Posted on 07/21/2005 8:41:55 PM PDT by CHARLITE
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
Why do we even discuss abortion in the context of the Supreme Court????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? It is not something that I or anybody I know is concerned about, we could care less if it is legal or not. Other than the news, I don't think I have heard anybody even say the word in about 20 years. Guess, what, dems, nobody cares about your chief issue. Get over it!
Even if Roe is overturned (unlikely) - it will be tossed back to the states level. And any state overturning it will speedily drown in increased welfare payments and go bankrupt.
Unless we INSIST that the Judeo-Christian principles this country was founded upon remain the precedent, you will see a change. I believe that is in the making!!
I sincerely doubt there's any such plan.
We pray at Mass every day for an end to abortion. Indeed, I would argue the U.S. will, sooner or later, be destroyed if the practice is not ended.
More rationalizing over here.
This author is obviously just another abortion apologist and she doesn't even make a lot of sense. When she says "[The republicans] 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." she is somehow asuming that an anti-abortion referendum would draw sufficient pro-aborts to outnumber pro-lifers. She is concluding that anti-gay marriage is more popular than anti-abortion which MAY be true, but not necessarily.
If Roe were overturned, we would certainly end up, at the very least, with far more restrictive laws than we have now. There would be very few, if any, states were partial birth abortion would be available, and I'd guess there'd be NONE without parental consent/notification laws.
And as for the plight of the pregnant service women, sorry, I'm not swayed by that at all. That's another arguement for "SAFE" abortions, but these folks don't even care to count how many women are maimed and killed right here, stateside, in our fine, high class, murder mills.
And as for the plight of the "soccer moms" who just need to be assured that their 16 years olds can get an abortion, well, that is just sick.
Hopefully, if Roe remains legal, in another generation and a half it will be a moot law as the liberals will have contracepted/aborted themselves out of existance. Hey, I can dream can't I?
There's that darn Constitution getting in the way. Oh well! Just ignore it! Genius! Blather! Pass the booze!
LOL. That's the Roe effect.
I agree it is not likely a plan, however I do believe the potential results might look like those described. Thats why I say small sure steps, or outright revolution. No other ways to do it IMO.
Before we celebrate lets see how he votes first.
I think this article is BS.
Maybe those suburban mothers should teach their daughters to keep their legs closed....
The author's arguments are based on the incorrect notion that there is a "pro-choice majority". That was true twenty years ago, but not today. Polls show Americans are evenly split. In blue states there are pro-choice majorities, and red states they are pro-life. So putting the issue on state ballots wouldn't change the overall political picture. It would mean abortion would be illegal in many states, severly restricted in others, and unrestiction in the rest. The law would conform to what the people and their legislators decide. Works for me.
"That's the Roe effect."
I truly think there is an element of truth to it. It's certainly true anecdotally in my experience.
".........a moot law as the liberals will have contracepted/aborted themselves out of existance."
.....and yes, we can dream about THAT! Just imagine the headlines: BIRTH RATE DRASTICALLY BELOW REPLACEMENT FOR REGISTERED DEMOCRATS!
Thanks for the comedy at the end of some very worthwhile points!
Char (:
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.