Abortion Apocalypse

As I alluded to yesterday, South Dakota has passed a law (pending an inevitable approval by the Governor) banning abortion. The only exception is the life of the mother - not her health, not rape or incest, no other exceptions at all. Even this exception doesn't amount to much, since apparently her life must be seriously at risk. If there's just a chance she might die of complications, the ban is still in effect.

This radical piece of legislation is going to explode several myths about the abortion debate. The first is that the pro-life community is not completely insane and has some vestigal respect for women. I would like someone to tell me with a straight face that the Theocons don't hate women. If her health, or decision to have sex at all, is not taken into consideration, what else do the anti-choice crowd think other than that women are baby delivery vehicles? One of the arguments that anti-choicers have deployed is that women must "bear the consequences of their decisions." According to this logic, if women are naughty enough to have sex, then they have to live with the risks of pregnancy. But this law doesn't even make an exception for rape. Hell, those people are one short step from legalizing rape, since they think the woman probably "wanted it." What a bunch of lunatics.

The other myth this explodes is that the last Supreme Court nominations weren't about abortion. Do you think it's a coincidence that this law was introduced the second Alito and Roberts were on the Court? The media went along with conservative obfuscations that these nominees had no fixed position about Roe. We all know this is bullshit. Yes, yes, Anthony Kennedy voted for Casey and he's still on the Court. Theoretically Roe has a 5-4 majority. But what if Kennedy proves to be a pushover as he was during the Bush v. Gore case? Or what if Stevens dies of a heart attack? What happens then?

I think that the Republicans have made an awful gamble. An outright ban of abortion invites a major political backlash. The smart play for them is to have the Court incrementally uphold restrictions on abortion without overturning Roe in a blatant way. But this strategy relies on incremental policy by the states, which the South Dakota law clearly is not. What do Roberts and his friends do? They could overturn the South Dakota law, causing a firestorm on the Republican side as the Theocons decide that they have been betrayed. They could uphold the South Dakota law, inviting a massive defection of the political center. They could choose not to hear the case, which means that the lower court ruling would stand. This would be a muted version of the first two scenarios - if the lower court overturn the law, the conservatives will be angry, if they uphold it, then the pro-choice majority gets mad.

I've said many times that although I am pro-choice, I don't think that it's the most important political issue. But if the South Dakota law is implemented, it will be. In fact, it will be for everybody. Every state legislature, every congressional session, every election at every level of government will be consumed by abortion politics. If you think you're tired of arguing about this issue now, just wait. It's going to get a lot worse.