Roe v Wade has been a gift to the Republican Party. A candidate can be a war monger, a corporate puppet, and eat puppies and kittens for breakfast, but if he or she is pro-life none of that will matter to conservative and religious voters. At the same time, another candidate can have a great plan for the economy and a sterling political record, but if she is pro-choice, a large portion of the American electorate will never vote for her. What would the Republicans do without Roe v Wade?
They use abortion to get votes the same way they use the bad behavior of foreign leaders to justify military intervention. Their rhetoric implies that pro-choice voters are baby-hating monsters while it promotes suspicion of every woman of child-bearing age. And votes are just one part of the story. The abortion issue allows them to coopt the conversation with constant threats, horror stories, and authoritarian legislation. As a result, reasonable people find themselves fighting for the right of women they don’t know to have an abortion, as if it’s some kind of prize.
Some judges have said they will not enforce Alabama’s law, and Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL) is on record saying the legislation is so severe he is concerned that it won’t be effective in overturning Roe v Wade. But maybe that is the purpose of Alabama’s extreme approach.
- Republicans Probably Don’t Want to Reverse Roe v Wade
- The Seducer State and the Free Labor of Mothers
- Will a Higher Birthrate Lead to Love and Compassion for the World?
- The State is Your Daddy
- Humanity at the Crossroads
- Irreconcilable Differences?
- Laudato Si’ Doesn’t Say That!
- A Few Thoughts on the Encyclical Laudato Si’
- It Depends on Your Definition of Tradition
- What Do You Do With a Problem Like the Priesthood?