Was Roe v. Wade politically beneficial or harmful?

[dmallind]

Note to the alertophiles: I am not asking if the decision was legally or politically CORRECT - I hope we can assume that none but a few sad closet Christianist fundies would question that here, and I'm really not much of a candidate for being one of them.

But what were the political ramifications? I was listening in the car this morning to a lecture by Alan Dershowitz - not likely to be considered a right winger either, and he suggested the decision had a negative political impact. A couple of his points are obvious, but some I had not considered before. As best as I can summarize the arguments for harmful results were:

1) The obvious energizing of the anti-choice crowd, and lessening of the incentive for the pro-choice folks to work on grass roots campaigning.

2) The idea that it reduced the incentive for those with the fiscal attitudes of Republicans but social attitudes of Democrats to vote Dem in legislative elections, because one key social hot button was removed from the legislative branch at least at its core and taken by the judicial branch.

3) The decision caused or at least hastened the death of moderate "Rockefeller Republicans" for the same reason as above - choice was no longer a legislative prerogative or issue on which intraparty disagreement was likely. 2 and 3 combined (helped by 1) enabled the total co-option of the GOP by fundy lunatics.

4) The litmus test for SCOTUS nominees caused dishonest responses in confirmation hearings that clouded the true attitudes of judicial ideologues (no prizes for guessing who he had in mind there).

These are compelling arguments but I think some can be advanced for the antithesis:

1) The constitutionalization of the issue allowed Dem candidates in anti-choice areas the cover to either throw up their hands and say "what can I do about it?" or even to imply/flat out state that they disagree with Roe, knowing they will never be called upon to vote on choice at its most basic level.

2) Not that they are popular on here, but some of those Rockefeller Republicans became Dems, both as voters and as elected officials who at worst vote with the Dems 80% of the time. Better to have 80 than 20, especially as they also count toward committee makeup and other headcount-driven benefits.

3) The SCOTUS issue became a far starker choice for presidential elections at least. Nobody sane expects a Rep president to nominate a pro-choice justice, and opposite for Dems. No matter how rich or anti-tax you are, if you care about choice the POTUS vote must always be Dem. Yes Dershowitz's point 2 is valid for Congress but I think the opposite influence exists for POTUS votes.

Again - I sincerely hope there is no need or desire to debate Roe itself here - but I wonder what the consensus is on how it affected electoral politics.

[msanthrope]

1. Alan Dershowitz is rightwing-Likud. Why would you listen to his drivel?

What makes you think he is leftwing???

[dmallind]

7. Ermmm ..... Dershowitz's political donations here

http://www.newsmeat.com/celebrity_political_donations/Alan_Dershowitz.php

Please point to the right wing tendencies.....

[msanthrope]

41. Here--

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/new-forensic-evidence-is-_b_1527972.html

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/04/13/dershowitz-zimmerman-prosecution-irresponsible-and-unethical/

You can google for yourself his witch hunt of Media Matters.

[hifiguy]

27. Dershowitz is pretty solid on US civil liberties and

always has been. His blind support of the right in Israel is a separate issue.

[msanthrope]

40. You ought to read his later writings on the Patriot Act, and his treatment of Media Matters. nt

[CBGLuthier]

2. Later we can have a follow up asking whose rights hurt more, gay's or women's.

Let us also not forget the many votes lost to the civil rights gains of the 60's.

Sorry but I see no point in debating the impact of GRANTING PEOPLE RIGHTS. Bullshit like that gave us DADT and DOMA and other nasty ass shit no self respecting liberal or democrat should ever have embraced. But they did!

[dmallind]

4. I think I was extremely clear on the correctness angle - why is discussing facts a bad idea?

[treestar]

3. The only other alternative would have been

get state legislatures to de-criminalize abortion. Many states would have done so. By now, though, which states would still criminalize it? Would it be possible that during the 70s and 80s they all would have?

Some could have re-criminalized it by now - as it is, they pass such bills even with Roe v. Wade as the law, but if it were true the fundies would be less rabid - and there's the rub. But they wouldn't have the states' rights arguments and the fact that the SCOTUS meant their states couldn't have prohibitory laws.

[DURHAM D]

5. If you had a uterus

I don't believe it would ever occur to you to even try to start this conversation.

[dmallind]

10. Why? What precisely is the difference between male ands female in analyzing results?

Once again - did you read the extremely clear and vehement distinction between correctness of the decision and ramifications of it?

[upaloopa]

6. So we should not consider the rights of women

but instead base our decisions on what helps our side politically? I say that recognizing the rights of women to control their lives is both right and the best thing we could have done politically taking this year's elections into the discussion. Women will elect Obama along with Hispanics and African Americans. Us white guys should thank God for Roe.

[dmallind]

13. Not sure at all how you could extrapolate even a question of normative intent

I can't imagine how mych clearer I could have made the distinction between correctness of the decision, which is beyond disoute, and political impact, which certainly isn't.

Your last sentence at least addresses the issue, and it's true that the Dem advantage with women is significant. But I believe it predated Roe too. Solidifying the support of women is a political gain for sure, but we have to account for the solidification of most of the religious vote for Reps too.

[upaloopa]

20. You must have not been around pre-sixties. What is behind the religious vote for Reps was the

status quo before the Civil Rights movement and the Women's movement.

The era of the 60's was an extension of the progressive movement begun under the New Deal. Roe was a logical progression of that movement.

If you are to believe that we should always move in a more progressive direction then there is no discussion of what the political implication of solidification of the religious right is. That is one of the battles we have to take on and not shy away from.

[still_one]

8. If it is argued correctly, the right to privacy is not only politically beneficial, but also

ethically.

It is more than just about choice. It is about issues that are between a person and their doctor, that the government has NO business involving itself in

When you look at the degree that the republican party wants to involve itself in those decisions, even to the degree that they want a woman who has been raped or had incest result in a pregnancy, to carry to term

This is the ultimate intrusion of government in personal lives

Looking at the swing states, the reason the polls are significantly tilting toward Obama is because of women. They are the ones affected the most by this, though if people had any sense, they would realize the right to privacy involves everyone

[enlightenment]

9. I grasp the philosophical nature of your

question, but there is a simple answer.

Yes.

Sometimes, what is right trumps what is 'expedient' and the political consequences are immaterial when compared to the result of the action.

Would you ask this question about the Civil Rights Act(s, et al) ? I doubt it. Roe v Wade is more than a law that makes abortion legal - it is a law that ensures women the right to control their bodies. It is, fundamentally, a civil right.

[dmallind]

15. Of course I would ask the same of Civil Rights Act - because the question is effect, not moral right

Honestly - where did I err in not making that extremely clear?

I see the political effect of the CRA discussed daily here - indeed it is common wisdom to the point of cliche and nigh unquestioned that the CRA cost Dems the South for generations. Nobody who says that here disputes that it was the right thing to do.

Same for Roe. Why the stark difference in reaction?

[slackmaster]

11. The Republican Party lost its soul when it sold out to the anti-choice religious fanatics

Has that turned out to be a GOOD thing for the country?

I really don't believe so. It effectively reduced OUR choices as voters. It has resulted in one-party rule here in California. It's always better to have credible competition to keep politicians honest.

I think Roe v. Wade is a good decision, but even good decisions sometimes lead to unpleasant unintended consequences. I've heard enough about what things were like before that decision to know that reversing it would be a tragic mistake.

[dmallind]

16. Thanks for answering the actual question. I agree - but just as CA is one party, so is, say, TX

Now it's not only choice in either case, but I do think it has been key in the increase in political intransigence. This, as you point out, can work both for and against Dems. Overall I suspect the *POLITICAL AND ELECTORAL* pros outweigh the cons (kneejerkers please note the emphasis) in large part because of the disincentive for even rich and anti tax social liberals, especially women, to stray to supporting their wallets. I do think this is mostly a presidential benefit rather than a Congressional one though. This, obviously, is not a simple question.

[gopiscrap]

12. I'd say initially harmful

now trending to be beneficial to the dems.

[LittlestStar]

14. That's like asking if the abolition of slavery was politically beneficial or not.

It was the right thing to do, and it pissed a lot of people off.

[dmallind]

18. Which is also a very valid question, although a more certain answer due to time

Again, the moral rightness of an action and the political effect of an action are entirely separate questions.

From a Dem point of view obviously, the political impact of abolition, and especially the extension of the vote to AAs, was unquestionably a massive political benefit taken in toto. But if we were Republicans, even Republicans who have no doubt that abolition was absolutely morally right (and Christ even for Reps you'd hope that is most of them), we'd be fools not to see the same thing.

[blogslut]

17. I don't care about the "political" ramifications of the Roe v Wade decision

It was the right decision and Alan Dershowitz and all the other concern-troll boys get an opinion the day they grow fallopian tubes and can drop eggs into their uterus.

[dmallind]

19. Men are not allowed to discuss political facts?

You can rest assured that neither I nor Dershowitz has the slightest divergence from the prevailing DU opinion on the rightness of the decision. Would flashing fonts have made that clearer? Can't imagine what words would have made it any clearer.

[blogslut]

23. Sorry. I despise thought experiments...

especially when they propose denying established civil rights.

[Hosnon]

26. You despise thought experiments?

Of all the things in the world for someone to despise... seriously?

[Hosnon]

21. I'm going to leave this here for those who are attacking you:

Justice Ginsburg: Roe v. Wade Decision Came Too Soon

I believe Justice Ginsburg's point is that the country was moving in a pro-choice direction anyway but strongly reacted to the Court advancing the issue too quickly.

ETA: To answer the question in your post - it's conceivable that had Roe v. Wade never been decided the way it was (in such broad terms), popular American opinion regarding abortion would today be more similar to that of Europe.

[dsc]

43. I had wondered when someone would bring this up

funny but no one has any comment here.

[Hosnon]

44. If I were to guess...

I'd say that Ginsburg's position on the issue doesn't jive with the prevailing opinion on DU that even suggesting what she suggests is liberal/Democratic blasphemy (despite her unquestionable credentials on the topic, credentials which far surpass those of anyone posting on this message board).

The only solution is to ignore it. Anything else is likely to result in cognitive dissonance.

[Johonny]

22. I'm not sure it had any real effect

Last edited Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:16 PM - Edit history (1)

Sure it created a cult of anti-choice, but this cult would exist anyways. See creationism... The Reagan born again era was brewing with or without abortion as an issue. You had the whole civil rights issue too. All these 60s civil liberties issues are a background for the REAL issue. The real issue is WHITE MALE power is slowly going away. The white males particularly the rural poor ones that only had their whiteness to feel like they were "winning" are scared to death about it. The belief that the United States is a white privilege society is the real issue behind the surge in the religious right. Fear of minorities. The religious right picked out a cornucopia of fear; evolution, blacks, mexicans, Cubans, gays, women, communism, the French... I mean if not abortion it isn't like they had other fake issues to drive home WHITE MALE FEAR.

If you aren't convinced all I have to say is George Bush was pro-life and only pretended not to be and EVERYONE knew it. Clinton, yup. Obama, Yup. Gore, Yup. If abortion was some overwhelming issue then it certainly hasn't effected the presidential race nearly as much as people seem to think. As for the supreme court. It hasn't worked very hard to overturn the decision. Sure it nicks and picks but reality is once again the main driving force of the court is to elect justices that will try to preserve power and wealth of the current social structure. Abortion is an ornament and if that decision didn't happen another fake issue would be used like say STEM CELLS O M G! That's how the shell game works.

Me I'd rather have women with the power to make medical choices over their own body and accept WHITE FEAR isn't going to last forever as a huge swing issue to drive the majority of voters as the nation becomes more and more integrated.

[cali]

24. uh, it doesn't fucking matter.

it's absolutely of NO FUCKING CONSEQUENCE.

[Hosnon]

25. I disagree.

Things can be learned from the abortion debate and applied elsewhere, e.g., marriage equality. If the LGBT community can withstand a slightly longer period of inequality for equality plus broad popular support, it may be worth it.

[DURHAM D]

28. What do you think...

Should we shut up for another century, maybe two?

Please define "popular"?

[Hosnon]

29. "Shut up"?

Who said anything about shutting up? The discussion is about choosing one method (electoral) vs. another (judicial).

Justice Ginsburg (hardly someone with questionable credentials on the subject) believes that a hasty judicial solution may have created the current abortion split in our country. The electoral path may be slower but the ultimate resolution may be deeper.

[DURHAM D]

30. I thought it was about popular.

[Hosnon]

31. Popular = electoral.

As a gay man myself, I would prefer that the citizens of each state decide at the voting booth to recognize marriage equality. That would accomplish several things, including putting the whole "judicial fiat" line of attack to rest.

Will I sacrifice equality for that preference? Of course not. But it's worth discussing. If we could secure a permanent and better future for ourselves by making a temporary sacrifice today, I might take that deal.

[DURHAM D]

32. So, as a gay man you believe

that minority rights should be put to a popular vote, state by state. Is that right?

[Hosnon]

36. Good lord, no.

Is it possible to have a reasonable discussion on this website anymore?

I specifically said no: "Will I sacrifice equality for that preference? Of course not."

[DURHAM D]

38. Okay, I get it -

This is just word games.

[Hosnon]

39. How so?

Justice Ginsburg seems to think there are (at least) two ways to go about these kinds of issues (politically hot civil rights):

1) Have the SCOTUS recognize them; or

2) Have the people recognize them.

Option 1 has consequences, which we might be seeing with the abortion debate. Ginsburg thinks that had the Court waited, a ban on abortion by the Court would have been less shocking to the electorate (thus more definitively resolving the issue).

Option 2 has consequences, too. And as a gay man with a long term boyfriend, I am acutely aware of what I am being denied. But this option probably results in a more robust and secure solution.

Which is best? Hard to say but the discussion is worth having... Thus my defense of this post. And, again, I want equal rights and prefer 1 over nothing at all. But I recognize that 2 is probably healthier in the long run for our nation.

[cali]

33. Disgusting of course. Just revolting.

yeah, let's hold off on civil rights because they may not be popular.

[Hosnon]

35. You are missing the point.

The abortion debate might show that "jumping the gun" with a judicial solution can cause a negative public reaction (this is noted by J. Ginsburg). If the SCOTUS had waited until abortion rights were more broadly supported, abortion might not be the hot topic that it still is in 2012. In other words, abortion rights might very well be more secure today had the Court waited.

There is nothing wrong with learning from that and considering applying it to marriage equality.

[H2O Man]

34. yes

[Zorra]

37. Beneficial, on simple ethical grounds. When you start taking disingenuous actions

on critical ethics/rights issues for political expediency, you become a republican.

I'm proud of the current Democratic Party platform that stands up for equal rights for everyone, particularly women and my LGBT community right now. If my party did not almost always stand up for what is conducive to personal and collective freedom for the the overwhelming majority of citizens I would not be voting for Democrats.

Selling your soul to the devil never works out well, in either the short run or the long run. In the short run, you may gain something material, but you immediately lose all your integrity and self-respect.

And in the long run, you lose everything.

[Glitterati]

42. I love that MEN still want to have this discussion

Not going to waste my time debating this AGAIN with the likes of Alan Dershowitz.

This debate is long over. See Roe v. Wade

[DFL]

45. The question

I know the legal correctness of Roe is not your concern here, but you do know that besides Dershowitz, Lawrence Tribe and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (no "Christian fundies" there!) agree that the Roe decision was bad law, along with just about every law professor then and since.
But this does bear on your question because it matters what your political beliefs stand upon. If choice is your aim, does the end justifies the means (defending poor constitutional interpretation, the same type of specious reasoning that brought us the Bush v. Gore decision)? Especially when that means had cost us so many elections that have ended up hurting the poor and harming the environment.