McCain Win - Supreme Court - Is Impact of the Reversal Of Roe v. Wade Overstated?

[Median Democrat]

Here is a Washington Post article talking about the affect of a McCain or Obama win on the composition of the Court.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25437003/

With McCain, the Court would likely have a very conservative majority that could concievably overturn Roe v. Wade. We also know that the MSM (particularly Maureen Dowd) loves to exagerate the numbers and profile of alleged Hillary Clinton supporters:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/opinion/29dowd.html?em&ex=1214884800&en=2f3d53a229601243&ei=5087

The LA Times assures us that Maureen Dowd and others like her are liberal even though they fight sexism by using sexist language:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-gabler29-2008jun29,0,4277251.story

http://mediamatters.org/items/200806220003?f=h_top

http://mediamatters.org/items/200806100002?f=s_search

So, is it possible that Marueen Dowd is not simply trying to stir the pot? Maybe there really are a substantial number of feminists who would prefer John McCain to Barack Obama.

Is it possible that we are overstating the importance of Roe v. Wade? After all, the reversal of Roe v. Wade does not outlaw abortaion. It would simply allow states to outlaw it on an individual basis.

Personally, I think that women have a right to choose. Yet, Dowd manages to always find Hillary supporters who sound like and are described like Harret. Thus, perhaps we are being sexist in assuming that feminists do not also strongly believe in State rights. With the reversal of Roe v, Wade following a McCain victory, a woman in Kansas, of course, could travel to California for an abortion, so women's right to choose would not be impaired.

[John Q. Citizen]

1. As long as they are rich, like you are.

[bluestateguy]

3. True

Rich Republicans don't have to worry about the consequences. If their little sorority princess daughter gets knocked up after an unfortunate evening with Joe Frat Asshole, they can just quietly fly her to a pro-choice state or to another country to have the procedure done.

[polmaven]

10. Which is probably

what they do anyway. Mustn't allow the Country Club crowd know, after all!

[Median Democrat]

4. Wow, Did I Win The Lottery? Sweet!

What are the numbers again? Time to head to the 7-11!

[bluestateguy]

2. If R v. W is overturned some dark red states will outlaw abortion immediately

Like within minutes of the court's decision. Other states would be a real battleground. And then there would be dark blue states that would keep it legal.

Once the fringe wackos see that the dark blue states have chosen to keep abortion legal, they will start demanding a federal constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion everywhere. Just watch.

[Hippo_Tron]

7. Won't even be minutes, the laws are already on the books

Remember the South Dakota laws?

[Median Democrat]

8. However, Dowd Points To A Vocal Group Of Feminists

Wich she repeatedly describes who are now fervently supporting McCain. That is why I am just challenging the assumption that control of the Supreme Court, and the preservation of Roe v. Wade is as important as we think it is. Read the Wash Post article is correct, and it sounds reasonable to me, is that if John McCain is elected and he gets to appoint Supreme Court justices, Roe v. Wade will be overturned.

However, Maureeen Dowd and the NYT consistently find and publicize so-called Hillary supporters and feminists for John McCain. This is why I am simply pausing and asking us to evaluate whether these Feminists for McCain know something that we do not. Carmille in the Dowd piece who was chanting "Nobama." There is this DU'r who attacked Obama as sexist:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6422736&mesg_id=6422936

I, of course, criticized her, but now I am self-critiquing. Fredda in the link noted that I, as a man, can't really understand what women go through. So, this is why I am not going to assume that Roe v. Wade is so important, and ask the question of whether we (and I) overstate the significance of its reversal, because it will be reversed under John McCain.

[blondeatlast]

21. See posts 5 and 17. They don't support where I think you are going, but

I'd like to hear what you think.

[Median Democrat]

25. This is what I think, We Criticize Big Media ...

For their focus on the type of feminists you describe. Indeed, google the terms "feminists" and "john mccain" and "Obama" and the current talking point is that John McCain is building an unholy coalition of evangelicals and feminists:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rachel-barkow/the-feminist-threat_b_109619.html

Now, I guess I could write this off as Big Media bias. However, you run a search of posts on this board, and there are more posts attacking Obama's alleged sexism, then their are posts attacking John McCain's sexism. My initial take is that we on DU are just as guilty of giving John McCain a free pass as Big Media. But, I wanted to pause and reconsider whether I was incorrectly assuming that feminists place a lot of value in preserving Roe v. Wade.

I think that we on DU are just as guilty of giving John McCain a relative free pass on issues while we attack and criticize Barack Obama. The fact of the matter is that an election has yet to take place. These criticisms of Barack Obama could very well be premature, because he might not be President. I suggest that we also examine the record of John McCain, because we may very well be stuck with him for the next 8 years.

[polmaven]

12. And women will begin

dying in back alleys again.

[redstate_democrat]

43. Or in motel rooms

like this woman CAUTION VERY GRAPHIC http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=14jco6e&s=3

[blondeatlast]

5. Any feminist who's been in the trenches knows there's a very vocal

anti-choice brigade among us and because they are in the minority they feel put-upon; I've seen it for over a decade.

They also know the tactics of the very well-organized anti-choice movement; I think we are seeing this.

These aren't bitter Hillary supporters; there's far more to them than we knpw, I suspect.

[Demit]

6. I doubt there is ANY number of feminists who would prefer McCain, MoDo anecdotes notwithstanding.

Good grief, Maureen Dowd has just been discredited by her own paper's public editor. She is not a creditable source for anything real, except her own self-regard.

I also love your breezy statement that women can always hop on a plane & travel a thousand miles, and that fact preserves their 'choice'.

What a weird post.

[Median Democrat]

9. As One DU'r Said, I'm Just A Man

I think the reversal of Roe v. Wade would be terrible. Yet, Maureen Dowd continues to publicize a sting of feminists (not always Hillary supporters) who are strongly against Barack Obama. This is why I am pausing, since as one DU'r noted, "I'm Just A Man":

* * *

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6422736&mesg_id=6422936

Fredda Weinberg (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-28-08 06:28 PM
Response to Original message
6. I'm not surprised. Some of you just don't get it: being female is different

I'm not surprised. Some of you just don't get it: being female is different
I've been ethnic ... I know what it means to stand out. But gender bias is different - we are different, and those attributes should not be overlooked.

It's mens' weaknesses that are the real problem - and the reason it hasn't been addressed. Boys can't compete fairly against girls and they don't grow up.

But life happens to women and families depend on support systems that secular society doesn't afford. So before we dimiss half the population and most than half of the next generation that will depend on single moms (not so many dads, ya think?) and sentence them to perpetual hardship.

It didn't have to be this way ... it's an opportunity we lost but I won't grieve. The real world needs us to continue as we were - but we won't pretend this is progress. When Obama says women can make it, "in high heels", I felt sick ... but just for a moment, until I remembered, he's just a man.

* * *

So, based on Fredda's post linked above, and rather than assume that feminists are against the reversal of Roe v. Wade, I pose the question of whether we assume to much?

[CBGLuthier]

14. I am a man also

and I have to ask about this from your OP

"women's right to choose would not be impaired."



You say that all they have to do is go to another state.

Ever been poor? Hard enough to get the money for the abortion now we also have to add bus fare to the situation? How long until the state says you can not cross a state line for that purpose. Or the feds for that matter.

My own position on abortion, as just a man, has been if you don't like them, don't have one, but leave others to make their own choices.

[LeftyMom]

16. Or even if there's money, how does one swing the time off work?

"Hey boss, I'm going to California to get an abortion, be back next Thursday" isn't possible in many cases.

[blondeatlast]

17. Repeat: There are "feminists" who are anti-choice and they have held grudges for years.

I've known a few myself. Some things about them:

1. They are not full time "feminists"; they spend as much time on anti-choice activity as they do on feminist activism, if not moreso

2. They tend to be very resentful and act put-upon among their groups

3. They have adopted the tactics of the (sorry to say) better-organized anti-choice groups


I'm willing to state that more than a few of the HRC "supporters" who pledge to support McSame are mong these women and those particular women (the anti-choicers) know some damn good tactics; they learned from a very well-organized movement.

Not all of the reluctant to support Obama are antichoice--but I'd almost bet that the leaders are.

[ebdarcy]

11. What if the woman in Kansas can't afford to go to California?

And she shouldn't have to travel out of state. An abortion is not an experimental surgery that is only done in certain hospitals. There is no sane reason why a woman should have to travel long distances in order to have an abortion.

And what happens when anti-choice state legislatures pass laws that make it illegal to travel out of state for an abortion? Because those laws come next.

IMO, a woman who votes for McCain is not a feminist. A woman who applauds or welcome conservative judges is not a feminist. Conservatives are not our friends. Those women who would vote for McCain are either republicans or racists.

[Median Democrat]

15. Preaching To The Choir, But Big Media Has Been Pushing This Idea

In classic Karl Rove Up-Is-Downism that feminists (not necessarily former Hillary Clinton supporters) are going to vote in protest for John McCain.

I read Maureen Dowd's opinion, and some posts on this board by feminists attacking Barack Obama, and thought "what"?

However, I don't want to assume. Afterall, I am just a man as noted in that post by Fredda, which I linked above, so I am not going to presume that I understand these issues, which is why I am taking a moment to question the the importance of control of the Supreme Court. Does it resonate with voters? Does it resonate with feminists?

[ebdarcy]

22. To tell you the truth,

I have absolutely no respect for any Hillary supporters who would vote for McCain over Obama. Because if they're true democrats, then they're either voting for McCain because they're racist or they're spiteful. In either case, they're probably a lost cause. There was sexism in the media, and to take that out on Obama is just stupid and short-sighted. If McCain wins, the country loses. It will be the sons of those PUMA voters who are drafted and sent to die. It will be their daughters who have to choose between an unwanted child and a back-alley abortion. Voting for McCain is selfish, and we will all suffer the consequences.

I think the media is blowing the PUMA thing out of proportion. The ones who make the most noise get the most airtime. Not only that, the media wins the most if it's a close race.

Plus, the feminist organizations are backing Obama. I'm on the mailing list of a few, and they're on board. I think there was a certain segment of voters who over-identified with Hillary, who saw her as every woman, and they projected their hurts and hopes on to her. If those voters are democrats, then Obama will get their votes.

The PUMA voters only marginalize themselves.

[blondeatlast]

24. YES! I was leaning to Obama from the time it narrowed to 2, but I could see the often glaring sexism

in the media--and I still see it and the veiled racism now.

Voting for McSame is selfish, stupid, and sexist since it will set us back 50 years or more==and my mom marched with the likes of Ggloria Steinem, dammit!

Very, very well said! :toast:

[bain_sidhe]

23. Pout much?

Boy, that "you're just a man" must have really stung, huh?

[Median Democrat]

27. You're Right, I'm All Torn Up About It

nm

[bain_sidhe]

33. ;-) I could tell. But seriously...

I know it must have rankled. I'm not a fan of confrontational "you just can't understand" feminism, but the truth is, it really is a different experience to be female and at risk of having your whole life ruined by an unwanted pregnancy. I don't think very many men have been fired from their (low wage) jobs for getting a woman pregnant, but lots of employers of low-end workers fire pregnant women all the time (yess, it's illegal, but these women aren't the kind that have the resources to fight it, and it's damn hard to find the time, even if you get a "pro-bono" lawyer, to fight it when you're trying to feed yourself, and maybe a kid or two.

I don't think very many boys are kicked out of high school for getting a girl pregnant, either, but lots of pregnant teenagers are either "suspended" or sent to "mommy school" and never do get back on track to even finish their high school education, let alone got to college.

Even if a woman remains completely celibate, a rape can produce a pregnancy that can destroy a woman's life in the ways above, so it's not like they're all sluts who "consciously chose" to take the risk, and should have just kept their pants on. ( :sarcasm: in case that's not clear.)

So it's a whole different order of existence, when you're *inside* the body that is at risk for all that, as opposed to seeing it from the outside. This is not to say that many, many men don't "get it" - just that it's not the same kind of personally felt anxiety.

[niyad]

29. do you remember that idiot in either ohio or pennsylvania who was talking about pregnancy

checks on any woman who crossed the state line? these woman-hating anti=choicers are insane, and right now, we are exactly one vote away from "the handmaid's tale"

[ebdarcy]

36. I think you're referring to Tom Brinkman.

He serves in the Ohio House of Representatives.

I first read "The Handmaid's Tale" a couple of years ago. It scared the hell out of me. It should be required reading. If McCain wins and gets his judges, we're all screwed.

[Vinca]

13. If Roe was overturned, it's not a huge leap to a new law

which would ban all abortions. McBush doesn't even care about saving the life of the mother and if you're raped, that's the breaks in his book. It's a big, big, big deal.

[Thrill]

18. No. If they get two more justices. IT WILL BE OVERTURNED

[MH1]

19. Reversal of Roe v Wade has ** NOT ** been overstated

It is impossible to overstate something that would set this country back so far, and harm so many people.

Maureen Dowd has zero credibility so I didn't bother to read your links, I'm just answering your headline.

[blondeatlast]

20. If McSame is elected, he WON'T serve a second term--and Roe v. Wade will be history because of it.

Why will the Reoublicans rally round someone they think is such a weak candodate? Because McSame can carry out their agenda--he simply can't carry an eigh year term even if he'd want to.

Ther's the danger to the Constitution, the justice system, and foreign relations; the RNC powers-that-be will rally the troops for McSame knowing he's ideal to finish the job GWB was hired for.

[Warren Stupidity]

26. is it possible that Marueen Dowd is not simply trying to stir the pot?

No it is not possible.

Removing reproductive rights from the people would be an abomination. What the heck is your point here anyway?

[Median Democrat]

32. Point - McCain Is Given A Free Pass On Gender Issues

I guess I should heavily intersperse my posts with :sarcasm:, but I also think that doing so is a cop out.

My point is that we spend so much time debating Obama that we failed to give some love to John McCain. :sarcasm:

John McCain has a realistic chance of being elected President. Yet, we tend to focus on Obama, and issues like whether feminists would support Obama. Note: the various links to Maureen Dowd's article in this forum.

So, to spell out my point, I focused on a key issue like Roe v. Wade. I wonder why people relatively ignore the 800 gorilla (Roe v. Wade), and dwell on the alleged Hillary voters who will not vote for Obama based on perceived sexism in the media.

We debate the sexism and racism of Obama and HIllary supporters, we dabate the choices of words used. However, John McCain gets a free pass on issues that I would think should be of extreme importance to us as Democrats. So, I asked the question of whether the impact of overturning Roe v. Wade is overstated. Maybe I should have used the :sarcasm: emote, but who knows? Maybe someone would surprise me with a vigorous argument of why feminists would support John McCain, and why Roe v. Wade is not a big deal. I read a lot of posts on this board, and I scratch my head

[Demit]

39. You seem to think the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

That is to say, because people are not discussing Roe v. Wade as much as they are other topics that interest them at the moment, they therefore have no interest in Roe v. Wade at all.

Women are very aware of the big gorilla in the room—it threatens our control over our own bodies. It is the argument-ender for every complaint about Obama.

There are, apparently, women who want to dramatize their distaste for Hillary not winning the nomination. They are not representative in any way, no matter how much the media in its search for sensationalism would try to persuade us they are. Your beef is with the sensationalistic media, exemplified by the Queen of Mean herself, Maureen Dowd. When these women, what few there are, are finished basking in the attention that is all out of proportion to their numbers, the real feminists among them will pull the lever for Obama.

In summary: No, the impact of overturning Roe v Wade is not overstated. No, real feminists won't be voting for McCain. I hope this will help you stop scratching your head.

[Median Democrat]

40. Cringe - That Quote of Rumsfeld Sends Chills Down My Spine

I also think it is not persuasive. When the focus of the debate ignores the big issues, then the electoral decision may very well be driven by the fringe issues such as whether or not Obama is wearing a flag pin. I think we lose the forest for the trees.

Such is the case with respect to the media preoccupation with feminists who support John McCain. I agree with you that most real feminists understand the positions of candidates. However, casual observers, and most of the electorate are casual observers, may get the idea that McCain has little opposition from women's rights advocates, particularly when the MSM gives him a free pass on his flip flops on issues like abortaion.

Contrary to Donald Rumsfeld's use of the quote to suggest that WMDs may actually be present in Iraq, I would argue that the absense of visible opposition may very well suggest that opposition is absent to the voting public.

[Demit]

42. I'm not sure why you separate out women from 'most of the electorate'

since they make up at least half of it. But that's the impression I am getting from all of your responses in this thread. Women are somehow an exotic subculture, and feminists somehow an exotic subset of that. To your male mind, women must have one cause and one cause only, and if we are not beating our feminists drums about it loud enough we must not really care.

I think you are being argumentative for the sake of it. I have tried to share with you the apparently mysterious workings of the female mind, but I think your intent here is to contradict whatever any women tries to tell you. Your thinking is caught in some past decade, one where the very validity of 'women's rights' is still being argued. You personally aren't persuaded; well, I can't do any more about that. But when you extrapolate from yourself to 'the voting public' you only reveal that you believe it is men who are the real voting public (and perhaps their adoring wives who ask them how they should vote). This isn't the 1960s or 70s anymore, and those crazy women's libbers aren't staging wacky demonstrations for the cameras anymore. They're creating & supporting powerful lobbying groups such as Emily's List. Median Democrat, your premise, and your observations, are wrong.

[niyad]

28. a woman's right to control her own reproductive rights should NOT depend on which state

happens to be her residence.

" a woman in kansas, of course, could travel to california for an abortion, so women's right to choose would not be impaired:

what a load of codswallop. where in the HELL do you think a poor woman is going to get the money, or the way to get there? why in the HELL should she be put through that torture? this is beyond disgusting as a reason for saying it is okay to overturn roe, and sounds like an argument from the other side.

[bain_sidhe]

30. Misdirection in two directions, IMHO

First of all, I think I can say the overturning of Roe v Wade is HUGE to a large number of women, but...

It's not Roe V Wade they're after. It's Griswold. That's the first misdirection. Griswold was the ruling that found that the right to birth control rested on an "inherent right to privacy." And it's a misdirection inside a misdirection: There are more issues than just birth control that rest on that "inherent right," but birth control is the only one that's mentioned.

The second misdirection is that, as important as Roe v Wade is, its overturning would affect far fewer people than the sorts of pro-corporate, pro-authoritarian (one might even call them "pro-fascist"), anti-consumer, worker, and citizen rulings that a far-right court would produce. Because those rulings will affect EVERYONE, not just the subset of Americans that are females of child-bearing age who wish to avoid getting pregnant or terminate a pregnacy in progress.

[Median Democrat]

35. Absolutely Agree!

and I am not being sarcastic when I say this. :)

I think about the recent Gitmo decision, and how close the decision was. A lot of our basic rights are hanging by a 5-4 majority. What would be great is if we had a list of recent holdings decided by a 5-4 majority that are imperilled by another McCain appointment.

Any constitutional scholars out there have a lot of free time on their hands?

[bain_sidhe]

37. I did that for 2000

Dunno if I put it up in my archive... lemme check...

Ah, here 'tis:
http://www.webfaerie.com/content/WI_Archive/library/election/ble_2000votes.htm

This was an argument for voting for Gore, only the "swing vote" was Sandra Day O'Connor. Now, Kennedy is considered the "swing vote" and he's quite a bit to the right of O'Connor. And he's solidly in the corporate/authoritarian/fascist wing when it come to consumer or worker type issues. It's only the "citizen" and "civil rights" issues that he swings slightly left on - and even then, not all of them.

The article that the list was prepared for is here:
http://www.webfaerie.com/content/WI_Archive/library/weekly/aa071000a.htm

I mention it just because I think that the issues covered in that article are still relevant, even though the players have changed.

[Orangepeel]

31. No.

Although I guess you would know about stirring the pot.

[nickinSTL]

34. overturning Roe v.Wade is NOT overstated...

not only would it open the doors for anti-choice legislation across the country...it is also essential precedence for the right to privacy being legally recognized in the US. Overturn Roe v. Wade and the consequences, if I understand correctly, will be much more far-reaching than just (and I don't mean to minimize the importance of the right to choose here, I'm absolutely in favor of a woman's right to choose) making abortion illegal - I suspect it would be the first step to a large number of laws infringing on the right to privacy.

[CTyankee]

38. Here's a question for you.

I ask this of every man who says what you just said:

What constitutional right would you give up without a fight?

[nxylas]

44. I guess the right to bear arms

Since I don't exercise it anyway. I'd love for some openly gay man to answer "the right not to have soldiers quartered in my house", though, just to freak out the reich-wingnuts.

[CTyankee]

45. No, which consitutitional right that you treasure and depend on would you give up without a fight?

THAT is the real question here.

[JTFrog]

41. "It is important to remember that Roe v. Wade did not mean that abortions could be performed."

"It is important to remember that Roe v. Wade did not mean that abortions could be performed. They have always been done, dating from ancient Greek days.

What Roe said was that ending a pregnancy could be carried out by medical personnel, in a medically accepted setting, thus conferring on women, finally, the full rights of first-class citizens — and freeing their doctors to treat them as such."

------

I am a retired gynecologist, in my mid-80s. My early formal training in my specialty was spent in New York City, from 1948 to 1953, in two of the city’s large municipal hospitals.

There I saw and treated almost every complication of illegal abortion that one could conjure, done either by the patient herself or by an abortionist — often unknowing, unskilled and probably uncaring. Yet the patient never told us who did the work, or where and under what conditions it was performed. She was in dire need of our help to complete the process or, as frequently was the case, to correct what damage might have been done.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/health/views/03essa.html?ex=1370232000&en=a866eb4f19d8a37e&ei=5124&partner=facebook&exprod=facebook