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

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...

The Tourism Slump Isn’t Just About Tourism

N ot enough is being said about ripple effects. We still haven't felt the real fallout from the destructive policies and harebrained leadership we are currently stuck with. The effects have yet to fully ripple. When these policies are announced, we’re all rightly appalled at the immediate headlines. Then, even before the next news cycle, we’re on to the next atrocity before the last one even has time to dry. Outrage fatigue sets in, and we can’t keep up. But the toxic effects of these policies, while easily predicted, tend to happen in slow motion, and over time. Often, they’re not even perceptible, except through statistics. When the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics was fired last month for publishing employment numbers that reflected reality, as opposed to Trump’s fantasies, it was clearly a ripple effect of terrible policies, and Trump didn’t like it at all. Whether they ripple through the economy, the environment, the legal system, the healthcar...

The Revolt of the Grand Juries

  Even if all your knowledge of criminal law was learned, not in law school, or even in high school, but by watching reruns of Law & Order , you would still have a better understanding of the basics than, it appears, anyone in the higher levels of the Justice Department. You would, at least, be somewhat familiar with concepts like “probable cause” and “reasonable doubt,” which is more than it seems we can say for U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro. Pirro, known more for her boozy lies on Fox News, seems to have forgotten much about the law since first being admitted to the bar, pun intended. Fortunately, there are judges willing to throw out her slipshod, outrageously political cases, which have seen a number of D.C. residents tossed in jail for the most specious of reasons. All so that Trump — as well as Pam Bondi, Stephen Miller, Kash Patel, and Pirro herself — can show the deluded base how effective they are at fighting crime in the supposedly blighted streets...