Overturning Roe v. Wade

[tml12]

Although I am generally pro-choice, upon an examination of the American political scene I think overturning Roe v. Wade may be the best thing the U.S. Supreme Court ever does for the Democratic Party.

For years now, the Democrats have been seen as the defenders of abortion rights in the U.S., while the Republicans have promised to restrict abortion rights.

The issue has seemingly become so partisan in the states that Blue State Republicans must affirm their commitment to abortion rights and Red State Democrats must be pro-life to even be elected at the local or state level.

But where the issue has hurt the Democrats the most is at federal election time. It helps tie up their base in New York and California and other big blue states, but it hurts their base in Middle America and makes elections in Florida and Wisconsim must closer than they might otherwise be.

Up until 2000, the Democrats could hide their abortion views in the South (to an extent) by highlighting their "common man" platform that is pro-worker's rights, etc. But since then Karl Rove has been quite successful at highlighting the Republicans as the party of "morality" and family values. And emphasizing Christian rights have also been key for the Rove-Bush GOP advising team.

I think making Roe v. Wade a state's rights issue again would be the best thing for the Democratic Party. While they would never admit it, it would seriously help them revive their base in the red states...especially at federal election time.

[Black Dog]

For years now, the Democrats have been seen as the defenders of abortion rights in the U.S., while the Republicans have promised to restrict abortion rights.

The issue has seemingly become so partisan in the states that Blue State Republicans must affirm their commitment to abortion rights and Red State Democrats must be pro-life to even be elected at the local or state level.

But where the issue has hurt the Democrats the most is at federal election time. It helps tie up their base in New York and California and other big blue states, but it hurts their base in Middle America and makes elections in Florida and Wisconsim must closer than they might otherwise be.

Thing is, despite the conventional wisdom, polls have consitently shown that the American public opinion favours abortion.

For example.

While American voters have mixed opinions about abortion, they support the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision 63 - 33 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. Men support it 68 - 28 percent, while women support it 58 - 37 percent.

...

Looking at American voter attitudes about abortion, the poll finds:

18 percent say abortion should be legal in all cases;

37 percent say abortion should be legal in most cases;

27 percent say abortion should be illegal in most cases;

14 percent say abortion should be illegal in all cases.

"On abortion, there's a silent majority. Both ends of the debate are making the noise, but 64 percent of American voters are in the middle, perhaps looking for that common ground," Carroll said. (emphasis added)

The last thing the Dems need to do is turn their backs on that middle ground (not to mention alienate their progressive base) in a ploy to win votes from people who wouldn't vote Democratic under any circumstances.

If anything the Democrats need to work on reframing the issue. And a good way to do that would be to expose the hypocrisy of the G.O.P and the pro-life side. After all, we're talking about a faction that opposes abortion, yet also actively campaigns against contraception, comprehensive sex-ed, the morning after pill and any other measure designed to curb unwanted pregnancies.

I think making Roe v. Wade a state's rights issue again would be the best thing for the Democratic Party. While they would never admit it, it would seriously help them revive their base in the red states...especially at federal election time.

That's a terrible idea. And I think this op-ed sums up why that is.

It's unlikely that Congress would pass a comprehensive federal ban on or right to abortion. So in the absence of Roe, states would largely be free to regulate the issue as they saw fit. Some states would permit abortion on demand, while some would ban it; many would fall somewhere in between. A patchwork of state abortion regulations, however, will lead not to compromise, but chaos.

The common refrain in the anti-Roe pro-choice camp is that women in anti-abortion states will simply travel elsewhere to end their pregnancies. But it's unlikely that states with strict regulations on abortion would stand idle, and they will have many legal tools at their disposal.

States could make it illegal to cross state lines in order to abort a fetus - a tactic Ireland tried in the early 1990's, until a court decision and subsequent constitutional amendment recognized a right to travel. While the Supreme Court has recognized a constitutional right to travel across state lines, it has also recognized exceptions.

If states can decree that life begins at conception, they might also be able to use child custody laws to curtail the movements of pregnant women. For example, many states are legally allowed to hold children in protective custody if there is reason to believe the parents will misbehave. Once Roe has been overturned, a state may be able to place unborn children into protective custody, forbidding their mothers to take them across state lines.

Furthermore, in recent decades, the Supreme Court has ruled that a state can regulate its citizens' activities while they are elsewhere and prosecute them for violations of state law upon their return. This so-called long-arm jurisdiction has been invoked to allow states to regulate Internet sites based beyond their borders, or to prosecute murders that followed interstate kidnappings. Anti-abortion states could forbid their residents to obtain or perform abortions, even while out of state. Would such measures be legal? The current law is unclear.

Abortion-rights states would undoubtedly respond in kind. For example, Rhode Island, where 63 percent of residents favor abortion rights, has rebuffed efforts at regulation in the past. Just as Utah could make it a crime for a resident to go to Rhode Island for an abortion, Rhode Island could forbid Utah's law-enforcement officials from interfering with her decision to get one. Similarly, if an anti-abortion state places a fetus in protective custody, an abortion-rights state might do the same for the woman. And so on.

[tml12]

BlackDog,

I never thought I would say this to you BlackDog but that's a good point.

I may actually rethink my position.

[Black Dog]

Don't thank me: thank the "liberal" New York Times.

[YankAbroad]

Only extremists on both sides actually believe there's a serious chance that abortion would be made illegal or difficult to get again.

Even politicians in the reddest of red states would find themselves tossed out of office if they made that happen.

[Black Dog]

Only extremists on both sides actually believe there's a serious chance that abortion would be made illegal or difficult to get again.

Between state and federal restrictions (ie. parental consent laws, "late term" abortion bans), and a shortage of abortion providers (Eighty-seven per cent of U.S. counties and 98 per cent of rural counties lack an abortion provider. Almost a quarter of women have to travel 50 miles or more to obtain an abortion. 2 percent of Ob/Gyns perform more than 50 percent of U.S. abortions: source), it's already difficult to get.

They'll never phase it out with, say, a blanket federal ban (they need it to keep the religious right riled up), but they'll make damn sure that women have to ojump through all kinds of hoops to get it, which at teh end of the day, will have the same effect.

[YankAbroad]

(Eighty-seven per cent of U.S. counties and 98 per cent of rural counties lack an abortion provider. Almost a quarter of women have to travel 50 miles or more to obtain an abortion.

Lots of people in rural counties have to travel 50 miles or more to shop at a supermarket! Remember that facilities are constructed based on demand, and there just isn't much demand in rural areas for any medical services. My father regularly drives 50+ miles for his kidney transplant treatments too. Abortion is a specialized procedure with limited demand and limited supply. It makes sense that they would be located in urban areas where demand is significant enough to keep the facility and its professionals employed. I don't see that as a conspiracy to deny women abortions any more than I see my dad's situation as a conspiracy to deny him access to kidney treatments.

[BHS]

Black Dog:

If states can decree that life begins at conception, they might also be able to use child custody laws to curtail the movements of pregnant women. For example, many states are legally allowed to hold children in protective custody if there is reason to believe the parents will misbehave. Once Roe has been overturned, a state may be able to place unborn children into protective custody, forbidding their mothers to take them across state lines. - from your quoted New York Times editorial

This is probably the best single paragraph I've ever read outlinining a legitimate reason for maintaining the status quo as regards the abortion issue. It requires some consideration.

The reasoning is sound: if life begins at conception, so does child abuse. Anything an expectant mother does, that is in any way perceived as a potential threat to the child, might lead to restrictions on her behaviour under the strictest conceivable circumstances. (I could branch off here to expound on my distaste for nanny-statism and the "safety first" culture, but I'll hold my tongue for now.)

However I believe, and I may be wrong about this, that abortion is considered a privacy issue as opposed to a child abuse/infanticide issue because there is an underlying assumption that personhood under the law begins at birth. I don't believe that overturning Roe would necessarily render this assumption invalid.

The envisioned travel restrictions and post-procedural legal repercussions then become issues not of privacy versus child abuse but about freedom of the person and the presumption of innocence versus criminalizing a medical procedure that's been AMA approved.

It's interesting to consider how SCOTUS and the lower courts would deal with these types of restrictions.

[Black Dog]

Lots of people in rural counties have to travel 50 miles or more to shop at a supermarket! Remember that facilities are constructed based on demand, and there just isn't much demand in rural areas for any medical services.

Fair enough, I suppose. But I think that's only one aspect (also the easiest to tackle). The other, mor einsidious side of the isssue is the overall lack of abortion providers. IMO, that ties directly into the tactics of the anti abortion movement (I doubt many doctors would be willing to put up with the hassle of protesters outside the place of work harrassing staff and patients, let alone the abuse and death threats that are par for the course.

I guess all I'm trying to say is that the anti-abortion faction has managed to tyhrow up many roadblocks (including legislative ones) without going all the way to dumping Roe.

[YankAbroad]

I doubt many doctors would be willing to put up with the hassle of protesters outside the place of work harrassing staff and patients

Four words: Right to self defence.

Most of those protestors cross the line which constitutes assault. I would hope doctors would receive support from the police (and court if necessary) in defending themselves and their property from assault and trespass.

I'm more concerned these days with laws which would transform pharmacies from government-regulated monopoly providers of drugs into government-sanctioned monopolies which spread political or religious ideology instead of medication -- doing things like denying people the morning-after contraception pill, or HIV treatment drugs to gay men with HIV, based on "religious freedom" grounds. Pharmacies are so heavily regulated (and rare due to those regulations) that such a situation could become a nightmare for day-to-day meds.

[BHS]

I doubt many doctors would be willing to put up with the hassle of protesters outside the place of work harrassing staff and patients

Four words: Right to self defence.

Most of those protestors cross the line which constitutes assault. I would hope doctors would receive support from the police (and court if necessary) in defending themselves and their property from assault and trespass.

I'm more concerned these days with laws which would transform pharmacies from government-regulated monopoly providers of drugs into government-sanctioned monopolies which spread political or religious ideology instead of medication -- doing things like denying people the morning-after contraception pill, or HIV treatment drugs to gay men with HIV, based on "religious freedom" grounds. Pharmacies are so heavily regulated (and rare due to those regulations) that such a situation could become a nightmare for day-to-day meds.

Abortion clinics in Canada have been successful in obtaining injunctions against protestors when necessary. As far as the police doing anything directly, I wouldn't hold your breath. Unless an actual physical fight broke out between protestors and patients they probably wouldn't do anything without an injunction in place. But you're going to have to point out an example of abortion protestors actually assaulting patients before you can convince me that you're worried about something real. And please, don't conflate loonies with rifles sniping abortion doctors in their homes with little old born again ladies handing out pamphlets.

I've only ever heard of American pharmacists refusing to carry birth control, and I've never heard of a pharmacist refusing to carry AIDS/HIV medication anywhere. So I don't know what you're talking about, mentioning "day to day meds". Pharmacists are private businessmen who make their living supplying drugs. The broader the range of medications they carry, the more money they make. Besides which, having the right to buy and possess birth control doesn't mean having the right to buy it conveniently.

[YankAbroad]

you're going to have to point out an example of abortion protestors actually assaulting patients before you can convince me that you're worried about something real

Assault is simply defined in both Canadian and US law as unwanted physical contact. If you physically block me, grab me, attack me, or push me, you've committed assault.

All of those activities are common at clinics which perform abortions -- I know this because I encountered it personally when my sister sought prenatal care when she was pregnant with my oldest nephew.

I've only ever heard of American pharmacists refusing to carry birth control, and I've never heard of a pharmacist refusing to carry AIDS/HIV medication anywhere

Hey, I support a "right" to deny medication -- if the pharmacist in question also supports the scrapping of the prescription regime and a full free market in medicine.

Unfortunately, as is usually the case, the moralist lunatics insist on infiltrating a highly controlled government monopoly and preserving that monopoly whilst insisting they have a "right to moral freedom." Nope. If you create a free market in drugs, then you've got all the right in the world to turn away people you don't want to serve. But if you create a government-sanctioned monopoly for yourself which denies competition the right to serve an area, your "right to moral freedom" is denied by the same power which denies others the right to competition and free markets -- namely, the prescription legislation.

Pharmacists are private businessmen who make their living supplying drugs.

No they're not. They're government agents who are licensed by government.

Neither you nor I could open up a pharmacy without "pharma certification" issued by the government. It's an effective government monopoly, not a "private business."

If pharma advocates of "moralising" were to also advocate for getting government out of the pharmacy business and opening it up to competition from anyone who wished to sell medications, then you'd have an argument I'd agree with. Of course, the moralisers don't WANT a free market or private business environment, because the market favours choice -- not "moral objections" limiting access to drugs.

In a real free market, moralists would be drummed out of business in a couple of months, tops, by real free marketeers who would sell you anything you needed or wanted.

[Montgomery Burns]

tml12:

I think making Roe v. Wade a state's rights issue again...

Exactly! No matter what you may think of abortion, Roe v. Wade was a bad ruling; judicial activism at its worst. The Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the people, its purpose is to limit the Federal govt's power to infringe upon the rights of both people and states. If an issue isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution, the Federal govt has no automatic right of jurisdiction in the matter. The Tenth Amendment specifically states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The Supreme Court decided that abortion was too important to let the masses have a say, and removed the right of either states or people to decide the question by creating a new Federal power with the stroke of a pen.

And it is built on a falsehood. Abortion can only be legal if unborn children aren't considered human. I contend an 8 or 9 month old child is human. I will never understand how progressive liberals can protest to save a convicted multi-murderer like Tookie Williams from the death penalty, but think nothing of killing a child who did not even get the benefit of a trial. I guess I'm just not nuanced enough to understand those progressive liberal "values".

The liberal-dominated MSM pushes abortion-on-demand. Witness the last week of the Canadian election. The media constantly hammered Harper and asked if he was going to take away abortion (which means, in Canada, unlimited taxpayer-funded abortions at any time in your pregnancy--and the father has no say). The fact is the vast majority of Canadians only support abortion if the mother's health is in question, rape, incest--some go further and say even in instances of deformity or in the first trimester. Yet the media ignored this and pushed their social liberalism.

No other Supreme Court decision has caused so much death and caused so many people to be callous about taking the most innocent of life. Taking the lives of the most helpless of human beings because they are inconvenient--the reason for 98% of abortions--is simply wrong. This should be up to the people and states to decide. Why is the left so afraid about putting it to a vote--the only "poll" that really counts? Are they worried they will get the same results as the gay marriage vote in those 11 states on Nov 2, 2004?

[YankAbroad]

The Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the people, its purpose is to limit the Federal govt's power to infringe upon the rights of both people and states.

Total and absolute popycock.

Otherwise, the First Amendment would only apply to the federal government, and states could have unlimited rights to censor your speech and religion; the Second Amendment would apply only to the federal government, and states could have unlimited rights to seize all firearms; etc., etc., etc.

[Montgomery Burns]

The Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the people, its purpose is to limit the Federal govt's power to infringe upon the rights of both people and states.

Total and absolute popycock.

Otherwise, the First Amendment would only apply to the federal government, and states could have unlimited rights to censor your speech and religion; the Second Amendment would apply only to the federal government, and states could have unlimited rights to seize all firearms; etc., etc., etc.

What utter rot.

Have you even read the Bill of Rights? It's quite short. Its purpose is to limit the Federal Govt's power. The First and Second Amendment do not only apply to the feds. And states and the people do have the right to ban firearms (Chicago, Washington D.C.). They have the right to put gay marriage to a vote, right to bear arms to defend yourself, etc.

[speaker]

The reason that there is abortion clinics, and a government sanctioned access to abortion is that there was always a right to abortion and women who needed one knew that. They therefore went where the had to go or did what they had to do to get one. Taking away the right to abortion which governments did for reasons both positive and idiotic, over the years did not change this, It only made it more dangerous for those women who had to get one.

It's not a question of privacy, other than the common decency of people who let others get on with their lives as best they can, or one of convenience. It is a matter of respecting the rights to decent medical care of some who would turn to coathangers and vacuums .

[Black Dog]

The Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the people, its purpose is to limit the Federal govt's power to infringe upon the rights of both people and states. If an issue isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution, the Federal govt has no automatic right of jurisdiction in the matter.

"States rights" does not give states the right to trangress upon individual rights protected in the Constitution (such as the right to privacy).