Amidst all the talk about the impact of a likely reversal of Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, I thought a history lesson was in order, so I wrote one at New York:
Last week, the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would have codified abortion rights, died in in the Senate by a vote of 51 to 49. All 210 House Republicans and all 50 Senate Republicans voted against the legislation. This surprised no one, but it’s actually odd in several ways. While Republican elected officials are almost monolithically opposed to abortion rights, pro-choice Republican voters didn’t entirely cease to exist, and this could become a problem for the party if, as expected, the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down the right to abortion at the end of this term.
Though polling on the issue is notoriously slippery, our best guess is that a little over a third of Republicans disagree with their party on whether to outlaw abortion (while about one-quarter of Democrats disagree with their party on the topic). These Americans have virtually no representation in Congress with the limited exceptions of Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski (both GOP senators support some abortion rights, but they are still opposed the WHPA and are against dropping the filibuster to preserve abortion rights).
Ironically, abortion rights as we know them are, to a considerable extent, the product of Republican lawmaking at every level of government. The most obvious examples are the two Supreme Court decisions that established and reaffirmed a constitutional right to abortion. Of the seven justices who supported
Roe v.
Wade, the 1973 decision that
struck down pre-viability-abortion bans, five were appointed by Republican presidents, including the author of the majority opinion, Harry Blackmun, and then–Chief Justice Warren Burger. All five justices who voted to confirm the constitutional right to pre-viability abortions in 1992’s
Planned Parenthood v. Casey were appointed by Republican presidents as well.
These pro-choice Republicans weren’t just rogue jurists (though their alleged perfidy has become a deep grievance in the anti-abortion movement). Today’s lock-step opposition to abortion rights among GOP elected officials took a long time to develop. Indeed, before Roe, Republicans were more likely to favor legal abortion than Democrats. In New York and Washington, two of the four states that fully legalized pre-viability abortions in 1970, Republican governors Nelson Rockefeller and Daniel Evans were at the forefront of abortion-rights efforts. They weren’t fringe figures; Rockefeller went on to become vice-president of the United States under Gerald Ford. Pre-Roe, various other Republican officials supported more modest efforts to ease abortion bans; among them was then–California governor Ronald Reagan, who signed a bill significantly liberalizing exceptions to an abortion ban in 1967.
The anti-abortion movement’s strength in the Republican Party grew steadily after Roe in part because of a more general ideological sorting out of the two major parties as liberals drifted into the Democratic Party and conservatives were drawn into the GOP. To put it another way, there has always been ideological polarization in American politics, but only in recent decades has it been reflected in parallel party polarization. But that doesn’t fully explain the GOP’s shift on abortion policy.
Beginning in 1972 with Richard Nixon’s reelection campaign, Republicans began actively trying to recruit historically Democratic Roman Catholic voters. Soon thereafter, they started working to mobilize conservative Evangelical voters. This effort coincided with the Evangelicals’ conversion into strident abortion opponents, though they were generally in favor of the modest liberalization of abortion laws until the late 1970s. All these trends culminated in the adoption of a militantly anti-abortion platform plank in the 1980 Republican National Convention that nominated Reagan for president. The Gipper said he regretted his earlier openness to relaxed abortion laws. Reagan’s strongest intraparty rival was George H.W. Bush, the scion of a family with a powerful multigenerational connection to Planned Parenthood. He found it expedient to renounce any support for abortion rights before launching his campaign.
Still, there remained a significant pro-choice faction among Republican elected officials until quite recently. In 1992, the year Republican Supreme Court appointees saved abortion rights in Casey, there was a healthy number of pro-choice Republicans serving in the Senate: Ted Stevens of Alaska, John Seymour of California, Nancy Kassebaum of Kansas, William Cohen of Maine, Bob Packwood of Oregon, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, John Chafee of Rhode Island, Jim Jeffords of Vermont, John Warner of Virginia, and Alan Simpson and Malcolm Wallop of Wyoming. Another, John Heinz of Pennsylvania, had recently died.
Partisan polarization on abortion (which, of course, was taking place among Democrats as well) has been slow but steady, as Aaron Blake of the Washington Post recently observed:
“In a 1997 study, Carnegie Mellon University professor Greg D. Adams sought to track abortion votes in Congress over time. His finding: In the Senate, there was almost no daylight between the two parties in 1973, with both parties voting for ‘pro-choice’ positions about 40 percent of the time.
“But that quickly changed.
“There was more of a difference in the House in 1973, with Republicans significantly more opposed to abortion rights than both House Democrats and senators of both parties. But there, too, the gap soon widened.
“Including votes in both chambers, Adams found that a 22 percentage- point gap between the two parties’ votes in 1973 expanded to nearly 65 points two decades later, after Casey was decided.”
By 2018, every pro-choice House Republican had been defeated or had retired. The rigidity of the party line on abortion was perhaps best reflected in late 2019, when a House Democrat with a record of strong support for abortion rights, Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, switched parties. Almost instantly, Van Drew switched sides on reproductive rights and was hailed by the hard-core anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List for voting “consistently to defend the lives of the unborn and infants.”
With the 2020 primary loss by Illinois Democratic representative Dan Lipinski, a staunch opponent of abortion rights, there’s now just one House member whose abortion stance is out of step with his party: Texas Democrat Henry Cuellar, who is very vulnerable to defeat in a May 24 runoff.
If the Supreme Court does fully reverse Roe in the coming weeks, making abortion a more highly salient 2022 campaign issue, the one-third of pro-choice Republican voters may take issue with their lack of congressional representation. Will the first big threat to abortion rights in nearly a half-century make them change their priorities? Or will they still care more about party loyalty and issues like inflation? Perhaps nothing will change for most of these voters. But in close races, the abandoned tradition of pro-choice Republicanism could make a comeback to the detriment of the GOP’s ambitious plans for major midterm gains.
In reply to Marcus’ post above, first, Kerry has been talking about particular aspects of homeland security, such as rail system security, that have obviously been neglected by Bush.
Re the threat of a terrorist attack, it’s a disconcerting subject to consider. But if one were in al qaeda’s position wouldn’t one want a second term for Bush?
He gives them the best of both worlds: he is the ideal, straight-from-central-casting villain whose presence in office has aided al qaeda recruiting immensely.
Yet at the same time he and his Administration are incompetent, permitting al qaeda to recover and grow as the US flounders in Iraq. His actions and words have created discord with many countries that would presumptively (under a competently managed campaign against al qaeda) be working hand in glove with us in a focused, top-priority campaign now. At the same time, his Administration’s actions have made it far more difficult for us to obtain the critically needed support of as many as possible of the governments and peoples of majority Muslim nations in that effort.
He is so widely and deeply despised and discredited around the world that there now appears to be no possibility that he would be able to effectively harness world governmental and public efforts to combat al qaeda in a second term.
So I’m ready if and when a Bush-leaner tries to snow me with the BS assertion al qaeda would want Kerry to win because he is supposedly softer on combating them than Bush.
The other points I may make in response to such an argument are twofold: 1) why would we think the people who got us into this awful situation are the ones to get us out, particularly when they appear to be incapable of acknowledging, let alone learning anything, from their mistakes? 2) Since when do Americans let al qaeda or the views of others outside of this country affect how we vote? If we believe Bush is a screwup, which he is, and that we can and must do far better, which we can, then we, as in we Americans, will vote for this change. We simply do not have to put up with inept leadership.
If al qaeda has an interest in helping Bush and they have the capability of doing so, why wouldn’t they try?
To my way of thinking the possibility of an Administration attempt to declare martial law in the wake of terrorist attacks which disrupt the election, while remote, is not beyond the realm of possibility. Why? Only because this is an Administration which combines a heavily authoritarian manner of governing (evidenced in so many ways over 3 1/2 years) with a messianic sense of itself and sense of certitude in the rightness of its decisions which is deeply removed from reality.
The other major potential wildcard factor that can at this time easily be foreseen is, by contrast, one where immediate action is necessary: a) an effective, coordinated effort to prevent tampering with election equipment and vote tabulation processes b) ensuring there is a backup paper trail for electronic voting machines wherever they will be used. If and where there are no backup paper trails, it should be obvious that anyone who seeks to challege the results via a recount is going to be SOL.
What would knowledgeable viewers recommend as specific courses of action we ordinary citizens can take to help ensure ballot integrity?
I hope the above is taken in a “failure is not an option” spirit stemming from a determination to prevail under any set of circumstances, rather than as a prediction that these grim scenarios will play out. I remain cautiously optimistic (counting myself in neither the “it’s ours to lose” camp nor the “it’s Bush’s to lose” camp at this point) about our chances to win a free and fair election while recognizing this is an unusual and highly dynamic time in our history.
QED, James. When you write, it’s always about the bad things that are about to happen to the Democrats. I don’t want good people to be discouraged by your constant negativity. If you’re not a troll, find something positive to say. If you are a troll, well, that would explain a lot.
> I’m really scared about, from both a human and a
> narrowly political perspective, is a large-scale
> terrorist attack in Sept or Oct; the rally effect will
> certainly exceed the feeling that Bush did not protect
> us, at least for the first few weeks– and that’s all he’ll
> need.
I worry about this too — although the negative impact could be somewhat alleviated if it turns out the Administration’s partly at fault e.g. by previously cutting budgets or neglecting the particular issue that was exploited by the terrorists.
If I were Kerry, I would already be screaming like crazy about the absurdity of spending hundreds of billions on INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE and invading Iraq. The real issue is homeland security, which “Shrub” hasn’t been that interested in.
Having said that, I agree the President probably would benefit from another spectacular terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Sigh.
MARCU$
Ron, who ever said they “minded” me in the first place? Why are you trying to stir up trouble and spread lies? Because you have nothing valuable of your own to say? That’s obvious whether I’m here or not. You totally destroyed this thread just to make yourself seem like you have a purpose. Why? What’s your agenda?
I’ve seen the media save Bush’s hide time and time again. All of this talk about Sadr’s fighters backing down in Najaf and about how momentous 6/30 will be and how the economy is wonderful and Americans will realize that once Iraq dies down, about how gay marriage is such a crucial issue, that Bush has trumped Kerry on Iraq, they’re exactly the same, why isn’t Kerry doing better in the polls, etc. all this is designed to tip the race to Bush. And slowly but surely, that seems to be happening. The election is so far away.
The most damning numbers for Bush might be the Red/Blue/Purple state breakdowns in the Gallup poll. Bush’s lead in the Red states–states that should be reliably Republican–is not very large, 51 to 43 without Nader, 48 to 42 with Nader (note that Nader, somewhat oddly, seems to help Kerry in the Red states). Kerry’s lead in the Blue Democratic states, however, stands at 55 to 38 without Nader, 54 to 37 with Nader. If Bush’s support in traditionally Republican states is as soft as the Gallup poll indicates, he might be in some real trouble because he will have to fight to keep those states (particularly states that have tended to be less Republican in recent years, e.g., Arizona, if it is not already considered a battleground) in his column, assuming these trends hold. And one should probably assume that the trends will hold, given the large numbers of voters who are firmly committed to one candidate or another. Kerry’s not finished yet, but you have to think that he’s looking pretty good.
about 50% of the polls i’ve seen are a dead heat, and the other 50% are Kerry w/ about a 5 point lead. i don’t think i’be seen one where Kerry is ahead by 2 or 3 points though.
So…why did I hear on MSNBC last night that the latest polls show Kerry and Bush stuck at 46-46. I don’t get it. Actually, Bush is sinking and Kerry is holding steady or pulling ahead, but according to MSNBC it’s a dead heat! Dead wrong. I’m sick of it.
Realclearpolitics.com says that the only reason that the CBS poll has such low Bush numbers is that CBS over-weights Democrats. And indeed the CBS methodology explanation on their poll detail page at http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/CBSNews_polls/poll_052404.pdf assumes a 36/30/34 D/R/Ind split. Does anybody knowledgable have an opinion on this?
Has anyone looked at the Zogby Interactive battleground states poll? If it’s accurate, it’s great news for Kerry, but I wonder if it’s reliable given that the polling was conducted by e-mail.
I’d agree Bush is pretty near the GOP electoral floor — even Goldwater only did a few points below the CBS 41. The only thing that could reduce him further — and this is something that wouldn’t show up in polls, wouldn’t be apparent until Election Day — would be significant voter abstention by traditional (but disgusted) Republicans. When you hear Tom Clancy (and his ilk) saying how difficult it would be for him to support Bush, you don’t figure this foretells a switch to Kerry, but you might project he represents a certain percentage that simply doesn’t have the heart to turn out for Bush. Such a stay-home factor could skew the percentages by making Dem voters a far greater percentage of the electorate than usual; this could put Bush below the normal party-split numbers we assume govern most elections.
Keith,
most likely the nadir for Bush, but there is a tipping point Bush could reach. If it appears that Bush is sinking the ship (and 41% is sinking the GOP ship) regional congress critters might jump off the SS Bush, which would lead to lower numbers I believe.
Not likely, but at this rate not impossible.
Don’t mind James–he’s always there with his pessimistic point of view. He’s not an overt troll, just a guy who consistently attempts to decrease morale by predicting that events will soon break Bush’s way. Maybe he’ll be right one of these days–a stopped clock is right twice a day.
If independents are leaning so strongly towards Kerry and all he needs is a much smaller margin among indies to almost guarantee that he will win the election, then why is Kerry running barely ahead overall?
Make that “kicking and screaming” although I like the other one better.
One of the problems we have is that the media insists on representing all of these polls as problems…for Kerry! With all this bad news, why isn’t he further ahead?
On local DC TV last night, Derek McGinty did a segment on “Kerry Disconnect”. He had a local Dem pollster as a guest and, frankly, the guy wasn’t very good. McGinty kept going after the lack of Kerry lead and even represented Iraq as a negative-“why should we change horses, now that Bush is calling for international involvement, too?”
The Dem had little ability to respond. I kept screaming at him to point out that Bush had been dragged kinking and screaming to Kerry’s position, but McGinty’s belief that Kerry has to change his position solely because Bush took it ruled the conversation.
The exchange was something that Bob Somerby would have a field day with on his site had it occured in a national forum.
Since no incumbent has ever been blown out this early in a campaign; I don’t understand the belief of many that these numbers are horrible for Kerry. The lack of traction is due to the vacuum Iraq creates. The news is all Bush all the time. If Kerry were actually sniping constantly, I think he’d run the risk of appearing to “hate America” and his negatives would rise.
My only fear, and it’s a big one, is that Kerry won’t have a big enough lead to offset the Gore-ing the media’s going to pull on him later in the campaign. Th RNC will leak some insignificant item, and the press will give it the same play they’re currently giving Iraq.
pangolin, the Rethugs are already whipping up the fear-mongering over unknown, unnamed terrorists again. That will drive up Bush’s support. Bush’s speech got very good marks from the Joe Sixpack crew. That will help his numbers. The media has never really let him be seen as losing or slipping anyway, they always say that Kerry is in a worse situation. Kerry hasn’t given a strong policy on Iraq, and even if he did, the media would ignore or distort the policy. The public knows Bush and already seem to be flocking back to him to some degree.
The closer we get to 6/30 and after 6/30 the less the media focuses on the negatives in Iraq and the more willing the public is to ignore the issue, or accept it as some kind of muted victory. Meanwhile, Bush and the media can reframe the debate on issues that will suit Bush, like bullying people into believing the economy is fantastic, and like getting people scared to death over same-sex marriage.
We’re entering a period very soon where Bush will most likely rebound in all the major polls. I hope I’m wrong but it seems like the worst has passed and Kerry and the Democrats are still going nowhere fast.
Hmmm … the two 47s actually drag up the moving average on the approval rating, don’t they? Kerry’s been doing very well at the Iowa Electronic Markets (he’s on 0.493), but my guess is that he tops out there. My guess is that we should be looking for a couple of polls giving Bush approval >50 in the pretty near future; I’d agree with Ruy that the long-term momentum is looking pretty sick for Bush, but things appear to have overextended themselves on the downside for the near term.
Hey this is just the start. Kerry wins big Demo’s get congress back. The gop is only in control of the supremes and time is not on there side CrazyR
Blogs: the Kerry campaign can and should do what it likes with its wholly owned blog; we should hold it to different standards from those of partisan, but unaffiliated, blogs and fora.
Horse race: yeah, the numbers will bounce around; what we need is for people who have already realized that Bush can’t do the job not to go back on that realization. A couple more weeks of negative news may be all it takes.
Future events: if we stay in Iraq, we keep getting hit; that’s horrible news for the country and for our brave soldiers, but good news for our chances of firing the misleader who got us into this mess. If we leave, Bush looks weak, and people who think we’re out of danger feel free to vote on domestic issues; if Bush wants an election based entirely on those, bring it on. What I’m really scared about, from both a human and a narrowly political perspective, is a large-scale terrorist attack in Sept or Oct; the rally effect will certainly exceed the feeling that Bush did not protect us, at least for the first few weeks– and that’s all he’ll need.
Permit me to interrupt the squabbling around the sand box. We’re talking about polling numbers here and in the previous post it was all about the Pres’ speech of last night.
I believe Bush’s numbers are going to go back up and probably pretty soon. Everything I hear and read tells me that the “sovereign” Iraqi government is going to tell the US and Britain to take a hike; probably before our election in Nov.. Bush and Blair will hear that and run like thieves. The neo-cons will probably go nuts that we’re cutting and running but most of the GOP will breath a huge sigh of relief.
Kerry has to be ready for that. He should now be getting to the right of Bush regarding the situation in Afghanistan. When Bush announces his premature withdrawal, he should jump on him with both feet for creating a mess then leaving it for the Iraqis to clean up. The middle will like that, even if the far right and left don’t.
Mencken,
Actually, I visit a number of conservative blogs, and find that there are a few brave liberal souls who come to debate us. They are not banned or deleted unless they use obscene language, and I have fun debating the liberals who don’t curse. To be fair, I have encountered many conservatives who use foul language as well, and I avoid associating with them.
of course republicans silence dissent w/i their own blogs/party. dems are supposed to be better.
not sure what the deal w/ neofascist was, but I do know that the kerry campaign is systematically deleting posts as well as bloggers who have the ultimate temerity to criticize it.
Well, take a look at the conservative blogs, my friend.. pure democracy, just like Florida 2000.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/25/eveningnews/main619558.shtml
Are there any limits to the conservatives greed and corruption? If this leaks out to the American people I’d say Bush is toast.
I heard Neo’s back. You’re forgiven.
You banned NeoFascist?. So this is how you handle opposing viewpoints; you silence and eliminate them. Looks like someone’s spent too much time reading the Communist Manifesto.