I've said this before, but something in a comment thread over at Shakes' place got me going enough to want to say it again.
Thread commenter Eric said:
once Roe is overturned, you are going to see a profound shift in the political landscape as women realize that their own civil, and reproductive, rights are being supressed by male legislatures. The Democrats will then have a strong rallying cry, and perhaps an infusion of support by women as they realize the difficulties, hardships, and dangers of back ally abortions.Overturning Roe will be the turning point in the destruction of the religious wing-nut's power over the Republican Party.
This attitude infuriates me. It is just as odious an argument for progressives to make as it is for the wingnuts who sit safely behind their keyboards, cheering on the Iraq war. The bottom line for both types is: It's all good as long as someone else does the dying.
Progressive who argue this line of reasoning are generally sitting safely in deep-blue states or are financially well-off in red states. The only reason they consider the overturn of Roe to be an acceptable turn of events is because they assume that they will be able to insulate themselves from the casualties.
My question to them is: How many deaths do you consider to be "acceptable losses" before it happens?
And a few follow-ups: What if it was not some anonymous women in Red states who had to do the dying for Roe? Are you willing to let your wife / daughters / sisters / cousins / friends be the ones who have to bleed out on their kitchen floors or die from massive infections? And if you're not, then why are those other women's lives expendable?
In short, isn't that the exact thing we're fighting against?
Comments (1)
Fiat: I need to respond to your posting here, just as I responded to the comments on ShakeSis.
First, I don't want abortion to be overturned. I don't want to see any women dying in back alley abortions as a result of the Supreme Court's possible overturning of abortion. But, like it or not, the religious wing-nut base is in control of the Republican Party. And they are doing everything they can to overturn abortion, now that the Republicans have control of all three branches of the federal government. The South Dakota ban on most abortions is a direct challenge in outlawing abortion by the religious right wing-nuts. They may now have their chance with President Bush placing both John Roberts and Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court. What is more frightening is the possibility of John Paul Stevens, or Ruth Bader Ginsburg either dying, or retiring on the bench within the next two years. This gives Bush a greater incentive to pack the court with more hard-liners who would be receptive to overturning abortion. You and I both know that the right-wingnuts would not accept any Bush nomination to the Supreme Court that is not pro-life. I find this especially scary.
Now my posting in the comments on Shakespeare's Sister was a conjecture of what may happen if Roe is overturned. The glue that holds this Republican Party together is the social issues, and the biggest social issue of all is abortion. You can't move up in the Republican Party leadership ranks if you're pro-choice. You can't even run as a Republican presidential candidate who is pro-choice. The religious wing-nuts will not allow that. If the Republicans succeed in overturning Roe, they will have negated their top hot-buttoned social issue in the political debate, since they've achieved their goal of outlawing abortion. What other hot-buttoned social issue even comes close to the raw emotional impact that abortion has? Look at the emotion you expressed in your own post, "This attitude infuriates me." You are right that it should infuriate you. And if Roe does become overturned, it may infuriate a large number of American women, to have realized that their reproductive rights are now in control of older, male, Republican legislatures--controlled by the religious wing-nuts of Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and others. But don't blame me for expressing a possible tangent within this abortion debate. I don't consider this as insulating myself from casualties as an acceptable turn of events if Roe is overturned. I consider this as a probable political outcome IF abortion is struck down by the Supreme Court. This is WHAT COULD HAPPEN. I don't want it to happen. I want to fight against it.
But please remember, I'm also willing to objectivly analyze the bad outcomes and worst-case scenarios--to make sure that they remain fresh in the minds of all liberals and progressives who currently have to face this nightmare. That is what my comment is about.
I hope you will understand.
Posted by Eric Hopp | March 7, 2006 12:52 PM