I fear will going to see more of the type of argument made by Ted Rall:
In a sick way, the end of Roe v. Wade may turn out to be a net positive for America. For one thing, Roe was a legally dubious decision based on flawed constitutional logic. Rather than pass abortion rights into law, 14 cowardly congresses and seven weasely presidents have relied on the 1973 ruling to avoid taking political fire from the Bible-thumpers.
Besides, a party-line overturning of Roe would validate years of liberal prophecies that the right plans to take away our freedoms. Every news story about a cheerleader bleeding to death in an Alabama high school locker room will remind Americans, especially the women who make up an increasing share of the swing vote, that the fundamentalist Christianists are happy to replace the necessary evil of legalized abortion with the optional horror of despair.
Oh, sure, overturning Roe will mean that many women will die, and be maimed, and have their lives irrevocably changed because the state compels them to bear a child. But Ted Rall will have been right, and really, isn’t that what counts? And, of course, this disgusting heighten-the-contradictions nonsense is made more hateful by the fact that the tradeoff is being made by someone whose own rights wouldn’t be affected by criminalizing abortion.
By the same logic, I could say it’s great that Bush has turned out to be exactly the reactionary he appeared to be in 2000 and has enacted many awful policies because it exposes people like Rall who claimed that the election didn’t matter as know-nothings who didn’t have a clue what they were talking about, but obviously this would be reprehensible. I’m not happy that I was right and Rall was wrong, and the same goes for claiming that overturning Roe would be good because it will validate the predictions of people (who don’t actually stand to be personally harmed.)
(Link via Lauren.)