On his Altercation blog today, Eric Alterman is the latest liberal to repeat the canard that approving an anti-choice justice means that Roe v. Wade is doomed, joining Eleanor Smeal, Atrios and Josh Marshall :
Anyway, the Roberts nomination seems to mean we should plan on saying goodbye to thirty-two years of life under Roe, which is not entirely a bad thing, even for pro-choice advocates. After all, Bush did terrific with unmarried women without college educations. It would be helpful, politically (and democratically) for them to learn just what it was they were voting for.
Even if Alterman means that Roe will be curtailed rather than repealed, his language clearly gives a false impression.
You're right, of course. If Roberts would change Roe, it still moves us from 6-3 to 5-4. But it's the trend that worries people on the left. Why not fight as hard as you can now rather than waiting to fight during the next go-round? The bottom line is that Roe v. Wade is less secure with Roberts on the court, no? If that's the case, liberal groups and Democrats have nothing to lose by standing up now and saying that Roe is threatened.
Posted by: Dave M | July 20, 2005 at 05:03 PM
talk about looking down the game tree. go theorist, it's your birthday!
Posted by: friendofdave | July 20, 2005 at 05:29 PM