Oh wait, you’re talking about abortion; I thought for a moment you meant gun ownership. 
I jest, but to a purpose: the parallels between the two issues are striking, with only the exception that the liberal vs. conservative positions are reversed.
I didn’t realize you getting an abortion could end up getting me killed.
I’m thinking of one particular cruise line that might be well have a great financial future because of this:
[He said, awfully glumly]
Or the dark days when owning a gun was illegal.
Bush and Rove successfully made 2004 about gay marriage. The asshole VA governor Youngkin successfully made his recent election about CRT and transphobia. IMO abortion is much closer to a “most animating issue” than gay marriage or CRT and transphobia, so it shouldn’t be as hard a “push” if the Democrats really try.
Not really.
Not at all, actually.
The liberal position is not to have a nationwide prohibition on guns and whittle exceptions down. Now, that’s what some gun advocates will falsely claim, in their disingenuous attempts at getting people paranoid and out to the polls in order to vote, but it has not a single shred of truth to it.
Now, the conservative position on guns is that the government has absolutely no right to tell you what to do in the interests of public safety. And their position on abortion is that the government has every right to control your body in order to prioritize an unborn life over a born one.
Now, it can be said that the liberal position is consistent between guns and abortions, in that they should both be safe, legal, and rare.
According to FiveThirtyEight, the more accurate view would be that most people don’t care all that much but mildly lean towards having it be a freedom that we should have:
My personal guess would be that the goal of the leaker was to get this out there early enough, before this years election, that everyone’s adapted and forgotten about the matter on voting day. The leaker was probably someone in the GOP, in Congress.
I don’t know, meaning: I don’t have a very good feeling for how far off of ‘organic’ issue #1 the Dems could steer their base.
In a legendary example of self-service, I tend to think that liberal talk radio never worked because too many liberals are simply not interested in being told what to think. I, charmingly, believe the Rs have a far more tractable, ductile, malleable, and credulous base.
And Rove was the conductor of a really large and well-oiled machinery that never sleeps or seems to run out of money.
I tend to agree with Will Rogers:
I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat
More’s the pity.
There are liquor stores/fireworks stores/marijuana dispensaries /etc. right at the border between legal and illegal areas. Now there will be abortion clinics set up at state borders.
No there won’t
Not if the GOP ever gets control of the Presidency and both houses of congress again.
The birth mother does not have to raise the child. While I find it unconscionable that a woman can be forced to carry a child she does not want, she does have the option to place the child for adoption. It does not require the mother to care for the child. It does however, require her to pay the estimated $5000 the average person pays for a normal pregnancy. Again, however, you do not run into the issue where someone has an ongoing right in one state but not in another. Not a good ruling but I still believe that it is easier to overturn than the marriage decisions.
If nothing else, abortion clinics aren’t exactly like for-profit businesses, that would likely and easily set up to satisfy a known demand. This isn’t McDonalds creating a franchise because there aren’t any other burger places for miles.
But how does that help?
Say a bride-to-be wants to place an order for, y’know, a wedding cake. Say, too, that the baker refuses. “But I have an enumerated Ninth Amendment right to that cake,” she says to the baker. “I have an enumerated Ninth Amendment right to refuse,” he replies. What follows?
An employee is about to get fired for something they did while off the clock. “But I have an unenumerated Ninth Amendment right not to get fired for that,” he says. “But I have an unenumerated Ninth Amendment right to fire you for that,” replies the employer. What follows?
A guy who’s a week away from being 21 tries to buy a beer and gets told the legislature put the kibosh on that; if he claims the Ninth Amendment means he has an unenumerated right to buy that beer, and the state replies that, oh, no, this is us exercising one of those unenumerated Tenth Amendment powers, then — what?
And if they declare, in 2022, that, no, it doesn’t, then — what?
I’d say it’s a good comparison, but not quite the way you figure it: imagine, as you say, a terrorist who commits a crime — let’s say arson? — and who has sex with a seventeen-year-old in a situation where the age of consent is 16; and let’s say the terrorist gets a valid pardon for the arson, and doesn’t actually get pardoned for the sex because, y’know, there was no actual crime involved.
If the pardoner then leaves office, and the law also gets changed to make the age of consent 18 — well, we wouldn’t lock the terrorist up for the arson that got pardoned away or for the sex that I just mentioned. But I figure we would unproblematically make clear to him that, hey, if you go out and commit yet another arson, or again have sex with this or that seventeen-year-old, just know that you’re not automatically entitled to the same free pass going forward that you got for what you’ve already done.
(Possibly he’d reply that he’s got one of them there unenumerated Ninth Amendment rights to have sex with seventeen-year-olds, or to commit arson; if so, what’d follow is left as an exercise for the reader.)
My concern about the political prospects resulting from this are that the issue is just too darn abstract for many voters. For those voters, an abortion is not something that they have any direct experience with, so changing the law doesn’t appear to impact them. It takes imagination (which is in short supply) for someone to project themselves mentally into another individual who might be confronted with the choice to end a pregnancy. So, the cognitive exercises required to get animated about “voting for the party that will protect the right of a woman to choose…words…words…etc” is not on the equal footing with the opposition “They kill babies, stop them!”
So Biden and the Democrats are saying “Vote for us in November so we can fight for reproductive choice legislation!”. (checks forum) Phooey on those spineless weenies.
If the Democrats wanted to, they could expand the court and seat two new liberal justices right now and prevent this opinion from ever becoming official. If they’re not going to do that, why should we believe anything they say about what they’ll do after the election?
Another impact of a 5-4 decision to overturn Roe is that McConnell will absolutely not let Biden fill a Supreme Court vacancy should Republicans take the Senate this fall.
About 25% of women get an abortion at some point in their lives. Not all that abstract for them.
As far as the abortion clinics just over the border scenario, there was a similar situation when some states raised the drinking age to 21 while others held it at 18; resulting in carloads of drunken 18-20 year olds smashed up at the borders. MADD lobbied the federal government to tie federal highway funding to universal compliance.
Only $30 billion of hospital funds come from the federal government. An anti-abortion POTUS and federal legislature wouldn’t have as much clout over the issue. However, the federal government funds $300-500 billion to state prisons; the ultimate destination for the results of many unwanted pregnancies.
I am deeply dubious about your 25%, but even accepting that number it just supports my contention. Put another way, 75% of women do not get an abortion in their lifetime, and 99.9% of men do not.