WaPo columnist Benjamin Wittes argues in the recent Atlantic for democrats to "let go of Roe v. Wade." He offered an interesting perspective on the issue, arguing it is not in the best interests of the democrats or pro-lifers to continue supporting Roe v. Wade.
Wittes sees a post-roe world where after forcing a dialogue on the issue that inevitably gives lasting legitmacy to the pro-choice side of the debate, the majority of the states choose to protect the right to choose, while at an unfortunate cost a few states choose otherwise. Of course some of us may not wish to pay this cost, but others of us, myself included, feel, why not give the bleeding red states what they want and let them live with the results.
Wittes idea is pragmatic in nature. It has its costs, but it gives lasting legitmacy to the pro-life argument, while creating a political atmosphere that liberals should be "salivating for" as he puts it.
Below you can read an excerpt, or for the whole article go here
Update: This topic already exists in another diary. Feel free to ignore this diary. :)
An excerpt:
One effect of Roe was to mobilize a permanent constituency for criminalizing abortion--a constituency that has driven much of the southern realignment toward conservatism. So although Roe created the right to choose, that right exists under perpetual threat of obliteration, and depends for its vitality on the composition of the Supreme Court at any given moment.
Meanwhile, Roe gives pro-life politicians a free pass. A large majority of voters reject the hard-line anti-abortion stance: in Gallup polling since 1975, for example, about 80 percent of respondents have consistently favored either legal abortion in all circumstances (21 to 34 percent) or legal abortion under some circumstances (48 to 61 percent). Although a plurality of Americans appear to favor abortion rights substantially more limited than what Roe guarantees, significantly more voters describe themselves as "pro-choice" than "pro-life." Yet because the Court has removed the abortion question from the legislative realm, conservative politicians are free to cater to pro-lifers by proposing policies that, if ever actually implemented, would render those politicians quite unpopular.
In short, Roe puts liberals in the position of defending a lousy opinion that disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply while freeing those conservatives from any obligation to articulate a responsible policy that might command majority support.
I've always supported Roe v. Wade, but I tend to agree with Wittes. Sacrificing Roe v. Wade has its costs, but so does supporting it. As Wittes concludes:
A liberal fear of democratic dialogue may make sense regarding social issues on which the majority is conservative. But it is a special kind of pathology that would rather demand a loyalty oath to a weak and unstable Court decision than make a case before one's fellow citizens on a proposition that already commands majority support. The insistence on judicial protection from a political fight that liberals have every reason to expect to win advertises pointedly how little they still believe in their ability to persuade.