I agree with
Armando's conclusion that "not fighting for Roe now is disastrous politics and the wrong thing to do". However, even though unity on this issue brings us close to a popular majority and secures many seats in the traditional blue states, it completely locks us out of entire regions where liberal economic and social ideas might otherwise make significant inroads.
Can we support Roe and still be pro-life?
It's not a hopeless contradiction you know. Moderate democrats have been trying to thread this needle for years -- mostly without success. I think the lack of success, however, has been due to a canny reading by pro-life voters that the asserted moderate position was simply a public stance. All talk, no action.
Moderates on this issue need to walk the walk. Then, with this emotional bottleneck relieved, the remainder of the liberal agenda will be able to reach a whole new audience.
Whether we personally believe it or not, it is pig-headed to deny that many of those who oppose abortion do so out of an honest belief that abortion puts an end to a human life.
It's good that people care about human life. It's almost liberal! Once we accept that the actions of our opponents (or at least some of them) are based on beliefs deeply held by people of good conscience, we can begin to develop policy initiatives that illustrate the power of government to support and better human lives -- all the while continuing to buttress Roe as one of the modern pillars of American liberty.
The idea is not to make it harder for a woman to choose abortion -- the idea is to enact laws that increasingly make it unnecessary for a woman to choose abortion.
Here is an agenda for action:
Publicly examine the reasons why women choose to terminate a pregnancy (fear, poverty, uncertainty -- and yes, even negligence and indifference). Try to evoke the compassion upon which the traditional-values folk base their anti-Roe arguments. Force them to publicly acknowledge the unhappiness of the people (both women and men) who would otherwise be conscripted into an unwanted lifetime commitment. The internal conflict in some anti-Roe people may open their hearts to other courses of action.
Break down the problem. For each of the reasons identified above, we should propose a specific means to mitigate the perceived need to terminate a pregnancy. An increase in foster care funding may change some individuals' attitude towards giving birth. Subsidize adoption. Could a grant or tax credit to individuals for a vasectomy or tubal ligation reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies? Maybe we need to devote some more funding to research to develop better and safer contraception. Measure the progress in terms of reduced number of abortions. Claim credit.
Tell the religious right to put their money where their mouth is. If they are willing to gut protections of individual liberties and legislate compulsory childbirth, then coming up with a few billion dollars to actually reduce the number of abortions in the meantime should be something that they can actually support. Furthermore, they might actually help some people (there's a concept).
I think that these actions could suck some of the oxygen out of the anti-Roe movement and put further cracks in the right-wing monolith. Convincing reasonable pro-life voters that we can maintain Roe while respecting their beliefs will solidify our position with many moderates and tilt electoral equations throughout the country significantly in our favor.
This is the other half of a winning strategy.