May 20, 2006
After John Paul Stevens retired from the Supreme Court and George Bush appointed Priscilla Owens in his place, the Supreme Court struck down Roe vs. Wade. ...
Be careful what you wish for. I have to credit an article in the Atlantic Monthly from May 2006 for this insight: a Supreme Court ruling striking down Roe vs. Wade means that every State will then be able to write its own legislation on abortion, which means that the Republicans, while proclaiming their wholesale devotion to the right to life position, will suddenly actually be in a position to impose their views on the country. Is this something the smart Republican really wants?
The core of the Republican coalition is the Christian Right. Have you ever heard these people discuss abortion? Have you ever heard them discuss possible exemptions for rape or incest? This is a very uncompromising bunch. They will not be happy to vote for a Republican who promises to allow those exemptions. But if a Republican proposes a law without those exemptions, he will risk the wrath of up to 70% of the electorate who believe there should be reasonable limits-- but not a wholesale ban-- on abortion. In that sense, the true-believer Republicans will suddenly fall into the category of "extremist".
Any Republican who realizes this and decides to take a moderate position risks being turfed by his own party in the primaries, which are dominated by the true believers.
It is quite possible that, in many states, a Republican candidate for state government, or even for congress, could not get nominated without support from the die-hard Christian right.
The Democrats might or might not be wise enough to propose "moderate" legislation, either limiting abortion to the first three months, or even to cases of incest or rape.
It is possible that such developments could alter the political landscape in the U.S. for a good 20 years.