Overturning Roe vs. Wade
| By RBP - Oct 6th, 2005 at 12:37 am EDT |
Why are conservatives spitting fire over Harriet Miers?
Initially, not only did H. Miers inspire Republican infighting, her absent record and donatation patterns suggested there was room to hope that she might be less conservative than feared on issues such as Roe vs. Wade.
Today, however, history and acquaintances reveal that Miers is anti-abortion.
But wait--
Miers' lack of a record does leave room to doubt her status as "the fifth vote against Roe vs. Wade". And some assert that even if the court overturns Roe vs. Wade, the resultant hell-raising, earth-shattering hullabaloo could ultimately help women's rights, abortion rights, and liberalism generally.
That's why the Republicans don't (or shouldn't) actually want Roe overturned. Although they may be ideologically vocal, see shrill, about combating Roe, Republicans know better than to fight too hard to have Roe vs. Wade overturned. The smart ones do, anyway.
Benjamin Wittes of The Atlantic was among the first to point out that overturning Roe would be the best thing that could happen for the Democrats.
Laura Vanderkam of USA Today claims that women would not notice a substantial difference in abortion access, meanwhile the Democratic Party would benefit from an influx of outraged, galvanized Liberals and the defection of many moderate Republicans.
Shades of war, thinking of how life and death are subject to partisan politics.
And while we US citizens are absorbed once more in our domestic abortion rights battle, far too few can claim cognizance of the policy that granted ample warning of intentions, the Global Gag Rule? Sure, Bush fights his War on Terror overseas--but he's also engaged in a War on Women. He's fought abortion in China and Kenya to gain inroads to banning it in Chicago.
Loyalty to Bush over party.
Not the most qualified candidate by party or judicial standards.
No judicial record--no proof of Conservatism.
Initially, not only did H. Miers inspire Republican infighting, her absent record and donatation patterns suggested there was room to hope that she might be less conservative than feared on issues such as Roe vs. Wade.
Today, however, history and acquaintances reveal that Miers is anti-abortion.
But wait--
Miers' lack of a record does leave room to doubt her status as "the fifth vote against Roe vs. Wade". And some assert that even if the court overturns Roe vs. Wade, the resultant hell-raising, earth-shattering hullabaloo could ultimately help women's rights, abortion rights, and liberalism generally.
That's why the Republicans don't (or shouldn't) actually want Roe overturned. Although they may be ideologically vocal, see shrill, about combating Roe, Republicans know better than to fight too hard to have Roe vs. Wade overturned. The smart ones do, anyway.
Benjamin Wittes of The Atlantic was among the first to point out that overturning Roe would be the best thing that could happen for the Democrats.
Laura Vanderkam of USA Today claims that women would not notice a substantial difference in abortion access, meanwhile the Democratic Party would benefit from an influx of outraged, galvanized Liberals and the defection of many moderate Republicans.
Shades of war, thinking of how life and death are subject to partisan politics.
And while we US citizens are absorbed once more in our domestic abortion rights battle, far too few can claim cognizance of the policy that granted ample warning of intentions, the Global Gag Rule? Sure, Bush fights his War on Terror overseas--but he's also engaged in a War on Women. He's fought abortion in China and Kenya to gain inroads to banning it in Chicago.
!
Comments are closed for this post.
It's not that Bush is an abortion advocate: since when does he side with individual freedoms as an ideological position?
It's that Roe v. Wade is the best tool the Republicans have to divide the electorate. It's a wedge issue for elections across the board and up-and-down the ticket. They eliminate Roe, and they eliminate the wedge on the Federal scene.
Hypothetically, once the Constitution is amended, this becomes ONE state-by-state issue (i.e. is abortion legal or illegal in each state?). As it is, they have every gradiation of abortion to debate on EVERY level: states deal with notification, late-term, state health dollars, family planning subsidies, sex ed, foreign aid and the global gag rule...the list is pretty extensive.
You're right that his abortion stance is related to votes in the Bible Belt (or, as it once was called, the Solid South--without at least part of which you cannot control Congress or win the White House if you're the Democrats) Each one of these policies provides an avenue to inject abortion into the debate without compromising the issue's viability for future use. The gift that keeps on giving.