This article in the Economist got me thinking…

The Palin appointment is yet more proof of the way that abortion still distorts American politics. This is as true on the left as on the right. But the Republicans seem to have gone furthest in subordinating considerations of competence and merit to pro-life purity. One of the biggest problems with the Bush administration is that it appointed so many incompetents because they were sound on Roe v Wade. Mrs Palin’s elevation suggests that, far from breaking with Mr Bush, Mr McCain is repeating his mistakes.

Well, it is true that abortion is a very dangerous topic in American politics. Neither major party likes to tolerate dissent on the issue—at least, from spotlight personalities like the presidential nominee. We won’t see a pro-choice Republican ticket any more than we will see a pro-life Democratic ticket.

But what I currently find alarming is the perception on the Left that we are on the brink of overturning Roe v Wade and sending young women to bleed to death in back alleys across America. That’s simply not the case, and the dire anti-abortion warnings about the McCain-Palin ticket are either misplaced or disingenuous.

The Left warned us that a Bush administration would overturn Roe v Wade, and despite appointing two conservative Justices to the Supreme Court, that hasn’t happened and doesn’t appear imminent. Consider also that the Democrats will keep and in fact increase their majority in the Senate this November. You know, the Senate. The body that confirms the president’s appointees with their “consent and advice”… or doesn’t?

Who on Earth could John McCain appoint to slay Roe v Wade over a Democratic majority? Who could Sarah Palin ever manage to push through a Democratic Senate, in the event both McCain and Ginsburg (or Breyer or Souter) were forced to leave office?

I don’t believe a majority of people want that decision overturned anyway, and I think Republican politicians realize how it would damage them if they were to pursue Roe v Wade round Good Hope, round the Horn, and round the Norway maelstrom.

And even if they did, that wouldn’t actually ban abortions anyway. It would make the procedure subject to state laws… which would leave abortion legal in 43 states (discussed previously).

Keep in mind how liberal we as a society have become over the past few generations. Forty years ago the nation still struggled with race-based marriage restrictions; today we openly debate gay marriage. No, we will probably never see abortion outlawed in this nation. We don’t want it to be. Despite all of the mystique and emotion surrounding the issue, it actually ranks low on the list of issues weighing on the minds of voters. It falls behind the economy, the war in Iraq, terrorism, health care, energy, corruption, education, and taxes.

At this point, most Republicans do not consider Roe v Wade to be much of a litmus test. It’s okay for Republicans to be wishy-washy on this issue, or even to be openly pro-choice (see Christine Todd Whitman, Rudy Guliani, and Arlen Specter).

In other words, Democrats are only able to make it a rally flag by fear-mongering. The Left’s attacks on John McCain and Sarah Palin are to be expected, and on some topics they are certainly justified, but on the issue of Roe v Wade it comes across as a desperate attempt to scare undecided women voters into voting Democrat. We should have the audacity to hope for better than that.

Tweet  Print This Post

Tags: on the law, politics & government // Add Comment »