Skip to main content

Losing Roe Could Be a Nightmare — For Republicans

 Of all the atrocities a six-to-three Supreme Court could inflict on the world, the overturning of Roe v. Wade is, dare I say, among the least of them.

Yes, reproductive rights are as important as ever. Yes, it’s obscene that any Western country should still be wasting time on something so stupid. But the implications of a Roe-less future needn’t be as bleak as popular imagination would have it. And it could end up blowing back on Republicans, big time.

I’m not convinced the Republican party even wants Roe overturned. They’ve certainly said they do — and repeated it ad nauseum — but they say a lot of things they don’t mean.

Roe has been the lynchpin of the scam they’ve been running on evangelicals for decades. Republicans promise to get rid of Roe, and evangelicals promise to vote for them forever, based on that one issue.

The beauty of it is that they don’t even have to deliver on the promise. As long as Roe stays in place, they get to work the same scam over and over. Why would they want to kill Roe when promising to kill it works so well?

But now that their supposed goal seems in reach, they need to be careful what they wish for. Once Roe is gone, single-issue voters might start looking at other issues — like healthcare, infrastructure, environment, racism, economy, and yes, Covid — all of which Republicans are eager to not talk about.

And let’s be clear. The Republican party doesn’t give a rat’s ass about abortion. Abortion has never been anything more than a convenient way of keeping single-issue voters in line, while at the same time vilifying Democrats as fetal murderers.

Let’s remember that roughly two-thirds of the electorate approve of easy access to abortion, and consider it a basic right. Republicans are not on the right side of this issue, no matter what SCOTUS does.

Let’s also remember that Roe was always a jerry-rigged construction, a judicial solution to a legislative problem. It never really “legalized” abortion per se — that would involve a law-making body — it simply made it unconstitutional to deny a woman the right to abortion.

Once that right is taken away, Congress could theoretically issue a national ban on abortion. But it’s hard to imagine anything like that passing both houses in any foreseeable future.

Which means that actual bans will need to be enacted on a state-by-state basis. Twenty-one states already have “trigger” laws ready to enact on the day Roe goes away.

But you can bet that a lot of other states will go in the opposite direction, expanding and liberalizing access to reproductive choice in every way science allows — evolving medical technology will surely favor the good guys. And it’s not hard to envision pro-choice states aggressively marketing abortion services online to anti-choice states.

This will be problematic for those states, almost all of which will be red.

For one thing, abortion will be forced underground, which means the administrative burden of policing and enforcing it might prove too expensive, unwieldy, and conspicuously foolish for any state to maintain.

At the same time, many of those states will see their laws actively circumvented by neighboring states. Abortion clinics will pop up right across their state lines, complete with shuttle services — some provided free by social service agencies. There will also be abortion pills widely available online, which will prove damn near impossible to interdict.

But it’s the political ramifications that will really give Republicans fits. Because going Roe-less means if you’re a Republican legislator you’ll have to put your vote where your mouth is. It was easy enough for these hypocrites to condemn abortion, loudly and self-righteously, knowing that a ban was constitutionally impossible. It might not be so easy when they have to face actual voters on the issue.

Roe has long given them cover to be as bombastic as they want about an issue they can’t do anything about. Now, if a ban is on the table, it won’t be quite the slam dunk they think it is. Remember, they have two-thirds of the population disagreeing with them. In 2011, when the Mississippi legislature put their so-called “personhood” amendment to a vote, they lost by eighteen percentage points. And that was in a solidly anti-abortion state.

With Roe gone, politicians who’ve been hiding behind it forever may find their constituents aren’t happy at all about losing a basic right they’ve taken for granted. If you’re a Republican running for office in a red state, this is not the issue you want to fall on your sword for.

And the same goes for us on the left. There are any number of dire, life-threatening issues that will come before this deeply illegitimate Supreme Court. We have treated abortion rights as a litmus test for far too long. While we’ve dutifully obsessed about it, other rights that are arguably more important — voting rights, to name one — have been inexcusably compromised.

We have enough existential ills demanding our attention, and some triage is called for. We need to pick our fights wisely.

 

Comments

  1. Well said. Thanks for thinking this out.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Love your articles Andy. Here’s one that goes along with this one, “liberals are the true ‘pro life’ people and it’s time to take that back from the conservatives” That single issue is control of women and control of the conservative vote as you state here. True pro life supports funding birth control world wide, good education, gun safety laws, climate change activism, educating the citizenry about the dangers of over population and supporting the freedom to live life as we wish as long as it doesn’t damage someone else. Why is it that conservatives feel they have the right to tell others what they should do when they don’t want to be told what they should do? How do we deal with ignorant and stubborn hypocrisy?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Elise Stefanik Wants to be Your President

It isn’t often that The New York Times and The Washington Post do lengthy features on the same politician in the same week. So when Elise Stefanik was given several thousand words in two major papers, my curiosity was duly piqued. The two pieces ( here and here ) are similar profiles of Stefanik, age 38, and her remarkable transformation from Harvard-educated “moderate” Republican, to ultra-MAGA ideologue. The subhead of the Times article states the theme of both: To rise through the Trump-era G.O.P., a young congresswoman gave up her friends, her mentors and her ideals. So how does a double feature like this happen, especially when there’s no immediate news driving it? Stefanik was not in the spotlight, though it was clear she would soon be taking a leading role in the new GOP House majority. So it could just be the coincidence of two reporters intuitively seizing on the same story. It happens. But it could also be that Stefanik herself, working with a clever publicist, set o

The Trump-Putin Bromance is Getting Another Look

The arrest last week of Charles McGonigal, former head of counterintelligence for the FBI, may or may not prove to be a watershed moment in our understanding of the Trump-Putin conspiracy. It’s still early, and the depths of the story have yet to be plumbed. So I’m not going to weigh in on that (you can read about it here ), except to note that people who’ve been watching the Trump-Russia show for over a decade are now going back to their notes and timelines, looking at old events in light of new information. And the more we all look, the more the miasma of Russian subterfuge stinks up every narrative. If a murderous oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, could actually recruit the FBI agent who’d investigated him — which the McGonigal affair will apparently show — who knows what else was going on? There is, I think, the need for some sort of “unified field theory” of the Trump-Putin relationship. There is much that we’re missing on at least three separate tracks of that bizarre bromance: Tru

Another Rousing Comeback for Antisemitism

I was in my late twenties in the late seventies, a single man sitting in a piano bar on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. It was St. Patrick’s Day, and I was in friendly conversation with an older Irish couple, there to celebrate their history. He wore a green tie, she a green blouse. Alcohol was involved. The conversation was free flowing, as random encounters with amiable strangers can be. When the talk turned to history, which can happen on St. Patrick’s Day, I put forth the notion — stolen, I think, from a Leon Uris novel I’d recently read — that the Irish and the Jews had much in common, that their shared history of oppression bonded them, that their experience of suffering and privation was deeply imbued in both their cultures. Not an especially profound insight, but the husband — to the surprise not just of me, but of his wife as well — was having none of it. In his sloshed but strident state, he insisted that the suffering of Jews couldn’t possibly be compared to what the I