If you have "no place to go," come here!

ZOMG The Supreme Court!!!!! (which generally means Roe. Sweeties.)

Via RD, Shakepeares Sister has a great post, that I'll extract out this one talking point from:

Using Roe as a threat to bully FWs into line is becoming increasingly futile because the Democrats have been weak on protecting choice—and, hence, women's autonomy—for years. Yes, Roe is still in place, but the GOP has successfully chipped away at abortion rights on the federal and state levels for two decades. The point is, certainly the Democrats will nominate and approve justices who will protect Roe, but if they aren't willing to protect it from being rendered an impotent and largely symbolic statute because it's been hollowed out by "partial-birth abortion bans" and "parental consent laws" and state legislatures that refuse to fund clinics offering abortions, what does it really matter if they protect Roe?

FWs who are paying attention to what's happened to practical choice in this country know that the Roe card is already functionally meaningless at this point in large swaths of the country—and that's about the national Democratic Party as a whole, not just about its nominee in this election. The Dems are falling down on the job of serving their FW constituents in general and women specifically.

And the argument about appointing pro-Roe justices is designed, in part, to mask that failure. Not all of the restrictions on abortion rights have been decided in the court; many (if not most) are proposed and passed in state legislatures—and only those challenged n court depend on judicial appointments. Federal, state, and local funding of clinics has nothing to do with whom Democrats appoint to the bench. Fights over zoning laws and gifted property to build new clinics may also find their way to court, but oftentimes never make it that far. Anyone who still thinks that every encroachment on reproductive rights is being decided in a courtroom has some catching up to do.

It's also notable that most of the "ZOMG!!!! They're c-r-a-a-z-y!" stuff that D shills and operatives are pushing either happens on talk radio or at the State level, and the Ds have been conspicuously absent in both places. I mean, come on. If the AZ stuff is so Handmaid's Tale-bad, then why hasn't our The Greatest Orator Of Our Time and Truly Progressive President called it out? In other words, classic election year ploy.

No votes yet


Submitted by Hugh on

It's an election year so Obama and the Democrats can offer up cheap gestures that will go nowhere like pro-Roe judges, the Buffett rule, and making immigration reform a priority after the election. Anyone who believes anything any Democrat or Republican says is an idiot. This is true in general but even more so in an election year.

We have had all of these debates before, many times before. We need to look past what Obama says and does and look at what he could have said, what he could have done. But seriously, Obama is governing to the right of Bush. The whole meme of Obama as liberal or progressive is grotesque.

tom allen's picture
Submitted by tom allen on

Cass Sunstein: pro-Roe? I don't think so.

"Those who seek to preserve the right to choose ought to be prepared to make some distinctions. As it was written in 1973, Roe v. Wade was far from a model of legal reasoning, and conservatives have been correct to criticize it. The court failed to root the abortion right in either the text of the Constitution or its own precedents."

But hey, what are the chances Obama would pick a corporate, Harvard-educated, Chicago-school Administration insider for the Supreme Court?