# If the Democrats Lose Control of the Senate, What Will Happen to Roe v. Wade? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 1, 2002, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-democrats-lose-control-of-the-senate-what-will-happen-to-roe-v-wade/130322 "2002-10-01T00:17:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2002, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-democrats-lose-control-of-the-senate-what-will-happen-to-roe-v-wade/130322/21 "2002-10-03T20:16:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sqweels \* > \*\* The U.S. would be an ever-shifting patchwork of states with varying abortion laws \*\* This, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing. After all, we’re already an ever-shifting patchwork of states with different laws on just about every subject from criminal law (what’s illegal in one state is not necessarily illegal in another), marriage law, tort law, motor vehicle law and many other laws. Furthermore, different states have different standards for licensing drivers, doctors, lawyers, and other professionals. Different states have different methods of conducting elections, educating children, taxing property, income and commerce and governing the ability to own a firearm. Why is abortion law being different from state to state worse than any of these other areas? Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2002, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-democrats-lose-control-of-the-senate-what-will-happen-to-roe-v-wade/130322/22 "2002-10-04T01:33:12Z")
I agree that the controversy would spike as the state legislatures argued the issue. But pretty soon it would become clear that certain abortion positions would be political suicide and politicians would stop espousing them. Currently politicians are much more polarized over abortion than the general population. The general population is uncomfortable with abortion and would rather that there wasn’t so much abortion, and is against “unneccesary” abortion. But they when push comes to shove most people wouldn’t want all–or even most–abortions to be illegal. But most politicians are either staunch pro-lifers or staunch pro-choicers. And why not? They lose nothing by the extreme stands. The middle of the road majority isn’t going to vote for or against someone based on their abortion views, since those views are irrelevant. The extreme wings would never vote for a person who opposes their view. So there is no cost to pandering to your base. And there could be a heavy cost to espousing a nuanced approach. If you were moderately against abortion the pro-choicers are going to hate you anyway but you will be a sell-out to the pro-lifers. And vice-versa. But what if a pro-life or pro-choice stand had real-life legislative consequences? While people will vote for a “no-exceptions” pro-lifer now, will they do so if they actually might get a no-exceptions abortion law passed? Maybe in some cases they would, but in many cases they would not. The hard-core will have to moderate their positions or find themselves without a constituency. We will have candidates that are acceptable to the moderate pro-life side as well as the moderate pro-life side. The extremes will be shut out. Compromise will be reached. Abortion as a political issue will be sidelined. ---
**Author:** ![RexDart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b77776/32.png) [@RexDart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RexDart)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2002, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-democrats-lose-control-of-the-senate-what-will-happen-to-roe-v-wade/130322/23 "2002-10-04T01:45:56Z")
Strict constructionism is nothing more nor less than looking to all clues within the four corners of a piece of legislation to interpret that legislation. No external clues, like legislative intent, are needed, as their existence is rather dubious in the first place. The Constitution likewise would be interpreted within the four corners of that great document. If the Constitution is amended, the strict constructionist would be bound by that. If legislation is drafted more thoroughly and consistently to define its own terms, the contructionist would likewise be also bound by that move. There is nothing to fear from constructionism unless you are the sort who thinks judges ought to be making their own law from the bench based on their own politics. If you want to oppose constructionists on that basis, allow individuals to sneak in new laws that would never have gotten approval through the legislative process, then be my guest. Just be careful you aren’t standing alone by the time you admit that. ---
**Author:** ![Soup\_du\_jour](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@Soup\_du\_jour](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Soup_du_jour)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2002, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-democrats-lose-control-of-the-senate-what-will-happen-to-roe-v-wade/130322/24 "2002-10-04T02:39:06Z")
[quote] Originally posted by **El Jeffe** My use of “pro-abortion” rather than “pro-choice” was deliberate. If I’d meant to refer to those who were pro-choice, I would have said so. I was specifically referring to the extreme end of the spectrum embodied by groups such as NOW and NARAL - people who associate the ability to get an abortion with empowerment. I believe these people are more accurately described by “pro-abortion” than “pro-choice”, as they make it a point to discourage traditional family structures and denigrate those women who choose to be stay-at-home mothers. I would hardly call these people “pro-choice”, as they only approve of the “choice” when it suits their preferences. These groups form the lobbyists who would sooner die than see RvW get overturned, and these are the groups more likely to prevent it from happening.\*\* I doubt that most folks who consider themselves “pro-choice” go around making the claim that abortions are good and desirable. I’d wager that the groups you name would see abortion as substantially less desirable than no pregnancy at all. Still, the rhetoric comes from both sides of the aisle. Some Planned Parenthood mailings I’ve seen call Focus on the Family and the like as “anti-choice.” Yeah, these folks are really going around proclaiming that making choices is bad. Why can’t these groups accurately represent the other sides’ arguments? Oh, that’s right. Because if they did so, they wouldn’t get any money out of it. Sickening. ---
**Author:** ![Kepler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/71c47a/32.png) [@Kepler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kepler)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2002, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-democrats-lose-control-of-the-senate-what-will-happen-to-roe-v-wade/130322/25 "2002-10-04T03:37:21Z")
I’m surprised to find that nobody has mentioned the slight issue that Roe v. Wade is no longer the controlling ruling on abortion. That is PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA et al. v. CASEY, GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al. For those with the patience: [http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-744.ZS.html](http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-744.ZS.html) This is a complex decision to summarize, and I’m not going to try since anything short of a full description will kick up more dirt than truth, but basically Roe v. Wade doesn’t address the issues of current importance in the debate. It’s a bloody shirt to be waved by extremists on the far right and the far left, who themselves aren’t important to the mainstream debate. Ed: Granted, a runaway Court good probably roll back choice on all fronts, but the consequences of that would be politically crippling to the right. (It’s almost worth letting them win the battle so we can finally end the war with a huge consensus.) ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2002, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-democrats-lose-control-of-the-senate-what-will-happen-to-roe-v-wade/130322/26 "2002-10-04T06:59:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kepler \* > \*\*Granted, a runaway Court good probably roll back choice on all fronts, but the consequences of that would be politically crippling to the right. (It’s almost worth letting them win the battle so we can finally end the war with a huge consensus.) \*\* Huge consensus? See the ABC News poll quoted above. ---
**Author:** ![ElJeffe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@ElJeffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElJeffe)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2002, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-democrats-lose-control-of-the-senate-what-will-happen-to-roe-v-wade/130322/27 "2002-10-04T18:41:57Z")
> [@](#): > > I doubt that most folks who consider themselves “pro-choice” go around making the claim that abortions are good and desirable. I’d wager that the groups you name would see abortion as substantially less desirable than no pregnancy at all. In general, yes. But the unofficial party line from those groups is that given the choice between abortion and stay-at-home motherhood (even if it’s what the woman wants), the abortion is better. Choosing motherhood over a career is giving in to the Oppressive Patriarchy and reinforcing Harmful Feminine Stereotypes. There’s a reason a lot of modern feminists are trying to distance themselves from those groups. I do agree though with your assessment that most pro-choicers aren’t what I would call pro-abortion. > [@](#): > > Still, the rhetoric comes from both sides of the aisle. Agreed. Jeff ---
**Author:** ![MsRobyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/90ced4/32.png) [@MsRobyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsRobyn)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2002, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-democrats-lose-control-of-the-senate-what-will-happen-to-roe-v-wade/130322/28 "2002-10-05T02:02:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElJeffe \* > \*\*In general, yes. But the unofficial party line from those groups is that given the choice between abortion and stay-at-home motherhood (even if it’s what the woman wants), the abortion is better. Choosing motherhood over a career is giving in to the Oppressive Patriarchy and reinforcing Harmful Feminine Stereotypes. There’s a reason a lot of modern feminists are trying to distance themselves from those groups. I do agree though with your assessment that most pro-choicers aren’t what I would call pro-abortion. > \*\* And where do you get this idea? The mainstream feminist movement has never been about fighting the “oppressive patriarchy”. And I’ve never seen any mainstream feminist group come down against motherhood; most of them, in fact, have worked to ensure that women have the right to be mothers _when they so choose_. (Emphasis mine.) Granted, there are radicals within every group, but for the most part, they’re individuals, not the whole group. And your assertion that these groups prefer abortion to women being stay-at-home mothers is ludicrous. Feminism has always been about the right for women to make their own choices. If a woman wants to be a SAHM, then that is her right. Robin ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2002, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-democrats-lose-control-of-the-senate-what-will-happen-to-roe-v-wade/130322/29 "2002-10-05T03:09:25Z")
—Granted, there are radicals within every group, but for the most part, they’re individuals, not the whole group.— The problem is that most of the mainstream people got what they wanted out of the movement. The people who were left had more radical agendas. However, almost no one is “pro-abortion” in the sense that having an abortion is pushed as being as preferable to someone’s chosen lifestyle. —Feminism has always been about the right for women to make their own choices.— Then why did so many maintstream women’s groups try to get breast implants banned, even after the health effects were known? ---
**Author:** ![Sofa\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Sofa\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofa_King)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2002, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-democrats-lose-control-of-the-senate-what-will-happen-to-roe-v-wade/130322/30 "2002-10-07T17:33:45Z")
…Lest you think I’m doing a Chicken Little impression here, some of you might like to review [this article](http://www.rollcall.com/pages/news/00/2002/10/news1007b.html): > [@](#): > > If the Senate does return and the GOP temporarily seizes the majority, then the Republican leaders plan to invoke Rule XIV, which would allow Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott (Miss.) to bypass the committee process and place bills directly on the Senate calendar for consideration. and > [@](#): > > “When we take over the majority, we intend to move so fast to pass bills and confirm judges that have been held up by the Senate Democratic leadership that it will make their heads spin,” said the aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity. This is not the sort of thing that comforts me, and many of you should find it disconcerting as well. ---
**Author:** ![JDM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/90db22/32.png) [@JDM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JDM)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2002, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-democrats-lose-control-of-the-senate-what-will-happen-to-roe-v-wade/130322/31 "2002-10-07T18:38:46Z")
Not only what Sofa King said, but also: [here](http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,361521,00.html) is Glorious Leader’s pick for head of an important FDA panel. He’s really special: > [@](#): > > Sources tell Time that the agency’s choice for the advisory panel is Dr. W. David Hager, an obstetrician-gynecologist who also wrote, with his wife Linda, Stress and the Woman’s Body, which puts “an emphasis on the restorative power of Jesus Christ in one’s life” and recommends specific Scripture readings and prayers for such ailments as headaches and premenstrual syndrome. Though his resume describes Hager as a University of Kentucky professor, a university official says Hager’s appointment is part time and voluntary and involves working with interns at Lexington’s Central Baptist Hospital, not the university itself. In his private practice, two sources familiar with it say, Hager refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women. And furthermore: > [@](#): > > If Hager becomes chairman of the 11-member Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee, he will lead its study of hormone-replacement therapy for menopausal women, one of the biggest controversies in health care. Some conservatives are trying to use doubts about such therapy to discredit the use of birth-control pills, which contain similar compounds. The panel also made the key recommendation in 1996 that led to approval of the “abortion pill,” RU-486—a decision that abortion foes are still fighting. Hager assisted the Christian Medical Association last August in a “citizens’ petition” calling upon the FDA to reverse itself on RU-486, saying it has endangered the lives and health of women. If Generalissimo Arbusto (what’s Spanish for chickenhawk?) wants this kind of person in a powerful regulatory position, does anybody seriously think he wouldn’t jump at the chance to appoint one more anti-choice, anti Ninth Amendment, judicial activist to the SCOTUS? In this, as in virtually everything else he said during the 2000 travesty, Gore was right. JDM ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2002, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-democrats-lose-control-of-the-senate-what-will-happen-to-roe-v-wade/130322/32 "2002-10-07T18:50:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElJeffe \* > \*\*I do agree though with your assessment that most pro-choicers aren’t what I would call pro-abortion. > \*\* But to those opposed to abortion, that sounds as disingenuous as saying, “I’m not pro-slavery. I’m pro-choice on slavery. It’s not right for me to impose my values on others who might want or need to own slaves.” Or, imagine a bumper sticker circa 1860: “My Plantation, My Choice!” The Supreme Court’s [Dred Scott decision](http://www.nps.gov/jeff/ocv-dscottd.htm) in 1857 said that slaves were personal property, not human beings with rights. ---
**Author:** ![Avalonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ee7513/32.png) [@Avalonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avalonian)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2002, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-democrats-lose-control-of-the-senate-what-will-happen-to-roe-v-wade/130322/33 "2002-10-07T19:16:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Walloon \* > \*\* > > But to those opposed to abortion, that sounds as disingenuous as saying, “I’m not pro-slavery. I’m pro-choice on slavery. It’s not right for me to impose my values on others who might want or need to own slaves.”\*\* Beyond the obvious factual differences between slavery and abortion, which make this analogy pretty much invalid, we’re talking semantics here. In other words, if you want to use “pro-abortion” to describe people who believe in giving women the right to choose whether or not to keep a child over government, then be prepared to label the other side of the issue “anti-choice.” It’s at least as accurate and has that same nice deliberately inflammatory ring. And hey, if it’s accurate _some_ of the time that means it’s OK to use it _all_ the time, right?! :rolleyes: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-the-democrats-lose-control-of-the-senate-what-will-happen-to-roe-v-wade/130322.md?page=1)