A Looming Republican Fissure?

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
The only evidence I have is that virtually everyone I have ever talked to on the issue believed that overturning Roe would make abortion illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]And it effectively would, in some places. Of course abortion always has been and always will be available to people who are willing (and have the resources) to travel.[ QUOTE ]
Your basic point sounds like this: The vast majority of Americans want abortion to be legal. Am I correct?

[/ QUOTE ]For the first three months, yes.[ QUOTE ]
If that is true, then overturning Roe wouldn't really mean much would it?

[/ QUOTE ]Politically it would matter a great deal, which is all I'm saying and all that really matters politically. Especially as soon as the first reports of botched coat-hangar abortions come out.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
I've read a lot about politics. I'm very involved. And until a week ago I thought overturning Roe v Wade would make abortion illegal. My parents think so too. So does pretty much every person I've talked to. If you want, I could ask the next ten friends I meet, and I bet they will tell me that overturning Roe v Wade would outlaw abortion. That is how it is portrayed in traditional media and conversation.

[/ QUOTE ]That's fine and I don't disbelieve you, but the poll I quoted specifically explains exactly what Roe v Wade does in its question.

[El Barto]

[ QUOTE ]
That's fine and I don't disbelieve you, but the poll I quoted specifically explains exactly what Roe v Wade does in its question.

[/ QUOTE ]

As if all your poll respondents understand the practical difference between being legal by legislation or by constitutional right.

I have to agree with the others, people reply to the underlying theme of a poll, in this case whether abortion should be legal or not, not the finer points of constitutional law.

Most states have passed laws to cover the possibility of the overturning of Roe, so the coat hanger/back alley rhetoric is just demogoguery.

[lehighguy]

That assumes people understand what a "constitutional right" is. It also assumes they bother to read the question closely and think carefully about it. Do you really think people fully understood the question?

If you had asked me that question a week ago, I would have answered no. It you ask me today, I'd answer yes.

[lehighguy]

If Roe v Wade was overturned, but the legislator voted to make abortion illegal (since most American's support it) then it would have no effect on the first three months.

What it would do is make partial-birth abortion laws (which most people support) legal.

[ACPlayer]

Why do you think it would have no effect on the first three months?

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's fine and I don't disbelieve you, but the poll I quoted specifically explains exactly what Roe v Wade does in its question.

[/ QUOTE ]

As if all your poll respondents understand the practical difference between being legal by legislation or by constitutional right.

[/ QUOTE ]This might be a valid point, except the question that fully explained Roe v Wade got exactly the same results as other polls (give or take one point). That would mean, according to your theory, that nobody understands what a constitutional right is, and that is not possible.[ QUOTE ]
Most states have passed laws to cover the possibility of the overturning of Roe, so the coat hanger/back alley rhetoric is just demogoguery.

[/ QUOTE ]But not all states have, so it isn't just rhetoric. It will happen.

The point is overturning Roe v Wade, while it wouldn't directly influence most people's lives, will still hurt the Republican Party nationally.

Regional differences are not as drastic as what you all seem to be making them. If John Kerry's national numbers compared to the numbers of the reddest red state only differ by about 12%, then what makes any of you think they'll differ more when it comes to abortion?

My point being that Roe v Wade currently shields Republicans from having to really take a stance on abortion. Once it is left up to Southern Republican legislatures to legalize or make illegal abortion, they're going to have some internal problems within the party.

Utah is the only place they could make abortion illegal without offending the majority.

[lehighguy]

Well that was his proposal. That since a majority supported abortion in the first six months it would probably remain legal. It's rather hard to say what would actually happen, but it should really be up to the legislator.

[lehighguy]

From teh Republican POV it's a bad move to overturn it from a poltical standpoint, but its good governance. Which will win.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
most people favor some form of restriction on abortion as well. this is why roe v. wade was a bad decision and why it should be left to the state's to decide.

[/ QUOTE ]

I should hope we don't think our rights ought to be adjudicated in that manner – not that I’m claiming abortion is a right; but if the debate is whether or not abortion is a right, then the standard ought not to be what most people favor/oppose.

On another note, am I the only one who feels that nominating justices who would change the balance of the court and overturn Roe v Wade would have some unwanted consequences for the Republican Party (and their federal candidates, specifically) – that consequence being they lose an issue (if not the issue) which generates so much passion from their base?

And before you dismiss this outright, consider the Republican Party’s decision to sunset a good deal of the tax cuts they’ve passed over the past 5 years; some sunset on a one or two year rolling basis, while others (such as the estate tax) will sunset in ten years – this decision was reached for a multiple reasons, to be sure, but one of those reasons was pure political calculus – sunsetting tax cuts allows Republicans in Congress to revisit tax cuts endlessly, constantly providing fodder for anti-tax rhetoric every election cycle. The Republican Party is surely aware that tax uncertainty benefits them politically; annual, piecemeal, partial, time-limited, and ad hoc tax changes are exactly what they need to keep their political base energized. I’m not sure the Republican Party wants to cut taxes once and for all. But I do know they want to be permanently in favor of cutting taxes, and that becomes ever more diffcult if the Republican Party were to make tax cuts permanent.

I don’t want to hijack this post and make it about tax cuts – that’s not my goal here. But I think the Republican Party’s strategy on abortion is similar to their strategy on taxes: they don’t want to outlaw all abortions once and for all – they just want to be in favor of outlawing abortions once and for all (and yes, I know the overturning of Roe wouldn't outlaw abortions, but anyone who claims Republicans merely oppose Roe because they're fighting for federalism is kidding themselves - the ultimate goal is to outlaw abortions, and if its not, then there are alot of Republican voters who ought to feel cheated).

Most of the abortion restrictions that the Republicans do battle over - parental notification and partial-birth abortions, for instance, have very little effect in actually preventing a vast majority of abortions. And I suspect this is because if Republicans went to war and did everything in their power to prohibit abortions, it would have quite harmful political consequences - not because the battle would create voter antipathy, but because it would create voter apathy when they eventually succeed.

I know that the overturning of Roe v Wade is in the mind of some (Karl Rove, perhaps?) when the Bush administration does the political computation for their SCOTUS nomination(s); I just wonder which side the Bush adminstration will find themselves on.