Thomas wrote:nimh wrote: 62% wants stricter limits, but 61% thinks Roe vs Wade should be upheld. Go square that circle.
That particular squaring turns out to be easy.
Roe vs. Wade specifically allows that the state outlaw third trimester abortions, which would be a stricter limit than what's in place today. Moreover, the third trimester is not a magic constant in the Supreme Court's decision. It is a function of the state of technology. More specifically, it happens the period of pregnancy during which, using 1973 technology, an embryo could survive outside the mother's womb. At this point, it was possible in 1973 to deliver it normally without killing it. Thanks to thirty years of technical progress, babies can now be born much earlier and
still have a chance of survival outside the womb. Arguably, this means that abortions can be made illegal much sooner, and the law would still comply with the Roe v. Wade ruling. Based on chances of survival, I guess abortion could now be made illegal after the fifth month of pregnancy, but I'd have to check with an embryology textbook to be sure.
In any case, there is less circle-squaring going on here than meets your eye.
All true, and recent caselaw hints at the same: technological changes totally alter the Roe equation, which found roots in "viability," a point that is quickly moving backwards.
As far as the "uphold Roe, or kill it" question, I think the political answer for the Dems might be to learn a lesson from the GOP: don't defend abortion, but make no sudden political moves against it either--have your cake and eat it too.
The next four years could provide a clear opportunity for the Dems to score a political victory on this issue. If a radical, Roe hating S. Ct. judicial nominee comes down the pipeline, the GOP would probably expect the Dem Senators to filibuster, allowing the GOP to gain both the moral capital of 'trying' to upend Roe, and the political capital of forcing the Dems to pull a counter-majoritarian stunt. I think the answer for the Dems would be to allow such a radical nominee to go to a vote on the Senate floor. Force the issue, and make the GOP put its money where its mouth is on abortion. If they flip-flop, and put a moderate in the S. Ct., they risk losing Christian fundamentalists. If they place a radical in the S. Ct., Roe could die, creating both a political problem for the GOP, and weakening their mandate from the Christian Right (after Roe is dead and the S. Ct. is stacked with its detractors, the abortion issue is no longer on the table). Either way, as long as the Dem Senators don't filibuster, the GOP will have to take the full blame of either upholding Roe or appointing a justice to kill it. All the Dems need to do is be passive on the issue, which shouldn't be hard considering that the Senate and Presidency are firmly Republican.
Anyway, that's my advice to Senate DemocratsÂ… and what a better place to make it than on a2k. I'm sure they're listening.
Note: Off course, the above post assumes that some of the octogenarians in the S. Ct. will leave the bench in the next several years.
