns to blood, sure. These pukes are already so far left (see Elon Musk’s “picture” tweet) they are beyond saving.
I know a few procoice Church members who have said “enough is enough. “
The media keeps showing pro-abortion rallies..but there were plenty of pro-life rallies...and most of the women were young...college age.
Unlikely any in that crowd will be truly pro-life. They will always push a list of situations in which they believe abortion is still justified.
The real answer is no. The dem party will never allow it
Only until after the elections...
Don’t think there ever really were any. They just put on a mask to get votes, while wishing to have legalized abortion that existed in the USSR since the early 1920s.
The concept of “a bridge too far” is enshrined in history in both war and in negotiations between bitter rivals. It is not bad enough to cross the bridge into really hostile territory, but to intentionally set fire to that bridge is the real travesty.
Retreat is then no longer an option.
“We cross our bridges when we come to them and burn them behind us, with nothing to show for our progress except a memory of the smell of smoke, and a presumption that once our eyes watered.” - attributed to Tom Stoppard.
Do not count on that particular leopard changing its spots.
Abortion as a civil right is so entrenched in their minds that only a
Pol Pot type re-education camp could change them.
As Ted Kennedy said, “Don’t cross that bridge without making sure that your pregnant young intern is knocked out in the back seat.”
Pro-abortion isn’t the only problem these democrats have. Just like some in the church . . .fence sitters . . .not a good thing.
Even if they did, being elected to office would only mean empowering the overwhelming pro-Moloch wing of the Demonrats.
Because there never were any pro-life democrats.
They might have claimed to be pro-life BUT.... and everything after the "but" wiped out their pro-life claim.
And if it came to any sort of argument between their claimed "principles" and their party masters party won.
Every single time.
Pro-life democrats? Unlikely, but what will be interesting is how much they are willing to compromise on abortion up until birth (or even after for some of the radicals). Actual support for their maximalist position (enshrined in Roe) is less then 30%; Support for criminalizing all abortion is at maybe 40%, possibly less. Who is willing to make compromises to get legislation passed will be interesting especially as both sides will have to make compromises and/or make persuasive arguments to those who are not already in their groups.
That’s a damn good poster! I saved it.
A society that cant see the dangers of allowing the easy murder of the unborn is not salvageable. It is immoral and cannot be free.
Thanks. Saved that one too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.