Okay, boys and girls. It’s time for a lesson in civics.
The fate of legalized abortion rests with you – the voters. Yeah, that might sound kind of corny but it’s true.
Let’s talk about whether or not abortion will remain legal in this country. It drives me nuts when I hear someone say that Roe v Wade is “settled law.” That’s total bull crap. No, it’s double bull crap.
That issue of whether or not abortion will remain legal in this country ultimately rests with the U.S. Supreme Court. Sure, the Congress could theoretically pass a constitutional amendment overturning Roe v Wade, but they tried that in the early 1980’s and got crushed. They ain’t gonna try it again for a very, very long time.
So, the anti-abortion crowd has to look to the Supreme Court for assistance. At this point, there are 6 members of the Court (out of 9) that appear to support legal abortion. That includes Justices Sotomayer and Kagan, who have not voted on the issue publicly but who we assume are pro-choice. I say it “appears” that we have six votes because most people count Justice Anthony Kennedy as pro-choice. The problem is he is a wild card and has supported abortion restrictions. Then there are three solid votes against legal abortion. So far, so good. The home team is up 6-3.
But let’s say that Kennedy suddenly starts having reservations about legal abortion for some reason. If he switched, that brings the score to 5-4 in favor of Roe v Wade. Then, jump to the year 2012 and suppose that President Obama is defeated for re–election, which is a distinct possibility at this point. So, all of a sudden we have a President Palin or Gingrich (hand me the barf bag, please) to deal with come January, 2013. Then, let’s say that one of our solid votes dies or resigns from the Court. Justice Ginsburg, who is old and ill, comes to mind. That means that the new right wing President suddenly has an opportunity to appoint a conservative judge who would be in favor of reversing Roe. That makes if 5-4 for the bad guys.
Now, please don’t tell me that the Supreme Court relies very heavily on “precedent.” That’s garbage. The Supreme Court, as we saw in the Gore-Bush election case, is now a very partisan institution. These are not sage, respected jurists who sit back with an open mind, then research the issue and hand down their opinion. No, they already know how they feel about the basic issues and when a case comes before them they just pretend to listen to the oral arguments, then they go back to their chambers, tell their clerks what their decision is and instruct them to figure out the reasoning.
So, the bottom line is whether or not we have a pro-choice President or not.
And that’s entirely up to you.
September 21, 2010 at 12:24 pm
After reading you, Pat, my hope springs eternal.
LikeLike
September 21, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Hmmm, that wasn’t my intention, of course!
LikeLike
September 21, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Very good analysis, Pat. An anti-abortion ruling would be pablum to the masses, to keep the trolgodyte pols in the favor of those who elected them, while the superrich continue to solidify an oligarchy behind the smokescreen. . .
LikeLike
September 21, 2010 at 4:38 pm
OK, CG, can we try it in English?
LikeLike
September 21, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Just another hobbyhorse of mine. You’d have to break out of your specialty and read Tom Franks’ book, “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” to see how the 5% who fund 85% of all political contests back pols who get the public riled up about abortion, get elected and repay Kansas voters by raising their taxes and cutting Social Security. I really don’t want to go any further into it on a blog where I feel people need to know about aborticentrism. But a few readers might decide to watch Michael Moore’s “Capitalism: A Love Story.”
LikeLike
September 22, 2010 at 5:54 am
I really like Justice Ginsburg but under the circumstances I would like to see her resign so Obama can replace her…just in case he is not re-elected…We need every advantage possible to keep Roe from being over-turned…
LikeLike
September 22, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Maybe Obama could pay Justice Ginsburg a visit with the intent to discuss the virtues of retirement as well as the virtues of saving women’s rights to abortion.
LikeLike
September 23, 2010 at 7:16 am
It’s an interesting thought but it would never happen. The President’s have always been very careful about interacting in any way other than social with the Justices. But, yes, it would be nice if Ginsburg retired to give Obama the chance to replace her with a like-minded justice.
LikeLike
September 22, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Dream on, tnsdh! When was the last time a Justice left the Supreme Court at anybody’s request?
Finally found your blog, by the way. Very nice!
LikeLike
September 23, 2010 at 7:16 am
CG’s right. I think the justices are in their own little world, beholden to absolutely no one…..
LikeLike
September 23, 2010 at 8:28 am
Thanks for the kind words, Charles.
LikeLike
October 6, 2010 at 4:44 pm
i don’t think that an overturn of roe v wade will stop abortions.
the way to effectively prevent them is to get to the core and remove the situations that make women seek them to begin with.
my own belief is that abortion is a symptom, not the illness. treat the illness and the symptoms will go away.
LikeLike
October 27, 2010 at 8:57 am
Sometimes, Rog, you do say silly things: “i don’t think that an overturn of roe v wade will stop abortions.” Of course it won’t. But overturning a law that legalized bank robbery wouldn’t stop that horror either. Sure would cut down on the numbers, though, wouldn’t it.
LikeLike
October 27, 2010 at 11:49 am
I think overturning Roe would reduce the number of abortions in this country only because many of the women who need them will not have them because they are illegal. So, we’d see more babies. At the same time, however, there would be many more women who would wind up harming themselves or winding up in the emergency rooms because of a self abortion or one by a bad doc. Is that the kind of world you want to see?
LikeLike
October 28, 2010 at 4:16 am
No, and it’s not the world that was before Roe, either. It’s the world you people invented. However, before Roe, enforcement of the no child killing law was lax. In a just society a child killer would be treated like any other killer and those participating in her killing would be prosecuted as well.
Then we would see this abomination occurring yearly in the hundreds, instead of, as before, in the thousands, and instead of, as now, in the millions.
LikeLike