At 03:48 PM 11/4/00 -0800, martin schiller wrote:
>kelley said on 11/4/00 4:40 P
>
> >they'll make it a state's rights issue, if they can. unlikely. OR,
> >they'll uphold rulings that will steadily eke away at the right to abortion
> >on demand. we don't have that anyway.
>
>The question was "how do you see reversing roe/wade as benefiting the
>long term goal of the GOP to gain/retain power.
i wasn't answering your question. i was providing you with some numbers in
order for you to rethink your assumption that it would significantly hurt
the GOP if they alienated the ~30% of people (not voters) who are in favor
of unrestrained access to abortion. moreover, that's their *opinion* about
*why* and *under what conditions* women should be allowed to have an
abortion and not an opinion that *necessarily* directs the way they vote or
shapes their willingness to fight the erosion of RvW.
a voter, iow, could be a huge libertarian and find it perfectly acceptable
for Roe V. Wade to be overturned and made a states' rights issue AND hole
the opinion that a women should be able to obtain an abortion for any
reason she wants. such a person would not be alienated by such a move in
the least.
>Can you really believe that the GOP wants to align the court to undo
>Roe/Wade and alienate the pro-choice voters in order to sooth the tempers
>of the pro-life sector? How do you see that serving the long term
>objective of gaining retaining power?
