Roe v. Wade v. Dems
by matt at 6:30 am on May 19th, 2004 in Politics
The single most divisive issue in american politics today is abortion. Without it as an issue, the current coalition of economic conservatives and the religious right would not hold, giving the Democrats a clear majority.
The question is, is it time for the Democrats to stop trying to defend Roe v. Wade?
Many misperceptions exist surrounding Roe v. Wade, even among those who most support a woman’s right to choose.
According to The Abortion Access Project:
Should Roe be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, abortion would not become illegal, rather it would be up to each state to decide what they wanted to do. Even conceding that a majority of states decided to outlaw abortion, some states would never deny women a right to choose.
What good does it do to have one abortion provider each in North and South Dakota? What is the difference if women in South Dakota have to drive 8 hours to get an abortion in-state or the same distance to get one in neighboring Minnesota?
The issue that most Christian Right voters are passionate about is abortion. Take that away and they won’t turn out in such large numbers as they are naturally more focused on religion than politics. These voters will never vote Democratic in any significant quantity, but if they stayed home on election day the Republicans would be in trouble.
Of course this isn’t a perfect solution. Abortion should be safe and legal to women who feel they need it. They shouldn’t have to drive across state lines, or great distances in-state to have access. It is also possible that this would only encourage the Right to push harder on other issues, though no other issue can even come close to matching abortion in magnitude.
So the ultimate question comes down to “Is it worth the gamble to separate the Christian Right from the Republican mainstream?” I don’t know what the answer is, and I would tend to still defend a woman’s right to choose, but it is an interesting exercise.
Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments.
Bol wrote:
You bring up some good points, but stupid people are going to act stupid one way or the other. Take away abortion and I’m sure it’ll just be something else.
Posted 19 May 2004 at 7:22 am ¶
jean-paul wrote:
By that same logic, we might want to consider eradicating the practice and support for affirmative action, then…think of all new middle-class white voters the Dems could get.
Though this may be *impractical*, I still tend to think that one should vote for that which is perceived to be *right* by the voter, and not pull Rove-ian compromises in acquiring an unethical “victory”, unless, of course, in the Rove tradition, you’re looking to go back on your election-era word, and, say, come out in full force for abortion rights after having been sworn in.
Then it would be half OK.
Posted 19 May 2004 at 7:27 am ¶
matt wrote:
Well, flip-flopping is only allowed when it is done by Republicans.
Second, I’m not suggesting running a campaign based on overturning Roe, just not actively trying to keep it propped up.
Third, it will be history if Bush gets a second term.
You can’t throw affirmative action overboard because that would alienate the same number of minority voters as you would gain in white voters.
I’d rather have the choice to vote for what I believe in, but the bottom line for me is that the right’s crazy extremists vote for the Republican, while the left’s crazy extremists don’t vote for the Democratic nominee. I’d rather win and take my chances with a president who is a better person.
Posted 19 May 2004 at 8:13 am ¶
doug wrote:
First, abortion rights isn’t the straw man you suggest. The recent march on Washington indicates that the right to choose, more than any other liberal issue, has the power to mobilize thoughtful Americans who might not agree on taxes, the war on terror, etc.
Second, giving the Right a victory on Abortion would not keep religious right voters at home, but would rather embolden them to put more pressure on their elected representatives to further erode the seperation of church and state. The religious Right has more issues than just abortion and a victory would turn the upcoming election cycle into a huge victory party for the Heritage foundation.
Third, and finally, Roe v. Wade, like Brown v. Board of Education, do not in themselves insure that safe abortions or quality education free from segregation exist for all Americans. However, they reaffirm the foundation principle that certain individual liberties cannot be sacrificed in favor of any countervailing state interest. Sacrificing our narrow victory in Roe V. Wade just isn’t worth it.
Posted 19 May 2004 at 8:46 am ¶
matt wrote:
I don’t suggest that abortion is a straw man. I would also never discount what happened in DC last month. A few of my coworkers went, and were amazed by the unity.
The Religious Right certainly has other issues, but none even near as mobilizing as abortion. And if the mainstream republicans didn’t have it as a fundraising tool, or a motivating tool, an argument could be made that there would be less religion in government.
As a rule, people don’t get emboldened by victories, they get complacent.
“However, they reaffirm the foundation principle that certain individual liberties cannot be sacrificed in favor of any countervailing state interest.”
I agree with this, of course. The problem is that Roe will be gone with another Bush administration, which at this point has to be considered more likely than not.
Posted 19 May 2004 at 8:57 am ¶
tom wrote:
the thing is, as unifiying as abortion is for the right its probably also as unifying for the left. i know theres a pretty big gap in the percentage of votes dems get from women vs men, im pretty sure theres a couple reasons for that. support for abortion rights is probably the biggest and most important of them. the threat of roe vs wade being overturned is a rallying point for the left as much as its existance is for the right. they both feed off of it, and im not sure it can be proven that the right gets more than the left in the bargain.
Posted 19 May 2004 at 10:32 am ¶
ian wrote:
Wow really weird conicidence. I was in the middle of writing this response when I got a solicitation call from Planned Parenthood (who I’ve supported in the past). Spooky!
So Roe vs. Wade is overturned or passed back to the states to decide on. Doesn’t that just transfer the battle to the state level and/or intensify the battle for Circuit Court judicial appointments as Pro-Lifers look to strip away the right to choose state-by-state?
Admittedly, I haven’t followed this issue in any kind of depth but it seems to be me the best course of action is to defend the status quo.
Posted 19 May 2004 at 12:44 pm ¶
matt wrote:
Ian:
Of course they would shift their fight to the states, and some would no doubt vote to stop abortions. But they would have to fight in all 50 states, many of which they just couldn’t win.
I’m not saying this is the best strategy, but something needs to be done to cleave the religious right from the republican coalition, or else stop the leftist fringe from voting third party when they should be voting dem.
Posted 19 May 2004 at 1:04 pm ¶
matt wrote:
>the thing is, as unifiying as abortion is for the right its >probably also as unifying for the left.
Not the case. The left may agree on having legal abortions, but they aren’t unified. Ask your man Meat.
Women aren’t any more pro choice than men are, it’s pretty much 50/50 on both sexes.
>Im not sure it can be proven that the right gets more than the >left in the bargain
Again, the abortion issue is what keeps the religious right going to the polls. losing that as an issue would keep them home and not voting for commander in flight suit.
Posted 19 May 2004 at 1:13 pm ¶
kate wrote:
gets me to wondering why an issue so central to women’s lives should be the sacrificial lamb?
Posted 19 May 2004 at 1:44 pm ¶
matt wrote:
Because I’m a sexist closet-case pro-life Republican, duh. I think I’m in real trouble now.
Posted 19 May 2004 at 1:48 pm ¶
jamie wrote:
ok - i’ve been out all day and am just getting to this now. matt, very interesting point, though i side with many of the back-bloggers here that feel giving up on Roe v. Wade would have a HUGE psychological impact. right now i live in a country that supports my right to choose - turning this over to the states would be a bad bad idea. as far as losing RvW if bush gets a second term, i’d rather go down fighting. sorry. it may all be in my head, but i can’t fathom letting this be the aforementioned sacrifical lamb. very interesting post, though. hammers home the point you made earlier this week that you are no bleeding-heart liberal and there are many people further left than you!
Posted 19 May 2004 at 2:46 pm ¶
Dreadlock Jones wrote:
Yeah, I was almost fed up with Matt’s passive-aggressive conservatism, but SOMEONE needs to help me push my bio-diesel VW Microbus up the hills around here. So he gets a pass despite not agreeing with my perfect utopian worldview.
Posted 19 May 2004 at 4:19 pm ¶