S.D. Bans Abortions...Good for GOP?

As is now widespread news, the State of South Dakota has passed a ban on almost all abortions. Link .

How will this affect the Republican Party, especially in an election year? Will it make any difference at all? Do American’s really want Roe v. Wade overturned?

Please don’t turn this thread into arguments about the morality of abortion. I’m interested in the political consequences…

My personal feeling is that this is bad news politically for the GOP; I think it’s also bad news for the entire country, but maybe the silver lining in the cloud is that it gives the Democrats a real opportunity.

I also think the divide between “red” and “blue” is going to get much worse. There is no polarizing issue in the counrty quite as extreme as abortion, and now it is going to be a pretty hard-to-ignore issue.

Yeah, I guess some of the right-to-lifers at the poker table decided it was time for the cards to get turned face-up.

Could be interesting.

I think this could actually be harmful for the Republican party in that state. The majority of Americans don’t want abortion completely banned, and it’s possible that there could be a huge shift in the next election because of it. I can imagine many Democrats running on the platform that while they don’t LIKE abortion, they feel it to be an issue of personal freedom.

It’s also possible that it will be a moot issue once SCOTUS gets ahold of it. I can’t imagine this ban passing Constitutional muster once it’s challenged.

I think that any politician who endorses this across the board may be shooting themself in the foot.

Without getting into the pro-choice/pro-life debate, I find it mind-boggling to think that the majority of people would condone the right to have an abortion in the cases of rape or incest.

It’s also possible that SCOTUS never takes it at all, just lets lower-court injunctions stand permanently. But then, it only takes 3 Justices to want to take a case. Assuming Scalia and Thomas see it as their chance to finally be activist on the issue they were chosen for, it would only take Alito as well - and it isn’t obvious what he’d do.

Anyway, I don’t think this matters politically by itself - there weren’t many voters’ minds left to change, or many left who simply weren’t aware of the GOP leadership’s position on the issue. This move is more about solidifying the base in an election year than actually taking action, and if you *do * have to solidify your base in an election year, you’re in trouble already.

I though 4 Justices are required to grant cert?

You’re right. I thought I’d heard 3 in various news stories. The Wiki article does call it simply a custom, though.

Okay, it’s even less likely.

That’s already happening. What’s the saying: Keep abortion safe, legal, and rare?

Yeah, this is not a smart move for the pro-lifers. There’s a guaranteed 5-vote majority in favor of *Roe *on the court right now. Do they want *Roe *to become an even stronger precedent by having the court affirm it once again? If they think they’re timing it so that Bush will have one more nominee on the court before this actually gets there, then maybe it makes sense. Maybe. But of the 4 “conservative” justices on the court now, I think only Thomas is a sure vote to overturn. Scalia probably is. I’d put Alito at 50/50, and I’d bet Roberts would not overturn *Roe *unless someone made a really, really good argument to do so. The SD doesn’t offer that possibility-- it’s just a bunch of religous hogwash posing as science. And Momma Roberts didn’t raise no fool.

So, per the OP: I think this is collosally stooooopid of those guys, politically.

I think it will be huge benefit, yes some states will ban it, others will welcome it with open arms, the system’s log jam is now unclogged and laws can flow with the voice of the people, the way it was suppose to. The Rep party will be the one who unclogged this mess, and should get the credit.

I think it could have particular resonance in the next campaign. Even people who dislike abortion could resent government interference in women’s medical decisions. People deeply resent it when what they feel is a right is being taken away from them even if they themselves never excercized it. (I.E there are a lot of people who don’t own guns themselves who are staunch defenders of the right to bear arms.) The Dems could get a lot of milage out of exploting this aspect.

What the Republicans done here is take a moral issue and make it even more polarizing. Sure, they’ll keep the die-hards in their corner, but I think they’ll find there aren’t as many anti-abortion die-hards as there are* anti-governmental-interference *die-hards. They’ve painted themselves into a corner with this one, in my opinion.

I always get very nervous when people espouse the view that rights should be based on the opinion of the majority of the populace. While it sounds wonderful,* the people aren’t always right.*

The people don’t decide based on Constitutional principles. They decide based on their emotions and personal prejudices about a particular issue. They bend the Constitution to support their view, rather than looking at the issue from a non-partisan stance.

SCOTUS, on the other hand, is supposed to decide based on the Constitution, not their personal feelings about an issue. They are not supposed to consider opinion polls. (Which is why I’ve always been amused by folks who protest outside the court, or send in petitions.) Even if 99.9% of Americans are against something, if it passes Constitutional muster, it should be permitted, and vice versa.

What if the rights of blacks were subject to opinion polls in the early days of the Civil Rights movement? We saw only a couple years ago the shameful results of when a scorned minority groups’ rights are up for popular vote. The will of the people is not sacrosanct.

Definitely bad for the GOP. Nothing could be more precisely calculated to make sure pro-choice voters turn out in November 2006.

You’re right, and I see now I was answering a different question than the OP was asking. I was looking at it from the standpoint of whether it’s good for the pro-choice’s cause, not if it’s good for the GOP.

The SD legislation will rally the Democratic base, and get out the vote-- always a problem in midterm elections. It won’t do much to get out the pro-choice vote. The Dems will be able to say: See what happens when the Pubs are in power? Do you want to turn the US into the political equivalend of South Dakota? (Although hopefully they’ll say that last part more tactfully!)

If this legisltation could get thru the SCOTUS and be upheld, that might help the GOP in the next election, but I don’t see how that could posiibly happen before November of this year.

I wonder though, if this is intended to test the waters: how far can we go now? How many have to kick it? Is there a way to ban almost all abortions but stay within this court’s interpretation of Roe?

They know they’ll lose, they just want to read the decision for the next law.

Then again, it may be purely political. On a national scale, this will hurt the GOP, but from what I hear it’s a good move within SD.

In 2003, the Center for the Advancement of Women, headed by former Planned Parenthood president Faye Wattleton, published a survey of American women on contemporary issues. Of a thousand American women polled, 51 percent wanted to ban abortion altogether or to limit it to cases of rape, incest, and where the mother’s life is endangered. Another 17 percent said the procedure should be available under stricter limits than now apply. More here.

More germain to the OP, The Weekly Standard noticed:

While I do agree with you, we don’t have a true democracy here, but a representative republic - so our system is not 3 wolves and 1 sheep voting as what to have for dinner.

The issue of RvW is that it is to many just not in the Constitution and that ruling has clogged up the system.


True democracy is actually a lot more like 3 sheep and a wolf voting on what to have for dinner.

Because IRL, the sheep outnumber the wolves and democracy is the only defense they’ve got.

I don’t think I need to remind you that a study is only as good as the methodology used to collect the data. Was it truly a blind, random study? The article says nothing about the methodology. It notes that the results were ignored by the mainstream media: rather than automatically assume that it was because of “liberal bias” could it be that the media actually looked at the study in question and found it fundamentally flawed?

Are pro-choice people as “entusiastic” about the issue as pro-lifers ? I don’t think so. Pro-lifers will get much more fired up about this chance (even if it gets show down badly in the Supreme) than pro-choice IMO.

I really don’t see how this can be politically damaging to the GOP outside Dakota itself. The really psyched up ones aren’t the pro-choice. Bad timing ? Sure… but politically not bad.