Is liberal support for Roe waning?

[cali]

Lately, I've read several articles by professed liberals suggesting that dems and liberals are putting too much energy into protecting Roe, and further suggesting that Roe's roots in being Constitutionally protected are shallow ones, ie. that the right to privacy, not in an of itself enumerated in the Constitution, does not neccessarily denote a right to abortion. The arguments liberals put forth are that if Roe is overturned, the Republicans will be in deep shit, having to choose between the fundie right and the majority that supports choice. I'm beginning to get the feeling that some dems are beginning to write off Roe. Will this be reflected in the Senate when it comes to SC nominees?

[Kerrytravelers]

1. God I hope not. I simply can't believe it. nft.

[okieinpain]

10. well it's going to happen. not in some big legislative bill, but a little

here, and a little there. I'm not sad about it I can't get pregnant, and if one of my daughters did and wanted an abortion I would see if we couldn't travel somewhere. I imagine canada or the caribbeans will become a favorite travel place once people can get abortions in the US freely.

I will enjoy seeing all of the party girls freak out once it happens, the ones too busy to vote because theirs no difference between dem's and repugs.

[Yupster]

34. If Roe were overturned

then abortion would not be made illegal. The issue would return to the states like it was before Roe.

I have a hard time seeing the California state legislature or the New York, Massachusetts, or Rhode Island legislatures outlawing abortion.

Hey - the Caribbean's great, especially this time of the year, but you wouldn't have to go there for an abortion.

[okieinpain]

46. cool, didn't think about that, man those blue states would become

very popular.

[indianablue]

2. So lets say Roe is overturned..

Then the GOP wil say you better vote for us or the Democrats wil bring back abortion.

[dsc]

6. and Dems can say vote for us

or the GOP will ban abortion. Around 1 out of 3 functional pro choicers voted for Bush and around 1 out of 5 people who favor abortion in all circumstances did. I think that would be cut into greatly if there were a legitimate fear that abortion would be banned.

[cali]

7. I'm sure you realize that

overturning Roe does not end abortion, it turns the issue back to the states. There are any number of problems with this, but your worry is not amoung them. Besides, the majority of Americans support choice.

[indianablue]

13. The GOP will reduce money to states who allow abortions.

They do that to the highway funds for example on DUI levels other things, They would force all states to ban abortions by withholding funds to them.

[cali]

16. That's a highly unlikely scenario

for many reasons. Far more likely is that approximately 15 states would allow full abortion rights. In another 18 or so, abortion would be legal with some restrictions. A few would allow abortion only for rape, incest and health of the mother. A handful might ban it completely.

[Maria Celeste]

22. Its a symbolic thing

My understanding is that you are quite correct. Reversing Roe would not outlaw abortion, it would revert to the states. In California abortion is a right with mandatory public funding. Roe has nothing to do with that. Abortions will continue to be protected in California and other states with similar laws.

However reversing Roe would be very indicative of a Supreme Court willing to overturn long term decisions which would be very disturbing and I would wonder about its overall jurisprudence.

Its a symbolic thing, and there are times that symbols matter.

[johnnyrocket]

37. Why couldn't Dems say "Vote for us or the GOP will bring back...

...back alley abortions."

It works the same....I'm telling you the folks who vote on abortion alone are small and unthinking...when they face a real choice voting will change. The GOP talks the talk on abortion, but are mealy mouthed and cagey about the whole issue. TIME FOR THE GOP TO SHIT OR GET OFF THE POT! Ban abortion or not! The Dems are crystal clear about abortion: A WOMANS CHOICE! The GOP is manipulating the argument for cynical political gain, and I believe are disingenuous about the whole issue.

The GOP knows they cannot come out and ban abortion...so what is their issue, please someone clarify for me!

[indianablue]

3. Abortion did not cause us to lose election n/t

1.) Fraud
2.) Media

[Pam-Moby]

5. I agree with you. n/t

[Is It Fascism Yet]

19. tre true, and in fact, we didn't lose, didn't really have an election, n/t

[blondeatlast]

4. God, I hope not!

I'd like to think that the agenda is to hold the neocon feet to the fire on this issue, but I don't think it's the case.

But if we are willing to back down on this issue, this is gonna be one FURIOUS yellow dog.

[murielm99]

9. Correct.

And if we back down on this issue, what next?

Does anyone think they will stop there?

[Catch22Dem]

8. Not among REAL liberals

Now, it may be "waning" among "liberals" such as Alan Colmes, but not among those of us who actually ARE liberals.

[trezic]

11. Good question

Personally, I think the constant harping on Roe is a problem. If it's always in the public eye, it's a spur for the evangelicals. It might not be a bad idea to pipe down and lie in wait.

As for the shallowness of privacy, that's a straight Rick Santorum type of argument. While it's not absolute (what is?), the opponents of privacy are the philosophical cousins of the Stasi to my mind.

[otohara]

12. Guns Went By The Wayside w/ Dems

I'm worried - these people are crazy fucks.

[Maria Celeste]

14. Good thing too

Real liberals support gun rights

[Is It Fascism Yet]

17. I take exception, I was liberal when you were a twinkle in daddy's eye

and I am left of the left of the left, but I am not in favor of giving up ANY constitutional rights, including our second amendment rights, which are the only thing between us and a totalitarian fascist regime.

[Is It Fascism Yet]

15. Hope not. When we lose Roe, we lose all rights to our own bodies. n/t

[saltpoint]

18. Not at my house it isn't. n / t

[dolstein]

20. I think it's becoming irrelevant

For one thing, many pro-choice voters continue to vote for anti-choice Republican candidates.

Moreover, pro-choice sentiment is strongest in states like California and New York, where abortion is certain to remain legal even if Roe is overturned.

Besides, Roe v. Wade has done nothing to change the fact that abortion-related services simply aren't available in large parts of the country. There simply aren't enough abortion providers out there, and many of them are nearing retirement age.

[TheMightyFavog]

45. Not to mention...

A lot of abortion providers got scared into early retirement by the "Army of God" nutballs like Eric Rodulph and Paul Hill in the early and mid 90s.

[brainshrub]

21. No.

[bettyellen]

23. I think that the few "Liberals" who are against choice ......

...... have taken this opportunity to be vocal about it since our loss in November. I have heard this and "the values" thing from a few Catholic Dems.
I think it's grasping at straws and really naive to think that this would widen the parties base, but I've seen people argue it here and elsewhere. Without exception, these people are not themselves pro-choice or refuse to say if they are. So, they promote their own agenda, and pretend it's for the sake of the party. It's not a terribly honest way to go about it, and if they think we are picking up a meaningful amount of the conservative vote from this, they're insane.

[cali]

24. No, you misinterpret what I'm saying.

These are liberals who say they support abortion rights, but worry that the constant battle over Roe is counterproductive and comes at too high a cost for democrats.
There's an article in The Atlantic Monthly by the editor of the Washington Monthly wherein the author professes that he supports abortion rights, and then argues that Roe being overturned would be good for democrats. I don't agree with him, but I am seeing more of this argument, and I'm wondering if dems in the Senate are suffering battle fatigue over the issue, and thus may not vigorously oppose nominees that don't, for example, have a paper trail of opposition to Roe, but whose opinions in other areas may indicate a willingness to overturn Roe.

[eallen]

25. I see the point. Here's what worries me about it...

Looked at by itself, it's easy to paint the Roe decision as a marginal application of the Constitution. It is a matter of how liberally one reads the Bill of Rights. Having said that, consider two threads that are tugged by the same argument.

(1) A liberal reading of the Bill of Rights is vital to our civil liberties overall. There are a whole host of essential American rights that case law reads from the Bill of Rights, that cannot be found with a text editor. The right to travel freely. Free expression and thought. The right to choose one's own spouse. None of this is a Constitutional stretch: the ninth amendment makes very clear that strict construction was not intended to be applied in this arena. If the courts overturn Roe, it won't be just Roe, but a change in legal philosophy regarding our essential civil liberties.

(2) Specifically, that includes sexual rights. Abortion is just one of these. The Supreme Court has upheld the right to use birth control, and recently, the right to sexual congress other than straight intercourse, on much the same privacy grounds as Roe. That camel nose pushing on your bedroom door has an ugly beast attached.

[sunnystarr]

27. That's what I was wondering too ...

I'm sure it was Roe v Wade that changed the laws or restrictions regarding a tubal ligation. I first wanted one when I was 25 after I had both my son and daughter. I wanted only 2 children. It wasn't allowed unless I had 5 children at age 25. Roe v Wade came along before I delivered my 3rd child when I was 29 and I was able to get a tubal ligation right after she was delivered.

I wanted to be able to limit the amount of children I had since I personally didn't believe I could deal with making a decision to abort.

By overturning Roe v Wade we may be going back to the dark ages for women's ability to make choices and this may include birth control. We've already seen that some Christian pharmacists refuse to fill the birth control prescriptions. The Supreme Court decision on birth control can also be easily reversed once it's basis is overturned. Tubal ligations would also be under control of the state once again as well.

edited for typo

[NotNInch]

30. Great Info . . . Thanks!

I had no idea. I wonder if that had to do with your state cuz I do not recall that constraint, and I've been here a long long time.

That's really scary.

[KoKo]

26. It's waning...and NOW and Emily's List seem to have been in retreat...

They send out alerts for money to fight...but the MSM seems to have caved to the Right. So, no amount of money given to that will overcome the Right Wingers who want women to die from "coat hanger abortions," be denied "birth control."

We are going back to the dark ages...or the 50's when those who had money could find a doc to relieve their "shame," or if one was poor...the "shotgun wedding" was the answer..with the later "abandonment" or "divorce" the result.

There's definitely a move by Dems to abandon female rights to decisions about their bodies.

But, then...Viagra is probably the most abused drug in Congress...what else would one expect?

[w4rma]

28. No. (nt)

[NAO]

29. It's possible (not saying it's certain either way) that abortion is wrong

I am very progressive, much farther to the left than any mainstream politician. (I think Kerry is too conservative, too far to the right, but I still like him a lot.) I am also a secular humanist and an agnostic.

That being said, I do consider that it is possible that abortion is in fact morally wrong. If at some point in the future science and/or an advanced in the understanding of what it means to be a human being finds that fetuses are in fact human beings, abortion would in fact be murder. Legally sanctioned abortion on a mass scale would be infanticide.

Dumb-ass's reference to Dred Scott was a thinly veiled reference to Roe v. Wade. I saw right thru it in real time as a coded message...

But the underlying idea that we once considered blacks to be less than human, and acceptable as property is a valid line of thought to consider. Because of advancement in humanity and in our understanding of what it means to be human we now find that notion repugnant, but at the time good, honest, moral people, including the Democratic Party - believed it was acceptable and worth fighting for.

Now it could just as likely turn out that science and/or humanity continues to find, and gather further evidence confirming, that fetuses are just blobs of cells, and abortion is a completely ethical medical procedure.

I just think we should consider the possibility that we could be wrong on this one, and remember that one does not have to be a Christian or even believe in God to recognize that possibility.

[Malva Zebrina]

31. You cannot base your convictions on "some point in the future"

that is exactly what is wrong with the "pro-life" mantra.

It is, also, exactly what George Bush pushes as validation for his murderous pre-emptive attacks on countries he chooses to invade, who have no defense and are not a threat at all to anyone.

You cannot base an argument on "potentiality" because it is flawed

At some point in the future, it may also be determined and likewise proven that there is no consciousness at all in a clump of cells that people who are entranced with slogans, are calling a "baby"

[eallen]

32. Recent research is going the other direction...

Physicians are interested in the potential perceptions of fetuses, because intrauterine surgery is done without anesthestizing the fetus. Recent research indicates that the fetus's blood, which draws its oxygen from the placenta, doesn't circulate enough oxygen to the fetal brain for consciousness. It really is that first breath in the lungs that wakes the fetus up. All that kicking is subconscious. It's a waste of amps to place a loud speaker on the pregnant woman's abdomen playing Beethoven.

Sorry if this disappoints any expectant mothers. But if the fetus became conscious in the sixth or seventh or even eighth month, the remaining weeks of sensory deprivation would drive it insane.

[buddysmellgood]

35. Well, you don't know that Beethoven, Mozart or the Beatles doesn't cause

the fetus to develop in favorable ways, so I'd keep doing it, subconscious or not.

[w4rma]

33. Choice = freedom. Choice = no coathanger deaths. You cannot legislate

this. It's impossible to stop abortions through oppression. They'll just go underground.

You stop abortions through social programs to keep folks from wanting or feeling a need to abort: Anti-poverty programs. Adoption programs.

Give folks an option to abortion rather than writing a law that may cause a death or prison sentence for a pregnant woman. Anti-abortion laws are all about CONTROL, not prevention. CONTROL over other people.

[buddysmellgood]

36. I wonder if courting anti-abortion folks is being done because of RU486.

Suppose Roe V. Wade is overturned and some states ban abortion completely. How will they stop it? I know a pharmacist who says he could easily make the pills in his bathtub.
For the record, I think we should fight tooth and nail to protect a women's right to control her own body.

[usregimechange]

38. I support some additional limitations on abortion.

The fetus/infant in the latter trimester deserves some protection.

Now give me that left wing fascism flaming. Yes, you can be left and an authoritarian. Don't believe it, ask a Russian.

[Justitia]

40. of course, you are MALE, so "limitations" will never apply to you

but thanks for taking away MY ability to maintain control over MY body, which is MY personal business.

Just so you know, there are severe restrictions on 3rd trimester abortion - it is done ONLY to save the mother's life or if the fetus is so damaged it will die upon birth, or is already dead. In other words, it is already exceedingly rare.

BTW, I support some additional limitations on the use of your testicles. Gotta problem with that?

You asked for it, you got it.

[NotNInch]

42. Great Retort . . .

One for the books. Where can I find you when I need you.

Maybe we should take his Viagra away or maybe we should control it.

[Justitia]

43. Why not pre-empt the whole abortion dilemma & start w/the men?

Seriously, I think we women should have a say about all these men going around impregnating women - why wait until there needs to be a decision about an abortion?

If a man already has 2 children, for zero population growth, we should remove his testicles.

If a man fails to provide child support and participate 100% in the upbringing of his child, we should remove his testicles.

If a man becomes unemployed for a certain length of time, and could therefore not support a potential child, we should remove his testicles.

If a married man (who does not have his allowable 2 children yet) is found to be unfaithful to his wife, thereby creating a scenario for illegitimacy, we should remove his testicles.

Of course, if a man has ever committed a sexually aggressive crime, we should remove his testicles.

See, if we just lop off all these testicles, men cannot go around impregnating women and the whole abortion thing becomes moot.

Why shouldn't WE WOMEN have the same control over their testicles that they exert over OUR uteruses?????

[Q]

39. You gave no links to these articles...

... supposedly written by 'professed' liberals. Can you even quote a source or a give a name? Which liberals?

The 'arguments liberals put forth'? Can you possibly be more vague?

[NotNInch]

41. I do not believe it is waning as much as . . .

. . . it is just one of many issues that we are all fighting for now. Our energy as well as our dollars are spread across a massive spectrum of concerns including preemptive war, torture, government controlled media, fraudulent elections, etc. The list is endless.

Everything that this administration is doing is heinous and must be stopped. We have to win all of the battles. We cannot give-in on any front. I can see where some might tire once in a while, especially on the front-lines, but it's our job to lift their spirits and prod them on.

This is one of the reasons the election results were such a kick in the gut. We are all so very tired and were hoping for a brief respite. At least that's how I felt. I try to remember, whenever I get mad at Pelosi or Dashele/Reid for backbone problems, that there's no way I could take the constant battering that they do and not get knocked down occasionally. Same with Kerry. I think he was amazing under the constant scrutiny of the right wing media as well as us damn democrats picking him to pieces at the behest of the same media. Whoops, I'm rambling . . . time for bed.

[Pushed To The Left]

44. One good sign

is that Harry Reid, who is anti-abortion, is taking a pretty strong stance against right-wing judicial nominees. As far as liberals' support for Roe decreasing, I think it could be a case of complacency. We've had Roe v. Wade all of these years, and like a lot of progressive victories of the past, some people are taking it for granted.

[Mountainman]

47. Some people want to throw women and gays to the wolves to win next time.

There won't be a next time if we don't stand up for our values.