Redstate

What hurts is if you come off of that success and forget the principles that got you there.

(Quiet, Adam C...)

I think that after the end of Roe we need to make sure to keep unified, and that means not turning around and turning abortion into an issue that we try to re-nationalize the other way!

On the other hand, we could get smart and after Roe just turn to the NEXT social issue, and perhaps turn our FULL attention to marriage and divorce.

First off, don't discount your second paragrap, it could become a reality.  Most Americans think that right to abortion will always be there, like it or not.   They hear the pundits say "it is settled law."  They hear John Roberts say it is "a settled precedent," and don't stop to give a second thought to his carefully chosen words.  If abortion were suddenly outlawed I think you would see a liberal, and moderate backlash.  Polls show that a solid majority of Americans back legalized abortions in some way, shape, or form.

I think this is why many moderate, and even some conservative republicans, have treaded very carefully over the years, holding the banning of abortion out there as a carrot and never planning to deliver.   I don't think it is an accident that Reagan and G.H.W. Bush both put pro-abortion justices on the Supreme Court.

The best bet to curb abortion still seems to me to attack the edges.   Notification, patial birth abortion, etc.   The country and the courts seem very open in this regard.

But an outright ban on abortion, even if rape or incest is excluded from such a ban, could have the result of driving a lot of new angry voters to the polls, and on the opposite end, a small number of conservative, single issue voters, may feel they can leave the political process, their work being done.

with the advantage of hindsight and a historical perspective.

Meanwhile, you are also right about one other thing; it would be good for those who view abortion as murder to remember the abolitionist minority...for a couple of reasons.

With historical perspective, it will serve us well to remember that being in the extreme minority, with an "extreme" position:

1. Does not equate to a losing battle, no matter how bleak the circumstances, and;
   
2. That the definition of "extreme" can sometimes be in direct proportion to how far off center is the position of the majority.

Looking back in our own history, no one would argue those points concerning the abolition of slavery, nor would anyone equate the vehemence of the staunch anti-abolition crowd with anything less than moral inferiority.

Perhaps it would do well for those who don't view abortion as murder to look back at the abolitionists as well, and to reflect the vehemence of their own rhetoric toward those who hold this "extreme" position.

has written on this subject.

His take is that the majority have fairly moderate views on abortion.  Currently the moderate majority are frightened by the extreme positions of the left - you know, a free abortion for all 12 year olds, that sort of thing - but not by the more extreme right wing positions.  The reason?  Nobody thinks the extreme right wing positions are actually going to happen.

Roe forces the debate to the margins.  A blanket ban on abortion will not be upheld, so Republicans advocate policies which chip at the edges of Roe, such as banning partial birth abortion, parental notification, etc, which most people support.  Democrats oppose these positions and look bad to the majority.

If Roe were repealed the debate would shift.  In some states at least there would be support for a blanket ban, but then the hard cases would start to come out.  What about rape?  Or incest?  The mother's life?  The mother's health?  This is where the conservative position would start to fracture, and some would find themselves on the opposite side of the debate to the moderate majority.

That is a good point.  I suspect pro-life voters will only become more energized.  First by the victory and the rush of adrenaline that comes from such a victory and furthermore to hold off the left wing counter attack sure to be born after Roe is overturned.  This fight will not end in our lifetime.

Gallup polls actually show that pro-life views help Republicans and helped President Bush in 2004. See http://www.lifenews.com/nat903.html.

According to the Gallup poll, 23 percent of Bush's voters are single issue pro-life voters whereas only 13 percent of Kerry's backers are single issue voters in favor of abortion.

"Given the current state of abortion attitudes, Bush, in particular, has good reason to hold firm to his pro-life position and to communicate his views to the pro-life voters who stand ready to give him a second term," Lynda Saad, Senior Gallup Poll Editor said.

"Gallup found a similar pattern in 2000, and the national exit polling in every presidential election since 1984 has shown a net advantage to the pro-life side over the pro-choice side, based on the percentage of single-issue abortion voters in the electorate," Saad said.

thanks for compiling it.

just how dumb bell bottoms really looked. (-;

After Roe v Wade gets overturned, the GOP will suffer a loss of some folks one way or the other simply because this is THE issue that keeps the base motivated and has crossover appeal to Dems. For example, I know a person who is a Democrat and almost voted for Kerry in 2004, but she said in the end she couldn't do it because of his stance on abortion. So she voted Bush, even though she disagreed with his policies on Iraq, tax reform, social security reform, et al. Without Roe v Wade, we lose voters like her.

However, a handful of years after Roe gets overturned, it will be a federal issue again for two reasons:

1)Allowing states to make their own laws on abortion will result in lawsuits that will inevitably be settled by the SCOTUS. Several articles I have seen by law school students and professors have espoused this idea, mainly on two fronts. If providing abortion is a business, what of interstate commerce laws if a woman lives in a state that doesn't allow abortions and travels across the state border to get one in a more lenient state? Secondly, some states have laws protecting children, including before they are born. If they couple that with a law restricting abortion, they could realistically attempt to use child custody laws to keep mothers who want abortions in state instead of travelling out of state to get one. Both of these scenarios could easily result in abortion becoming a national issue again.

2)Folks in Washington, DC will continue to attempt to cut around the edges of abortion as long as there is a favorable SCOTUS -- for example, saying each state has the right to choose their own abortion laws, but every state has to have parental notification laws... or a waiting period... or counseling laws... or 3-D ultrasounds... etc, etc, etc. At the least, they will tie this in somehow like seatbelt laws and highway funding and not make it mandatory if need be, but there will be Senators and Representatives pushing such legislation.

Abortion will cost the GOP in the short term, but in the long run, abortion will always be a federal issue. And, I might note, even if it did cost us in the long run as well, it is still well worth overturning. No loss of voters would ever outweigh the chance to end the killing of innocent lives.

I want to see roe overturned, i dont think it should be upheld at all.  Its the right thing to do.

I'm not so sure about CA coming into play over the abortion issue.   This state tends to have some fiscall moderate policies as well.  

after the Hayes Bargain in 1877 to remove the last federal troops from The South, there wasn't another statewide or federal Republican office holder elected until 1962.  There was a strong, by Southern standards, flirtation with Goldwater, but I'll be the first to admit that it was totally based on race.  From what I remember, Goldwater didn't do much of anything to encourage The South that way, it was more of his being the anti-Kennedy - Johnson.  It certainly wasn't lost on Nixon with the '72 Southern Strategy, and the rest is history.

Divorce is a massive problem here, i wish we could reduce to the rates. Divorce Reform or something like that maybye?  Make it harder to get married and harder to get divorced, that sort of thing.  

Lol, not that it will ever happen but i always thought it'd be nice to get rid of the gestapo like divorce laws that screw men, but nobody will touch that with a 10 foot pole.  

I think another problem is the rampant.. shall we say over sexualization of our culture but i suspect i'm going to get flamed on this one.  What ever happened to abstinence being a good thing?

While removing the issue from the federal courts and putting the issue back to the states will be the right thing, eventually it may have several effects:  deprive Republicans of a hot button national issue, provide Dems with a focal point for local organization and, to the extent that restrictive abortion laws are adopted, will of course lead to increases in births by those otherwise most likely to have abortions - teen mothers without effective birth control and without husbands or committed partners, including a subset that will have multiple childreb outside of wedlock.  The increased births are likely to exacerbate problems of poverty in the inner cities and poor rural areas, and will provide more political opportunities for Dems, who will call for more government support.

First, politics is not an end, it is a means.  In this case, the end is returning the Constitution to its proper place.  That is a goal that if it is met is worth the fallout.

Second, I do believe it could hurt Republicans in some ways but will help in others.  I do not know the net effect.  It will hurt because voters like me will be more likely to support a Lieberman for President over a Republican or a Democratic Senator in our home state who is legitimately moderate on most issues.  It will help because there are many voters who are scared of the influence of religion on the Republican Party.  Seeing McCain and Guiliani get pummeled by the party keeps many fiscally conservative voters out of the party.  If Roe was overturned, a President Guiliani would win over another 5% of the electorate for Republicans.  Republican President could compete in CA, OR, and WA again.  The whole equation changes.

If that doesn't work, we can argue that Divorce shouldn't be an issue for the Feds but for the states.

If that backfires, maybe we can argue that it's a privacy issue.

If people question our devotion to principle, we can accuse them of being insufficiently Socially Conservative and say that they want to destroy society or something. That oughta shut them up.

they just look 30 years old when you buy them brand-new.

But hey, nothing wrong with wearing a halter and a mini-skirt when youre 5'3" and 250, right?

Hm I wonder if I could write a diary on that and somehow make it political, as well. A lot of the ideas I come up with don't seem quite political enough to merit writing about on here.

I can't guarantee that this is right -- but the best I can do on short notice. Two mistakes in saying John Tower, in 1962, was the first Republican to win statewide election since Reconstruction: It was 1961, not 1962; and Tennessee elected a Republican governor in 1880. The next Tennessee Republican elected statewide was Howard Baker in 1966. Here's the whole list from the Old Confederacy:

VA: Linwood Holton, Governor, 1969

NC: Jesse Helms, Senator, 1972

SC: James Edwards, Governor, 1975

GA: Mack Mattingly, Senator, 1980

FL: Claude Kirk, Governor, 1966

AL: Guy Hunt, Governor, 1986

MS: Thad Cochran, Senator, 1978

LA: Dave Treen, Governor, 1979

TX: John Tower, Senator, 1961

AR: Winthrop Rockefeller, Governor, 1966

TN: Howard Baker, Senator, 1966

(Actually, Tennessee elected a Republican governor in 1880, Alvin Hawkins. But that was just three years after Reconstruction ended, and was something of a fluke. There was a division in Democratic ranks. Must've been a Klan thing.)

Guess I coulda sorted by date...

First, it should be noted that Taranto is pro-choice himself although he opposes Roe.

Second, the moderate majority wants to outlaw abortion-on-demand while allowing it in cases of rape, incest, and life (or health) of the mother.  That would mean a reduction of around 90% of abortions in the country.  If pro-lifers couldn't rejoice at that progress, then there will be a backlash.  But I suspect the whole issue would disappear after about 5 years of figuring out where each state stood.

should look like Britney Spears?  Twenty or thirty years ago the HS girls standing at the bus stop would have been arrested for hooking on the spot.

And the truly amazing part is so few of them are attractive and so many are obese, and they still have to show their belly button albeit accompanied by three rolls of fat, handles, and a crack a plumber would envy.

One of my favorite sports when the kids' friends would come around was "accidentally" stepping on the hem of some boy's pants and watch him just walk out of them.

We may have worn bell bottoms and skipped some haircuts, but I KNOW we didn't look that dumb.

Is to allow homosexuals to marry. They are the epitome of mongamous relationships. How do I know? I watch tv and movies and they inform me. Allowing homosexuals to marry would be great for divorce rates, children and society as a whole. Again, how do I know. I watch tv and movies.

Even assuming that some aren't born Conservative or Liberal.... actually being born has to help no matter what your political philosophy may eventually be.

We ended slavery, and as soon as Reconstruction was done, there wasn't a Republican elected statewide in the South until John Tower in 1962.

Would you rather still have slavery?

(I will now go and check this assertion, but it may take some time.)

On whether you are pro life (or anti-Roe) with respect to proper interpretation of the law and Constitution or a hardline "aborition is murder" type.  I have somewhat of a skewed perspective I suppose, since I am meagerly pro-choice but also anti-Roe.  But it seems to me that the position of the hard right, that the 14th Amendment protects the unborn from conception, is by its very definition an extremist position.

Many pro-lifers have taken up rhetoric comparing abortion to slavery, and saying how slavery was "just wrong" and therefore abortion is.  These people should do well to remeber that before the Civil War the abolitionists had the popular support of about 10% of the North's population.  Other northerers were free-soilers who sought to contain slavery to open up the west for free, white settlement (an position often as racist as slavery itself).

Of course, history vindicated the position taken by the extremist abolitionists.  Whether it will again with respect to abortion will be a interesting question to be answered over the next few decades.