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

It’s Beginning to Look a Lot Like Covid

A lot of what we’re now going through has echoes of what we went through during Covid. The timelines are eerily similar. In January 2020, the rumble was in the distance, but we knew the storm was headed our way. It wasn’t something we wanted to think about. We knew what the disease was capable of, but we only knew it from afar. Denial was easy. Read that last paragraph again, but substitute 2025 for 2020. The word ‘disease’ still applies — only its definition is expanded. By February, we could see the virus spreading, a few cases here, a few there, but the CDC was warning that this was not something you want to mess with. It was only a matter of time before it would arrive in full force, and our experts seemed flummoxed as to how to respond. A few tried to warn us, but the alarm went unheeded. Even so, a sense of dread was descending on the land. Same deal in February of this year. As DOGE vandalized the government, right out in the open, fear of the unknown ...

Epstein: The Gift that Keeps On Giving

  T he Epstein scandal is not just about those elusive files, though seeing them released would surely be a hallelujah moment. Don’t hold your breath. The scandal is really about a massive set of laughably contradictory lies, all of which add up to one big whopper of a question: Did Donald Trump have sex with underage girls, courtesy of his long-time sidekick, Jeffrey Epstein? It seems almost certain that he did, and on multiple occasions. Which is why he needs to lie about it like he’s never lied before. Talk about a high bar. Driftglass , of The Professional Left Podcast , has called this “the load-bearing lie” — the lie that has to carry far more weight than all the thousands of other lies that define the Trump era. A load-bearing lie is a lie that must not fail, under any circumstances, lest the entire house of lesser lies implode. Watching the fact-free, logically bereft tap dancing being performed almost daily by the likes of JD Vance, Pam Bondi, a...

So You Thought You’d Heard Enough about Jeffrey Epstein?

  Back in 2019, the first time Jeffrey Epstein was the name on everyone’s lips, the New York Times published the bizarre story of Leslie H. Wexner. The billionaire founder of Victoria’s Secret, this guy basically signed over his life — and much of his fortune — to Epstein. This went on for at least 16 years. Wexner gave Epstein power of attorney, and with it the ability to buy, sell, or sign for anything in Wexner’s name, thereby affording him extraordinary access to, and power over, the personal finances of an extremely wealthy man. Ostensibly Wexner had hired Epstein as a financial advisor, yet no one at L Brands — parent company of Victoria’s Secret— saw any official record of employment or compensation. Over a decade and a half, Epstein took over most, if not all, of Wexner’s personal investments, including substantial real estate holdings. Epstein transferred ownership of a lot of those properties to himself. This baffled and disturbed other executives...