Slowly Into A Brave New World

The NY Times challenges its readers to contemplate an alternative reality with a Sunday Week in Review piece carrying this spray-coffee-through the nose title: "Imagine a Nation Without Roe v. Wade".

Per the Times, such a future is both unlikely, and not so bad for the left.  A few excerpts:

Roe is not going away anytime soon, it must be remembered, and might not, ever. Those hanging-by-a-thread warnings that issue occasionally from abortion rights advocates are based on a 5-to-4 count that places Justice Anthony Kennedy among Roe's opponents; many court watchers think that's a misreading of Justice Kennedy's abortion opinions, and that the actual count is 6-3 in support of the central holding in Roe, that women's fundamental right to abortion trumps states' power to ban or restrict it. If the 6-3 count is right, it would take an especially precise sequence of events to bring about a full reversal of Roe v. Wade. Two pro-Roe justices would have to leave the court (in other words, two besides the reliably anti-Roe Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who is expected to retire at the end of this term). Their two replacements would have to be sure votes against the principle of a constitutional abortion right. An appropriate case would have to work its way up the appellate system to be accepted for review. And all of this would have to conclude before a Democrat could become president and get a chance at realigning the Supreme Court all over again.

But three decades of impassioned, interminable argument have somehow congealed into a collective fantasy about what the reversal of Roe would mean - how the American abortion brawl would be over, lost or won, depending on one's point of view, but over. Wrong.

And would the overturning of Roe be so bad for the Left?

California, New York and at least 20 other states would almost certainly keep abortion legal, but no statehouse would escape the marathon speechmaking, the legislative wrangling, the heated public hearings lasting late into the night.

...Roe created the national right-to-life movement, forging a powerful instant alliance among what had been scores of scattered local opposition groups. What would happen to that movement, should the galvanizing target of its loathing suddenly disappear? How different would it be, fighting on simultaneous multiple fronts? And how would politicians react if an antiabortion vote were no longer easy theater, an appeasement gesture likely to be neutralized by court challenge, but instead could actually make abortion a felony? How might voters themselves react, if the election booth decision could truly make the yes or no difference?

Ed Rivet is 41, which means that like every American under 50, he's never voted in an election when Roe was not the law of the land. Much has been made of younger Americans' ambivalent views on abortion; the most unpredictable factor of all in a post-Roe era might be the reaction of voters who have no real memory of what it was like when legal abortion was subject to the public decision-making process.

Since the last presidential election, reflective discussion among Democrats has included the once unthinkable proposition that the end of Roe might not prove an unqualified disaster after all - that the political process, and Democrats themselves, might have something to gain from the tumult that such a ruling would set off in the states.

This thinking isn't lost on the other side. "All it's going to do is kind of balkanize the pro-life battle into 50 individual battles," Mr. Rivet said. "There's always the phrase, 'Be careful what you wish for.' "

Ardent lefty Nathan Newman has made the point that Roe galvanized the Right more than the Left.  And here is the executive summary of "What If Roe Fell", the study upon which this Times story is based.

UPDATE:  I knew I had a point!  Just a month ago I was whining about this absurd NY Times story, which presented the poll result that "43 percent of respondents expect most forms of abortion to be illegal by the time Mr. Bush leaves the White House, given Mr. Bush's expected appointments to the Supreme Court", but made no attempt to place that (im)probability in context.

Meanwhile, in the comments, Ed goes to an always useful starting point - how does this benefit Hillary?  Brush off your tin-foil Yankee cap and join us...

Comments

[ed]

Hmmm.

This is an exploration by Hillary Clinton by proxy through the NYT. The basis for this discussion is to float this initial idea as a precursor to Hillary's attempt to swing conservative voters away from the GOP.

As a conservative, with many conservative friends, I'm not all that enchanted with the GOP. If you remove the GWOT from the equation, you'll find that the GOP has largely paid lip-service for the vast support given by the conservative voters. Even if you do add in the GWOT the abject and utter failure to control the nation's borders and deal with the massive illegal immigration is a fundamental failing of the GOP's relationship with conservatives.

Over the next couple years you'll see Hillary Clinton doing:

1. Pushing the idea that Roe vs. Wade should be overturned and resolution should be made on a state by state basis rather than a national basis. Due to the polarization of blue/red states there will be a significant number of states where abortion will be perfectly legal. In such circumstances people desiring abortions could easily travel to a state where it is legal, and then have the operation done there.

This would be a major win for Hillary Clinton with pro-life and religious conservatives.

2. Expect to see Hillary pushing hard for less secularization of Christian holidays, particularly Christmas. By openly refuting hard-core leftists on the issues of secularization of Christian holidays, Hillary will have her "Sister Soulja" moment. This will gain Hillary a great deal of prestige with religious conservatives.

3. Expect to see Hillary seriously oppose illegal immigration. Expect to see her demand a Congressional study on the state by state and federal costs of illegal aliens. Expect to see a LOT of support on this issue by ALL state governments, who currently shoulder the brunt of the costs. Expect Hillary to become adamantly pro-border control. This will buy Hillary even more prestige with conservatives as Bush is extremely open-borders and so is most of the GOP.

...

I seriously think this is the opening salvo of Hillary Clinton's move to emasculate the GOP's hold on conservatives. The simple fact is that many conservatives were Democrats. I left the Democratic Party, or rather they left me behind, because of it's incredible focus on ridiculous victimization politics and other various bits of nonsense.

It'll be interesting to see what happens.

[Towering Barbarian]

Ed,
Let's hope you're right. I really would like to see Roe v. Wade tumble. But words alone are hollow. The true litmus test would be in how well she walks the walk afterwards. Until then those of us who are Pro-Life are getting a lot better action from the GOP then from the Democrats and I'm a believer in "Dance with the ones that brung ya". ^_~

[TM]

I like the Hilary-by-proxy notion.

And I knew I had some other point - the discussion of abortion in this Jan 20 2005 article by Adam Nagourney struck me as absurd when I read it.

[TM]

OK, Major Flip-Flop Alert! I have decided that I don't like the Hillary-by-proxy notion; I love it.

I don't think she is going to come out in favor of overturning Roe, nor does she need to go that far.

BUT, she may decide to abandon her fellow Senators if the Dem Party decides to block a "pro-life" SC judicial appointment (especially, obviously, if the retireee is already "pro-life"). So, the theory may get a test this summer. Very interesting.

[ed]

Hmmm.

One of the reasons why I think this is that anyone who really wants to win a national election must overtake the center and appeal to a broad base. The ultra-lefties are just too narrow a base by themselves and their inclusion absolutely antagonizes conservatives. As it is currently composed the DNC will have a very hard time winning future national elections. Overall the DNC's voting power might have becomed maxed out as there is a slow, but fairly certain, drive to enact election day changes that will prevent future election-theft.

Frankly I think the amount of voting fraud by the Democrats is far larger than anyone really supposed. Looking at Washington state and Wisconsin, the amount that has turned up is pretty significant.

Another aspect is that the required moves by Hillary are fairly cheap. The Roe vs Wade issue can be done by offering speeches at various rallies. But because this new position is one favored by pro-lifers Hillary could do these speeches at venues occupied BY pro-lifers, conservatives and religious conservatives. Instead of being largely restricted to campaigning amongst the regular crowd, she could use this opportunity to connect with a large group of people who would otherwise write her off.

And they'd pay the costs of these visits too I'd bet.

The illegal immigration is a very sore point for many people. To win this debate all you need to do is find out how many school children are illegal aliens. Right now in New Jersey the property taxes are going through the roof. Each year the costs of educating kids and constructing new schools is growing almost exponentially. There is a great deal of suspicion that most of this growth is from illegal aliens.

Keep in mind when reading all of this that I'm an Ultra-Conservative (non-religious). I absolutely hate Hillary Clinton. I think she's manipulative, shallow and completely unsuited to the demands of the White House, as evidenced by her performance in the 1990's. But if she does these things she can garner enormous support from conservatives, which at the very least will force the GOP to finally do something about the damn borders.

[ed]

Hmmm.

Oh and one other point. Bill Clinton won the Presidency and maintained his grip on national politics by co-opting the Republican platform.

Bush won by essentially doing the same thing.

See a pattern here?

[TM]

I think if she got to Bush's right on immigration (easy), and did not oppose a pro-life SC appointment, she would be in a position to give the Reps fits, without necessarily losing her base (assuming the NY Times re-education campaign on abortion takes hold).

[ed]

Hmmm.

Yes I'd agree. Illegal immigration is a very "hot button" type issue for many conservatives. What's interesting is that the assumption that all immigrants are automatically in favor of illegal immigration is wrong. Many legal immigrants also oppose illegal immigration.

Yeah. I could easily see Hillary doing this and giving Republicans ulcers in 2008.

[ed]

Hmmm.

Look at the latest on PowerlineBlog.

"Let the Democrats be Democrats"

The important point made:

"... (1) President Bush nominates fewer conservatives than he otherwise would ..."

This is absolute poison for the GOP. It's also one that is going to be forced by Arlen Specter, regardless of what nonsense he said to get his position.

The simple fact is that a large majority of conservatives are appalled and disgusted by judicial activism. A very large segment of conservatives are seriously counting on the successful appointment of conservative judges to counter the excessive influence of overly liberal activist judges.

So far the GOP and the Bush administration has done extremely little in promoting conservative issues or agenda points. Frankly I can't think of any other group that has gotten so little, from a political party, for so much effort except perhaps jews/Israelis from the DNC. The only substantive thing done so far, other than the GWOT, is the tax cut. But that has been offset, and more, by the prolifigate spending by Bush and the vast new $1 trillion dollar entitlement. Consider also that Bush cannot run in 2008. Every single national level candidate, so far, is either a liberal Republican or, at best, a moderate Republican. There are no conservative voices being groomed.

In 2008 it's a whole new ballgame and one where the GOP stands ready to shoot itself right in the ass. We'll have to wait and see how it pans out, but I'm completely unconvinced that the GOP has any idea what kind of damage it is doing to it's relationship with conservatives.

BTW. I'm going to make a tinfoil sailors hat and wear it when making comments on here. :) Just joking.

[Beto Ochoa]

Did anyone else hear the clip where Howard Dean said that abortion had to be protected but 'They' needed to reduce the 'Demand'? I don't have time today to research it. He said it very recently. What exactly would 'They' do about the 'Demand' anyway?

[jdc]

Beto, the "demand" for abortion would be unwanted pregnancy. The Democratic position is that comprehensive sex-education (i.e., "There are pills, shots, condoms -- OR you could not have sex and skip the worries") works better to prevent this demand than abstinence-only (i.e., "Just Say No") does.

Having been a teenager myself, I consider that a no-brainer.