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?
LOL. That's the Roe effect.
".........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 (: