91Èȱ¬

While the idea is interesting... with all due respect, I'd have to say that this is a classic case of "out-thinking oneself". Bush might have indeed opposed the ban- but the hypothetical mental contortions of those *few* conservatives who'd dare to go on record and publically disagree with the South Dakota ban don't amount to a hill of beans against the concrete actions of a party which is by and large for the ban. Bush started out as a supposed moderate on the whole abortion thing, many eons ago- and look how much good it did when it came time to appoint officials (such as the Attorney General) who would actually ride at the forefront of that issue? He has shown that he has no "moderate" approaches to anything (especially abortion) when it comes to pandering to the extremists in his party...

BRAVO BARACK OBAMA YOU ARE THE MAN!
VETERAN TAMMY DUCKWORTH WAS BORN A FAILIURE AND WILL NOTHING WIN BUT HATE
AND WAR???

interesting thinking from a political point of view, but let's not forget all the women of south dakota who would suffer if such a law was passed. is that worth it, in order to put bush in a tricky political situation? clearly not. abortion laws like this hurt real people, on the ground. let's not forget that.

All this would have meant is another battle up to the Supreme Court to re-test Roe. Roe is based upon a general right to privacy that does not appear in the U.S. Constitution but was manufactured by Justice Douglas in Griswold v Connecticut out of "penumbras formed by emanations" (pass the incense) from the Bill of Rights. This is judicial activism at its finest.
What is desired is that judges read the Constitution as it is written instead of imposing their personal world views on the People by way of finality.

The abortion law in South Dakota was simply a strategy to force the Supreme Court to review Roe v. Wade in a case devoid of ambiguities. Despite this, I'm guessing the voters of South Dakota couldn't agree to risk the mental and physical health of girls and women who might have been prevented from seeking help after rape or incest just to be able to present the high court with a "clean" case.

Mr Webb is spot on. From a tactical point of view, this is welcome news from a pro-life perspective. The reason? Neil in a previous post hit the nail on the head. This law would have gone straight to the Supreme Court, where it would have been struck down. Worse, it would have forced Alito and Roberts, Bush's appointees to take sides, which would have been a classic lose/lose for conservatives. If they had voted against the ban, affirming Roe, it would have taken away a major issue for Republicans with pro-life/evangelical voters. Why vote Republican if you're going to get stuck with pro-choice judges anyway. If they voted for it, it would have provided a major issue for Democrats, who could say that a Republican victory would put Roe v Wade in danger, which would motivate women. This result avoids any of those scenarios, leading to the possiblity that a future Republican President can nominate a fifth, and decisive anti-Roe judge.

I think most people are going to look at this result in a pretty simple way and say - even in one of the most conservative and religiose states, a ban isn't popular. And who would really gain from the national chaos probably resulting from of a repeal of Roe?

Justin Webb is assuming that Bush really wants to get rid of Roe - rather than just using the issue as a bone to throw to his evangelical supporters. But now Bush doesn't have any more elections to win or lose. He can show what he really wants to do on social policy... and who knows what that might be.

The first big complication is the likely Democratic senate, which may grow teeth and refuse to confirm any justice it thinks would repeal Roe.

The second complication is the foreseeable consequences of repeal. Any demonstrations so far on Iraq are absolute peanuts compared to abortion - at least half the population (and I don't mean necessarily just women) would be politically fired up to an extent not seen since the 70's. It might keep Democrats in power for a decade or two longer, because moving to ban abortion is simply not popular for a majority of Americans.