In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Say Sayonara to Abortion

Lauren

Ted Rall on the Roberts confirmation:

Now is a superb time to get that abortion you’ve been putting off.

Officially, Supreme Court nominee John Roberts’ opinion of
Roe v. Wade is “opaque,” “mysterious,” or–my favorite–just “unknown.” But if I’m no genius, it doesn’t take one to suss out how Roberts will vote when the next big abortion case hits his docket.

Three facts indicate that Roberts’ confirmation spells the end of Roe v. Wade, the decision guaranteeing American women the right to an abortion.

First: Despite repeated denials, it’s clear that Sandra Day O’Connor’s shoo-in replacement is an active member of the Federalist Society, the far-right cadre of scary college kids who worship Ayn Rand, dress like Tucker Carlson and care deeply about your sex life. […] The group takes a hard line against abortion, comparing Roe v. Wade to the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision defining slaves as property.

Second: Roberts’ wife is a militant anti-abortion activist, a member and ex-board member of a Catholic group called “Feminists for Life.” She performs pro bono legal work for the group’s pro-life agenda. Democrats, Republicans and even NARAL Pro-Choice America say that that doesn’t mean anything–“My wife has opinions on things that may or may not conform with mine, and I think most couples are in that situation,” says GOP Senator Rick Santorum–but it does. Even before being tapped for the high court Roberts was an ambitious, well-connected judicial up-and-comer in right-wing Washington political circles. If he felt annoyed or embarrassed by the sight of his wife waving bloody fetus photos outside Planned Parenthood clinics, he would have asked her to cut it out. (Pun intended, yet undeleted.)

Third: Americans, including many Republicans, are pro-choice. The ABC/Washington Post poll says the numbers haven’t changed since 1995–55 percent say abortion should be “legal in all or most cases,” 25 percent “in some cases,” and only 17 percent not at all. And pro-choicers are more likely to consider the issue when voting than pro-lifers. Given the popularity of abortion rights, the Bush Administration would have told us if Roberts were neutral or pro-choice. They’re not. He’s neither.

Federal abortion rights are doomed. Liberals and feminists had might as well accept that. Pocket the TV ad budget and upgrade the website.

The world won’t end with Roe. Female residents of the blue states and those with carfare will be able to terminate their pregnancies long after the realization of the Bush Right’s babes-behind-burqas “Handmaid’s Tale”-style fantasy world. And in the red states? Sympathetic doctors with burdensome mortgages will provide discreet coathanger-free procedures for rich teenagers unable to work a condom-vending machine.

In a sick way, the end of Roe v. Wade may turn out to be a net positive for America. For one thing, Roe was a legally dubious decision based on flawed constitutional logic. Rather than pass abortion rights into law, 14 cowardly congresses and seven weasely presidents have relied on the 1973 ruling to avoid taking political fire from the Bible-thumpers.

Besides, a party-line overturning of Roe would validate years of liberal prophecies that the right plans to take away our freedoms. Every news story about a cheerleader bleeding to death in an Alabama high school locker room will remind Americans, especially the women who make up an increasing share of the swing vote, that the fundamentalist Christianists are happy to replace the necessary evil of legalized abortion with the optional horror of despair.

Despite some of the language — “necessary evil” and “unable to work a a condom-vending machine” — Rall is right.

20 thoughts on Say Sayonara to Abortion

  1. Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war
    With the cross of Jesus, going on before…

    (jingle, jingle, jingle)

    🙂

  2. Despite what Ted Rall says, Roe, or at least Planned Parenthood v Casey, is still safe. As it stands, there are five justices who did or would vote in favor of Casey: Kennedy, Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer, and Souter. If one of them retires before a Democrat is elected, then you can expect Roe to be overturned.

  3. This brings out two things I’ve been thinking about.

    First, I can’t imagine that an outright overturning of Roe won’t be followed by a federal law banning abortion. It may be eventually found unconstitutional, though the recent decision on medical marijuana and the commerce clause is worrying on that front. Thus I’m not sure we should assume that we’ll have the ability to flock to blue-states for abortions.

    Second, I agree that Roe was decided on dubious constitutional grounds (I think equality would have been a much stronger basis). And I hope that losing Roe will eventually spur federal laws permitting abortion and other privacy and gender-equality related reforms (I’d love to see a constitutional amendment protecting privacy in its several forms). Indeed, Rall may be right that overturning Roe will be, over the long run, a net positive.

    But I can’t sign onto this form of optimism. I see nothing here that I can legitimately be consoled by. Too many lives may be ruined or lost in the short-run. Yes, Alabama cheerleaders bleeding to death may create the impetus for reform. But they are still dead Alabama cheerleaders.

  4. ADM: my thoughts as well. I can’t see much to feel good about — even okay about — in looking forward to crow-eating Republicans. Real, not hypothetical, people will be affected by these changes, and those affected will overwhelmingly be women in a vulnerable state.

  5. I could dig up the relavent posts from his blog where Rall lays out his stance against abortion. He’s against it in almost all cases. I believe he claims to only accept the “necessary evil” in the case of teenage pregnancies – where he feels it should be practically mandatory (or something to that effect).

  6. There is a lot of damage Roberts could do on other fronts. If you’re thinking it will be fun to watch the GOP cope with public reaction to abortion being actually outlawed, think instead about how much damage could be done in just 2 years without the Endangered Species Act. (Gentlemen, start your bulldozers.)

  7. Pingback: Strangechord

  8. Rall is wrong about two important things. He’s assuming that there wouldn’t be a federal ban on abortion, which is not a safe assumption given a GOP controlled congress. We can’t just dismiss that possibility because we don’t think it would be politically advantageous for them to do so.

    Also, Rall is dead wrong (as is a previous commenter) about Roe. Roe is, for the most part, a solid decision, one that deserves to be upheld. (Its faults – like the ‘viability’ standard – work in favor of the anti-choice crowd.) The only reason Roe wouldn’t be acceptable is if you were some kind of “strict constructionist” or “originalist” or whatever, but that would just be dumb. On any reasonable interpretation of the Constitution, the right to an abortion is absolutely guaranteed. (See the 14th amendment.)

    Another point: Roe is not necessarily safe if O’Connor is replaced with an anti-Roe vote. People who say that are counting on Kennedy to uphold Roe, but I don’t think this is a very safe assumption either. Yes, Kennedy was with the majority in Casey, but if you read his opinion, you can see a scenario where he might overturn Roe.

  9. I’ve said this in a previous comment here, but it deserves repeating. An Amendment is the only real protection for reproductive rights. I hear people speaking about reproductive rights as if they deserve the same protection as freedoms of speech, press, & assembly. If you believe that, then you should push for the same kind of Amendment for abortion as the ones that guarantee those other rights. Given that an Amendment is unrealistic for now, pro-choice legislation isn’t. If all the organizations pushing to protect Roe directed their funds and efforts to lobby for legislation, we could go a long way.

  10. “Besides, a party-line overturning of Roe would validate years of liberal prophecies that the right plans to take away our freedoms.”

    I’m sorry, but this is frankly reprehensible nonsense. “Sure, countless women will die, risk death, or bear unwanted children, but I’ll be able to say I told you so!” I think it’s pretty safe to say no poor woman in a poor state would go along with this.

  11. In order for a cheerleader bleeding to death in a locker room to grasp America’s attention in a post-Roe world, that cheerleader better be white. It’s terrible – this guy isn’t thinking what this is going to cost the poor and those whose lives aren’t considered as “valuable” (nonwhite, poor) to the right. I don’t like talk of “taking a risk” on Roe just to see what will happen – didn’t Pollitt write on this recently? It’s not a science experiment we’re talking about here!

  12. Yeah, if Roe is overturned and I got pregnant, I’d be shit out of luck. Well, actually I’d be in Mexico hoping to god I could figure out how to get this done safely. This isn’t a cute game by any stretch.

  13. What, Amanda, you mean you can’t just up and go to California on a whim? I thought musicians were all rich…

  14. You know what? Fuck Ted Rall. Rich teenagers are not the ones I’m worried about. I’m fucking worried about poor women in my state who are already struggling to take care of the kids they have.

    I’ll bet you $20 right now he’s never bought one of those nasty cheap condoms out of a condom dispenser, either.

    And people get pregnant on birth control all the fucking time.

  15. I’m not a musician. Just a geek. I live with a musician, but he has a real job. But no, I don’t have a lot of disposable cash. We use a form of birth control that’s probably only second to a hysterectomy in effectiveness, but there’s always that nagging worry.

    But before Roe, going to Mexico was common. Not that it’s legal there, but it’s easier to get away with it. Of course, there’s not really a good way to make sure you have a good doctor unless you’re well-connected. Women from El Paso died a lot on the table in Juarez from abortions, according to my mother. But it was sort of swept under the table.

  16. re: a constitional amendment permitting abortion. You need 3/4 of the states to ratify. That means only 12 states can oppose it. So, out of

    Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, West Virginia, Indiana, Utah, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Idaho, Wyoming

    Which state legislatures are going to approve a constitutional amendment permitting abortion? that’s 18 states. 6 are needed to ratify an amendment (so complaining about the dakotas and virginia will do little good). And that’s assuming that EVERY other state not mentioned DOES ratify it. Ohio, Missouri, Colorado, Arkansas, Louisana, Florida and Penssylvania would likely be very difficult fights. so, I don’t see how an amendment could possibly be passed, even with a massive landslide in ’06, and again in ’08

  18. hey there all you naysayers! turn those frowns upside-down! didn’t you hear the man? the world won’t end!!! i mean, that’s gotta be good news, right?

    and as for all that other stuff, just follow the logic & you’ll see he’s, like, sooo right: as long as it all benefits the Party, as long as Democrats can say “I told you so” – then all the silly people will realize what sillies they’ve been & the magical swing vote will shoot them right into office next election & eeeeeverything will be better & everyone will get ponies. what’s a few dead teenagers compared to that?

    .

    ick… sarcasm doesn’t even cut it. the partisan instrumentality of that last paragraph is deeply repugnant.

  19. Kathryn Cramer is, of course, correct. The chance of a constitutional amendment passing is zero. Only 12 amendments have passed since the Civil War, and most of those have been procedural. As for spending resources on passing legislation, why? If Roe is in effect it’s irrelevant, and if it’s overturned it could just be repealed.

  20. As for spending resources on passing legislation, why? If Roe is in effect it’s irrelevant, and if it’s overturned it could just be repealed.

    Because the majority of the country is pro-choice. There are more pro-choice Republicans in Congress than there are pro-life Dems.

Comments are currently closed.