Posted on 07/21/2005 8:52:01 AM PDT by .cnI redruM
The Republicans' ideal Supreme Court nominee is someone who might overturn Roe v. Wade, but won't. That makes President Bush's choice of John G. Roberts pure genius.
If defenders of abortion rights condemn the pick, so much the better. Social conservatives will think they won. And when a court ruling later proves they haven't, Republican leaders can comfort them. So far, all is according to plan.
Roe v. Wade is the 1973 Supreme Court decision enshrining a federal right to abortion. If Roe went down, two bad things would happen to Republicans.
One is that it would arouse America's pro-choice majority. Religious conservatives say they put Bush in the White House, but actually, so did a significant bloc of pro-choice women. We speak of the "security moms" who in 2004 cared more about terrorism than about abortion.
They also never thought the right to abortion was at risk. Bush has always balanced his social-conservative talk with reassurances that abortion would remain available. When he urges abortion foes to fight on, pro-choice sophisticates dismiss it all as background noise.
But serious incursions on the right to abortion would change that. I wouldn't want to be a Republican politician the day that suburban mothers learn there's no legal way to end their 16-year-old daughter's unwanted pregnancy.
The other problem in overturning Roe is that it would send the abortion issue down to the state level. Republicans don't want angry pro-choice voters rushing to the polls in 50 states. They should recall their clever move last year to put a gay-marriage ban on the Ohio ballot. It was meaningless but did draw more conservatives to the polls, who also voted for Bush. The trick works for Democrats, too.
Roberts will probably sail through his Senate confirmation. He combines the stealth qualities of a David Souter, whose views on abortion were a mystery, with a conservative hesitancy to overturn precedents, seen in Sandra Day O'Connor. He also appears to be a classy guy.
What does Judge Roberts really think about abortion? Nobody seems to know. As deputy solicitor general, he wrote a brief urging that Roe be overturned. But he was just a lawyer-for-hire then, reflecting the views of his client, the first President Bush.
Then, at his 2003 hearing to become a federal appeals-court judge, Roberts noted that Roe was "the settled law of the land." He also said, "There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."
Even if Roberts joined the anti-Roe side, the ruling is probably safe for now. Most experts see a 6-to-3 pro-Roe majority on the current court. Should Roberts vote against the ruling, a majority would still hold.
All this doesn't mean that pro-choice groups need not worry about the evolving court. Anti-abortion activists are busily pushing through restrictions on the procedure, some of which the court has upheld.
Many post-Roe restrictions on abortion are outrageous. The bar on federal funding for abortions, which hurts mostly poor women, is a prime example. Bush's executive order denying federal funds to international family-planning groups that offer abortion is another.
The biggest disgrace, though, is Congress's ban on almost all abortion services at U.S. military hospitals -- even if the woman offers to pay for them herself. That means women serving in foreign countries must go to local hospitals, where the care may be substandard and the natives may not like Americans. Consider: The rich woman in Chicago can end a pregnancy by walking to a first-rate medical facility, but the American soldier in Iraq has to fly herself to another country.
Why should Republicans care about making abortions harder and harder to obtain? Because the easy stuff has already been done. Republicans may not worry much about limiting the abortion rights of the poor, foreigners or even U.S. soldiers (most of whom are from modest backgrounds), but new restrictions would have nowhere to go but up the income ladder. And the upper middle class would not tolerate them.
Astute Republicans know this. Americans at all income levels oppose abortion, but the higher you go, the fewer opponents there are. This is treacherous terrain for Republicans, and Roberts looks like a judge who would not get them into more trouble with the pro-choice majority.
If Roe were overturned, I'm betting nearly every state (except maybe Utah) would pass laws allowing it. And some like Mass. and NY would allow it all the way up to the moment of birth. And, of course, no parental notification.
So, if the GOP manages to outlaw abortion, they will lose political power, so, they need to keep their political power (by not outlawing abortion), otherwise they would never be able to outlaw abortion...
bingo....the Left loves the abortion issue not just because they never met an abortion they didn't love, but they love the funds the fear-factor raises for them.
Young people are more and more tolerant.
exactly. This guy cant be that stupid. abortion would exist in NY, CA etc and girls would just travel to those states that allow it like they did before 1973. No major change except it may cost more for some depending on where you live.
Many who oppose Roe v. Wade, do not oppose it because they necessarily oppose abortion. They oppose it because they believe it is bad law, and the issue should be at the state level. Many would have a similar problem with a law that would ban abotions at the Federal level.
Oh no - my eyes!
If the abortion decision goes to states, then there will be some states that support it fully, some that support it with restrictions, and some that don't support it at all.
It will finally have a chance to be fully debated in the legislature, and then no one will be able to rightfully complain that it was imposed from above.
From a purely utilitarian point of view, having minorities and feminists aborting their offspring is a plus for conservatives. The fastest growing counties in the USA voted solidly for Republicans in the last election.
Morally, it is a sin that will exact punishment from the God Who says, "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people."
Harrop began her career as a financial writer at Reuters Ltd., in New York. She later worked as a business editor at The New York Times News Service.
******
6/14/2005
Froma Harrop: “Religious conservatives are getting played for patsies”
“Liberals have long admired religious conservatives for their willingness to place moral principles above a quick buck. The religious right’s idea of morality may not mesh with the left’s, but at least the two groups share the notion that values can trump economic expediency. I, for one, cringe at debates that, brought to their logical conclusion, could end at “Child prostitution: Just tax it.”
Casinos as a way to collect government revenues stand well above child prostitution on any morality scale, but they do share the same slippery slope. Both involve exploiting weak people. And so when religious conservatives oppose government-sanctioned gambling, many liberals want to march by their side.
But rather than make common cause with liberals, religious conservatives often fight alone. That’s because the religious right inhabits the same Republican Party as the moneyed elite. The money men demand loyalty and ultimately call the shots. Politicians try to play both sides, but anyone keeping score sees an obvious imbalance. Mammon gets four-star service, and morals lip service….”
"Her assertion that there is a "pro-choice majority" is bs."
In my personal experience, all libs assume that the large majority agrees with them on everything.
This kind of thinking, if continued, will wrech the Republicans. Christian Conservatives for a core part of their base. If the Republicans keep saying that conservatives should elect them because they'll be different on abortion, but never actually do anything about it, they will find that that part of their base will dissipate.
Conservatives will say, more or less, "As you have turned your back on us, so now we turn our backs on you."
LMAO - I was close!
Let's rephrase it:
I wouldn't want to be a Republican politician the day that suburban mothers learn there's no legal way toI'm sick of people using language to hide meaning, especially from themselves. If the road to Hell has an HOV lane, this is it.end their 16-year-old daughter's unwanted pregnancy.kill their fatherless grandchild.
To which I have no problem with that.. This is one of many issues that the Federal Government should but out.. Let the states decide..
#####Her assertion that there is a "pro-choice majority" is bs.#####
Exactly! And her premise is entirely wrong. If John Roberts confirms Roe, there will be millions of Christians who throw up their hands and announce that they're finished with the GOP.
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.