November 21, 2006

Not Back to the '60s, But Back to the '20s!

by PG

I heart these posts about the absurd position held by anti-choice Republicans that while overturning Roe v. Wade would "return the issue to the states," they also will vote for as much federal legislation to restrict abortion as possible. In the interests of rescuing McCain, though, maybe what he meant was that when the Court overturned Roe, it also would live out the rest of Thomas's dream and get rid of the commerce clause jurisprudence that makes such federal legislation regarding abortion possible. Or maybe not, given that McCain also supports a Constitutional amendment to ban abortion.

I know that some Republicans may object that of course the United States never would pass such a ban, so it's OK for McCain to support it to shore up his standing the social conservative base, but surely we occasionally can take a politician seriously. That the United States hasn't passed a Constitutional ban on flag burning doesn't keep me from despising Hillary Clinton's willingness to run right on/ over the First Amendment.

Incidentally, that first linked post makes me especially happy because it looks at a different aspect of the "I support social conservatism, just not if I have to live it" aspect of Republicans than the one I noted:

And in case McCain apologists once again mention that McCain "said that if his daughter wanted an abortion, he would leave the decision up to her," I note that the fact that McCain wouldn't dream of applying general bans on abortion to people in his social circles doesn't make him a pro-choicer; it makes him a Republican. John McCain's daughter won't have a problem getting an abortion whether Roe is good law or not, but a lot of other women won't be so lucky. Social conservatism for thee-but-not-for-me is pretty much what social conservatism means in this country.

November 21, 2006 11:30 PM | TrackBack

Here in Massachusetts pre Roe v. Wade, abortion was a medical issue, unlike Connecticut which imposed statutory restrictions. I learned this first hand in 1958 in advising a family from Connecticut regarding their young daughter. The current efforts with federal legislation to limit crossing state lines accentuates the need for protection at the federal level. Undoing the commerce clause would be horrendous for so many purposes, not just abortion. Undo the New Deal? That would result in a stacked deck for the social conservatives.

Posted by: Shag from Brookline at November 22, 2006 9:03 AM

When you say it was "a medical issue," do you mean that there was no restriction on abortion as long as it was performed by a physician, and that it was treated like any other medical procedure? (I.e. requiring parental consent, but not a husband's consent or notification re: his adult wife, etc.)

Posted by: PG at November 27, 2006 6:16 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Sitting in Review
Armen (e-mail) #
PG (e-mail) #
Dave (e-mail) #
Craig (e-mail) #
About Us
Senior Status
Chris Geidner #
Jeremy Blachman #
Nick Morgan #
Wings & Vodka #
Recent Opinions
Persuasive Authority
De Novo Reporter

Powered by
Movable Type 5.02