Category: Everything Else

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?

Each game of chess means there’s one less
Variation left to be played
Each day got through means one or two
Less mistakes remain to be made…

Chess (Anderson, Ulvaeus, Rice)

Today’s actions were just one early move in the bigger chess match that is abortion rights in America today. I’m not surprised at the latest burst of outrage around the blogs, but remember the big picture here, gang. South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds’ signing the bill was a forgone conclusion. It doesn’t start to get interesting until someone — presumably Planned Parenthood — files their challenge to the law and the courts get into gear.

This is chess — think a few moves ahead. Not only is this law on the fast track to SCOTUS, but in addition, it’s also nicely timed for the 2006 congressional election cycle. You can bet your bootie that congressional candidates all across the country are going to be asked to weigh in on their beliefs about women’s reproductive rights by way of their comments on this case.

So, vent your spleen all you like, but save some energy for the battles to come, becasue come they will. And if you can, consider tossing some $ to Planned Parenthood; they’re going to need it.

Time, by the way, has an interesting look at this issue. It’s worth a read, here’s a snippet:

In a country where two thirds of the public does not want to see Roe vs. Wade overturned, but nearly as many favor stricter limits on abortion, pragmatic abortion opponents have pushed for parental notification laws, waiting periods, restrictions on late-term abortions: The strategy was to chip away at Roe to try to shrink it, change its shape, and over time promote a