Princeton Associates, one of those most respected opinion polling firms in the U.S., conducted the survey. And no, I have yet to find any critic who found the survey fundamentally flawed. The methodology used was very orthodox.
I don’t know what the answer to your first question is, but you don’t have to be as fired up as some pro-choicers seem to be in order to still be fired up. I think you miscalculate the passion of the pro-choicers if you think they aren’t going to fire up their base come November.
Everytime abortion and Roe vs Wade getting shot down topics crop up… there seems to be a lot of confidence in the resiliency of the legal abortion in the US… pro-choicers never seem too concerned (and from the legal explanations given in those same threads I don’t blame them for such confidence). So I don’t think they will get as fired up… even if they will enjoy seeing South Dakota being put in its place. Naturally I could be wrong… but that is the impression I have. Abortion is an issue much more to the Religious Right.
Only because abortion right now is legal and they want to make it illegal. If the situation changes, as they are trying to do in SD, then it will become more of an issue for the “pro-aboriton left” (for lack of a better term).
The truth of the matter is that the hard core anti-abortionists are the minority in this country (although they may have majorities in a few states) just as the hard core pro-abortionists are. By hard-core pre-abortionists, I mean those who fight against any and all restrictions on abortions. The real battle is for the middle, and determining exactly what restrictions can be placed on abortions. Right now, it appears that the majority want more restrictions than currently exist. But more importantly, the majority seems to want more restrictions than the SCOTUS has allowed, based on its rulings. The spousal notification rule is a perfect example.
So, we tend to look rather conflicted on the issue. Mainly, we Americans want to keep early term abortions legal, but we aren’t comfortable with the existing rules. (By “we”, I mean the majority). Also, you end up with most Americans saying they don’t want *Roe *overturned, and yet most Americans are still OK with a justice like Alito, who isn’t guaranteed to uphold it-- because most Amercinas do want it weakened.
I agree with the weakining idea you’ve said… but from what I understand its very hard to change the abortion laws in small degrees in any direction. Either its a federal constitutional thing or its a states decide thing.
( If Roe vs Wade falls than naturally the political landscape would certainly change… )
The situation is such that the SCOTUS has set the upper limit to what is allowed, and the federal government tries, at times, to lower that limit as do some of the states. Ultimately, though, the SCOTUS can rule that those lower limits are not acceptable. If the SCOTUS rules that they are, then those rules become the new upper limit. Does that make sense?
In a decidedly Machiavellian way, I think I’ve recently become an anti-Roe liberal.
It’s not that I don’t believe in a right to an abortion; I do. But Roe has been, ever since it was decided, the greatest thing that ever happened to the Republican party. It gives them an issue around which to unite their entire platform, and gives them access to this enormously… enthusiastic group of people who could care less about any other plank; they’ll vote for anyone who’ll show up as against Roe.
The smarter Repubs recognize this as well; while they may in fact be sincerely and personally opposed to abortion, they’re also aware that it’s their trump card at the polls. Hence the ‘chipping away’ strategy that’s been the norm till now. The trouble is that there seems to be a crop of Republican politicians who are far more ideologically/religiously motivated than they are politically savvy who’re pushing for an actual abolition–they’re tired of waiting, at this point. I’m sure this causes some indigestion for the more politically minded.
The only worry I have is that the right is already setting up an ‘anti-queer’ platform to take the place of the old ‘anti-abortion’ one…
I mostly agree with that, Lemur, except that I don’t think reversing Roe would end abortion’s presence in the courts at all. In fact, without a definitive ruling from the top in place, it would be left to fifty states and multiple layers of courts to all come up with their own rulings and laws, all of which could be demagogued in the same way Roe has been. The national-level electoral rhetoric would no longer focus on the Supremes but on all the many district and circuit courts that would become in play, all of which would require a right-thinking President to appoint right-thinking judges to make the right decisions on this matter. The state level rhetoric, pretty much nonexistent until now, would become just as hot.
All of those messages in all of those arenas would be very difficult for the RNC to keep in alignment, too, and it would diffuse the party’s claim to be “pro-life” if any significant number of state and local activists in the party take a moderate or pro-personal-rights stand instead, as they undoubtedly would. The abortion issue would not disappear at all but would become simply a loose cannon for them.
Yes, that’s the major complaint with the Roe v. Wade decision. There are pro-choice scholars who think it was a poorly reasoned decision. Which it was.
To go back to your point, yes, the Constitution should prevail in SC issues, not politics or opinion polls. The fact that there is no meaningful constitutional basis for overturning a state prohibition of abortion–while this may be distasteful to you–means that the SC cannot rightly intrude. To go back to the OP, what will the result be? Abortion would be outlawed in jurisdictions where that is palatable, and it wouldn’t be elsewhere. The very essence of the democratic process.
It is a deliciously self-correcting process. In areas where an overwhelming majority would support the GOP position to prohibit abortion, the people will, well, be fine with the prohibition. In areas where a prohibition shocks the sensibilities of the populace, a newly installed legislative body will rectify this outrage. That’s how it should work. I don’t see a backlash.
The Democrats could do the same thing for any number of issues, like the authority of Bush to wage war in Iraq or the Patriot [sic] Act. Of course, there’s the niggling problem that many of them were vocal supporters of both.
Why should the Dems be any more bothered (politically speaking) by gross evidence of hypocrisy than the Pubbies are?
They shouldn’t. Bit they also shouldn’t try to take the high road. They’re just as full of shit as the next guy. And you know it.
So anyone who changes their mind is automatically taking the low road? I don’t see anything hypocritical about a democrat who supported, say, the Iraq war saying: I thought it was a good idea based on the information I had at the time. In retrospect, and in light of new information, I see that it wasn’t.
Of course, the Republicans pretty effectively painted Kerry as a flip-flopper for saying basically that. It’s pretty sad that staying the course in the face of mounting evidence against you is seen as preferrable to just admitting you were wrong.
I think so… so gradual small changes in fact aren’t that hard to happen ? Then South Dakota isn’t that bad a move if it had been more limited ?
The votes aren’t there to overturn Roe and I don’t think they ever will be. The court have overturned itself only on rare occasions and precedent means a lot to them. But, if this goes to the court and a narrow majority upholds Roe, that would be the best outcome for the Democrats. My theory is that it simply is not possible to further mobilize the anti-abortion faction. These people have been voting for a generation on one and only one issue. A narrow win for Roe in the Supreme Court would make a lot of pro-choice voters put much more emphasis on that issue when they cast their ballots, and this can be nothing but good news for the Democrats.
Yeh . . . See this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=362556
Don’t you think it would be better still for the Dems (electorally) if Roe v. Wade were reversed? (Thereby throwing the abortion issue squarely into the political/legislative arena – and leading to practical problems and tensions as some states move to ban abortion while others protect it.)
Not really. What I think that would do is move the battleground. We’d have abortion as THE major issue in many state legislative districts. This would be a net loss for the Democrats since I don’t believe the pro-choice faction can match the anti-abortion faction in turnout and fervor. For the next 10 years or so, all local politics would be held hostage by the abortion issue. I just don’t see the good that would bring to the Democrats.