The Infamous Brad has taken The Center for Reproductive Rights’ educated guesses about which states will ban abortion if Roe v Wade is overturned and put them in a map form. (I’ve cleaned the map up a bit and added in Hawaii, Alaska and captions).
Some things to keep in mind.
- It’s not at all certain that Bush could overturn Roe, even if he wanted to. Roe currently enjoys a 6-3 majority. To reverse that, Bush would have to replace two of the currently pro-Roe justices, and it’s not certain he’ll get a chance to do that.
- Even if Bush could nominate enough justices to overturn Roe, it’s possible he wouldn’t. Many pundits think that if Roe is overturned, that would hurt the Republicans in the election booth. However, I’m not so confident – it seems to me that Bush has never lacked for audacity.
- The worst-case scenario is that either Congress or the Supreme Court will ban abortion nationwide. This isn’t likely, though, because it would almost certainly be an electoral disaster for Republicans if it happened.
- If this happens, pro-choice organizations will be formed to raise funds to help impoverished women who need abortions pay for transportation to the legal states. Abortion ban states will pass laws making it illegal to transport a minor across state lines for the purposes of getting an abortion. And probably some sort of “underground railroad” pro-choice activism will exist to help teenagers in abortion-ban states get abortions.
- As Infamous Brad points out, “What’s more, the anti-abortion movement’s campaign of terror back in the 1980s and early 1990s had a chilling effect. This is almost the status quo now. In many, many of those “red” anti-abortion states, doctors are no longer willing to perform abortions in nearly any rural clinic or hospital. Already, 86% of all counties, including 95% of all rural counties, have no local access to abortion. (Source: Alan Gutmacher Institute.) Women who want abortions in a lot of places are already having to drive or be driven hundreds of miles for them, and to plan for an overnight stay in the process because of mandatory waiting periods. So if you look at it that way, a repeal of Roe wouldn’t be that different fom the America we live in now.”
So Roe’s repeal wouldn’t be the end of the world. But it would be bad, and it would hurt a lot of women, mostly poor women and underage women in the red states.
Do read The Infamous Brad’s entire post for more analysis, and also this page on Religious Tolorance.org. And thanks to “Alas” reader Douglas for the tip.
UPDATE: In response to “Alas” readers pointing out errors, I’ve changed CT and CA to be marked as “safe.” Thanks, folks!
That map is really interesting and makes me realize how little I know about local politics in much of the country. I think I get why some very red states (Alaska, Montana, Wyoming) aren’t particularly likely to ban abortion, but it’s hard for me to see how California is a medium risk state. You-know-who is pro-Choice, and the GOP is lost without him. Cali had some of the most liberal abortion laws pre-Roe (law signed by Ronald Reagan before he sold his soul to Jerry Falwell). Are they really more likely than all the green states to ban abortion?
Like DJW, I have some skepticism about some states on the map.
Amp’s dissection of the various steps in the analysis is very helpful in thinking about the problem. I don’t think Bush will hesitate for a second to appoint anti-Roe judges, nor would the Reps. in Congress hesitate to ban abortion if they could, but given the current composition of the Senate we would probably end up with nationwide parental consent and the like. And they _may_ not prosecute 16 year old girls for crossing state lines, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see prosecutions of adults trying to help them.
Aaaand of course, the Democrats, displaying once again their endless capacity to shaft those most loyal to them, couldn’t think of anyone better to nominate for Whip than Harry Reid, who is Pro-Life.
But NARAL sez he’s really a nice guy, and so does Diane Feinstein, and by golly, that’s good enough for me !!
[rolleyes]
Seems like California wouldn’t be that much of a risk as abortion rights are written into the state’s constitution.
I’m a little less fearful about Harry Reid now that he seems to be displaying a spine and calling the Republicans out on Social Security and announcing that the Democrats will open up their own investigations into Abu Ghraib, etc.
Still, I’m surprised about some of those states, notably Connecticut and Rhode Island. Do they just have old laws on the books that would go back into effect in the case of a federal ban?
I’m a little less fearful about Harry Reid now that he seems to be displaying a spine and calling the Republicans out on Social Security and announcing that the Democrats will open up their own investigations into Abu Ghraib, etc.
Well, I doubt that’s going to translate to much help with the Supreme Court. It also doesn’t explain why, if the Democratic Party is supposed to have exclusive rights to employ the Pro-Choice movement’s millions of dollars and warm bodies come election time, it felt no obligation to actually appoint a Pro-Choicer as Whip. Nor why I should regard NARAL as anything but a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party since they have aparently accepted this without so much as a peep.
My hunch is that Reid was forced to make significant “no-shenanigans” promises to his fellow Dems in taking that role. Since he’s taken over as minority leader, his public statements on abortion have been following to some degree the path ampersand has suggested prolifers follow on this blog–focus on strategies for abortion reduction we can all agree on. This kind of approach to abortion has the potential to defuse the intensity of abortion as a wedge issue, which is good for Democrats, abortion rights, and the health of our public discourse.
That’s my optimistic take, anyway. I apologize in advance for this churlish optimism should Reid be complicit in abortion-related shenanigans.
Still, I’m surprised about some of those states, notably Connecticut and Rhode Island.
If you read the religioustolerance.org page, you’ll see it’s a mistake on the map. Connecticut has been mixed up with Delaware.
Rhode Island is right, though, which is surprising.
I think it’s safe to say that with Reid ensconced in the top seat, plenty of “shenanigans” have already taken place. Of course, we don’t call it that, we call it “courting the center,” which just moves further and further Right with each passing day. All with the eager co-operation of the people running the Democratic Party.
The Christian Right, so integral to the Republican domination of the House and Senate, publically hounds Arlen Specter non-stop until he is forced to announce, point blank, that he will not stand in the way of pro-life Justice nominees. They make it abundantly clear that he should step aside for someone more to their liking, but they will “setttle” for merely bullying him into complicity.
Meanwhile, NARAL and mainstream feminists seemingly don’t have a thing to say, at least publically, about Harry Reid’s fitness to lead a minority that supposedly regards choice and pro-choice voters as a cornerstone of its beliefs. Democratic stalwarts like Diane Feinstein gush about what a swell guy he is, as does Michelman at NARAL. Was there any public announcement by Reid that he would oppose pro-life nominees, and does anyone in their right mind really believe that he would ?
Am I the only one whose noticed that there’s something seriously wrong with this picture ?
Sorry to nitpick, but alsis I think you should know who the head of NARAL is if you’re going to complain about what they are or are not saying: http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/about/newsroom/pressrelease/pr111904_keenan.cfm
That said, I also understand why mainstream feminist groups are keeping quiet. Everytime someone complains about how the dems got in this bad place abortion rights gets hammered. It’s probably all groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood can do to keep prochoice as part of the dem party platform. Especially with Reid at the helm now.
Yeah, well. Excuse me, KitKatt. After so many variations of the same old lame excuses from the same old hypocritical Maginot Line of mainstream feminists, small wonder that they start to blur together in one’s mind.
Or is it the Democratic Party itself that’s the Maginot Line of women’s rights ? Whichever. I’m continually sickened and disgusted by the panderers and their apologists in the Party and their continual, ever-increasing lack of spine when it comes to the same core values that they use to keep feminists fearful and firmly ensconsed in their corrupt pocket. I have no regrets at all about abandoning them.
I hope I didn’t offend you, I really wasn’t trying to.
I think the problem really is the Democratic Party right now. They’re losing because they’re letting go of the ideals that make them different from Republicans, and dealing with that by becoming more like the Republicans.
But I think that puts feminist and other progressive groups in an impossible situation. If you have to deal with someone on Capitol Hill, it’s not like they can get most Republicans to talk to them, so that leaves them bowing and scraping for any crumb the Dems will give them. That’s wrong.
But the realist in me wonders what choice they have. I’d rather have groups fighting where they can right now than standing in the streets yelling at Dems who aren’t listening and Republicans who don’t care.
See, there you have the difference between a liberal and a radical, I guess. My feeling is that until there are more feminists standing in the street and yelling –better yet, marching into the damn House and Senate and yelling– nothing will get done. If we cannot or will not build an alternative to the two-party system, we have no form of retaliation in the face of outright betrayals like the Reid nomination. We will continue to be ordered to eat shit and call it good, and we will continue to be treated like ATM machines and not citizens by groups like NARAL.
The last March For Women’s Lives was, to my mind, worse than useless. It pretended to be a vehicle for change, but it was really nothing but free advertising for John Kerry, who doesn’t represent any change of a positive nature as far as I’m concerned.
I think you give the Democratic leadership, including supposed feminists like Clinton, too much credit. I don’t think they give a damn about you or me, either. They can use us, but they don’t care about us. There’s a difference.
America needs a damn feminist party and I hope and pray that day arrives in my lifetime. I’m sick and tired of this shit.
P.S.–KitKatt, I apologize belatedly for sounding like such a grouch. It’s not you I’m pissed off at, believe me. :/
Rhode Island doesn’t surprise me; it’s a liberal state in general, but it’s also the only majority Catholic state in the union, IIRC.
Alsis38, you seem to be implying that people standing in the streets and shouting will do more to protect women’s reproductive rights than Democrats will. I can’t imagine what actual facts about the world would lead to that empirical conclusion.
(I agree that the pro-choice, women’s rights movement should maintain a separate identity from any politician or party, but that’s a far cry from “abandoning” the only major party willing to fight for their issues)
Again: the Reid nomination is not a betrayal, or if it is we don’t know it yet. If he uses his position to weaken reproductive rights, than yes it was. But there is no concrete evidence of that, only speculation. Everyone in a position like Reid’s is constrained by all that he owes to people who put him in “power”, and that includes a whole lot of pro-choice Democrats.
As for Supreme Court nominations, if Rehnquist dies, his replacement will undoubtedly be a conservative; however, that won’t change the overall balance of the court and may not be worth a fight (unless they’re going to nominate some idealoge with no discernable legal reasoning skills).
Yeah, right, DJW. Women marching in the streets never did diddly-shit for feminism. Just ask Alice Paul. [rolleyes] Let’s all just roll over and not make a fuss. Wouldn’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings, would we ?
Oddly enough, the Pro-life movement has no such compunctions. Could that have something to do with their ability to wield tremendous influence out of proportion to their actual numbers ?
Zuzu, if the Court was supposedly so damn important before the election to securing women’s reproductive rights, why would this suddenly fail to be the case after the election ? I don’t understand. Are you admitting that the election really didn’t make a damn bit of difference regardless ? That the Steinems and others bashing Nader were liars and fearmongers who exagerated that threat to appease their big-money backers and to keep two-party [sic] hegemony secure from any challenges to its power ?
Either a fight for rights is worth calling attention to or it isn’t. Are we right to publically call attention to our most central beliefs only when it’s in fashion and only when we are absolutely sure we can easily get the ear of the powerful, or are our central beliefs always worth fighting for, regardless ?
And hell, if we don’t have a prayer of doing jack shit, I reiterate my opinion that pouring money into NARAL is a waste. I’d rather give my measely $25 to a local homeless shelter, women’s shelter, or cat shelter. Sure, I realize that these are “band-aid” solutions to serious problems. However, I’m beginning to think that a score of well-applied “band-aids” might be more useful than a score of insulated lobbyist/political “surgeons” that can’t even be bothered to show up when someone is bleeding to death. Though Lord knows, they always seem to be around come payday. :p
Alsis38, I’m sorry if I gave the impression that I thought protest was historically unimportant to the women’s rights movement. That would clearly be a foolish position to take, and would make me worthy of the derision you direct toward me. However, that’s not what I said, and I didn’t mean to imply it.
My position is far more narrow and specific: that politics of the more traditional sort is more likely to protect existing women’s reproductive rights than a series of protests. Instead of rolling your eyes at me, can you explain to me what I’m missing? Why is this likely to happen? For my part, it’s easy: The Democrats are likely to put up serious opposition to anti-Roe SCOTUS appointments. The evidence for this is pretty good; they’ve done it before. They’ll also offer resistance to various bills and provisions in bills that limit access to abortion within the current constitutional framework. If you follow politics closely, you’d see this happens at the committee level quite regularly. No, they don’t always succeed (minority parties never do), but they usually do.
Now, tell me how abandoning the Democrats and taking to the streets is likely to protect reproductive rights. “Because the Democrats aren’t ideologically pure enough” doesn’t really tell me why this would work.