A CONSTITUTION THE LEFT LOVES TO IGNORE:

A Ruling the G.O.P. Loves to Hate (Jack M. Balkin, January 25, 2003, NY Times)

Thirty years after Roe v. Wade, many wonder how long the decision can survive when the Republican Party controls all of the branches of government.
Republicans may well chip away at Roe v. Wade. But if they overturn it, they do so at their peril.

The contemporary Republican Party is a coalition. It contains religious and social conservatives who are strongly opposed to abortion, and economic conservatives, libertarians and suburbanites who may be quite moderate on abortion rights or even strongly pro-choice. Today, the abortion struggle largely revolves around issues like late-term abortions, parental consent requirements and restrictions on public financing. Moderate voters can accept many if not most of these regulations because the basic right to abortion is still protected.

But if Roe v. Wade were overturned, the political agenda would shift. Early-term abortion would no longer be constitutionally insulated from federal or state efforts to outlaw it. In response, some states would restrict or abolish abortion rights. Social and religious conservatives would also press for abolition of abortion at the national level. For Republican candidates, it would no longer be just a question of defending limited restrictions on abortion. They would have to explain whether they were willing to send women and their doctors off to jail. [...]

In a world with Roe v. Wade intact, the Republicans are not just the party of the religious right, but also the party of lower taxes and strong national defense.

To some, Roe v. Wade symbolizes the Supreme Court's failure to bring consensus to a divided country. But in areas like religion or abortion, that is precisely the wrong expectation. Roe is not supposed to eliminate controversy. Rather, it functions as a lightning rod, drawing political heat away from the democratic process and onto the Supreme Court itself.

I don't know what kind of Republicans Mr. Balkin hangs out with, but I know of fairly few who consider our current tax scheme to have been a good trade for 40 million abortions and know of none who think it a good thing for the Supreme Court to supplant the democratic process. In fact, the circumvention of the democratic process that Mr. Balkin accurately portrays the Court as having engaged in is cause ample cause for impeachment. You'd think a law professor might have a bit more respect for the Constitution, if not for either the convictions of his opponents or the lives of abortion's victims. Posted by Orrin Judd at January 25, 2003 3:03 PM