Subscribe via RSS Feed

5 Myths About Roe v. Wade

[ 138 ] January 22, 2013 |

Roe v. Wade turns 40 today.  This seems like a good opportunity to address some of the false things that are routinely said about it:

  • Roe is unpopular.   This is a particular favorite of Ben Wittes, who has argued that Roe has undermined the popularity of abortion rights.   The main problem with this argument is that Roe has been and remains overwhelmingly popular:
  • Roe created the anti-choice movement.Longtime readers will know this is a hobbyhorse of mine, and I’ve written about it at great length.    The short version is that the idea that we would have arrived at the same place with less conflict had the Court not intervened is ahistorical nonsense.   Opposition to abortion had already stopped abortion legalization at the state level by 1971, and there’s no evidence for the claim that judicial opinions produce more backlash than policies announced by the other branches.
  • Overturning Roe would “return the issue to the states.” This  all-too-frequent assertion runs into one of the most enduring laws of American politics: “nobody actually cares about federalism.“  Show me a Republican congressman who advocates that Roe be overturned to “send the issue back to the states,” and I’ll show you someone who has not only voted for every federal abortion regulation to come down the pike but advocates a constitutional amendment that would make abortion first-degree murder in all 50 states.
  • Overturning Roe would be no big deal for abortion rights. Again, this is very wrong. The fact that national majorities support Roe certainly doesn’t mean that Republican majorities in a substantial number of states won’t recriminalize abortion if it is overruled.   Equally problematic is the argument you hear sometimes that overruling Roe would be OK because it would increase mobilization among pro-choice groups.   This argument runs into the same problem as arguments that it might be worth throwing the election to a Republican because this will generate more (ineffectual) opposition — pro-choice mobilization isn’t just an end in itself; it’s designed to, you know, secure public policy that protects the reproductive freedom of women.  The most sophisticated and highly motivated lobbying strategy by pro-choice groups won’t make a legislature dominated by reactionary Republicans pro-choice.  As I have argued elsewhere, the argument that overturning Roe would have some secret political advantages are “only compelling if the value of protecting a woman’s right to choose is accorded almost no weight.”
  • Roe is only a rich woman’s right. This critique from the left actually has a plausible basis and a limited amount of truth.   Since the Supreme Court has narrowly upheld the constitutionality of the Hyde Amendment and the regulations upheld by Casey disproportionately burden poor women,  the current legal regime protects abortion access for poor women much less than it should.   But even as diluted by Republican-dominated courts, Roe matters to poor women most of all. Affluent women, who will generally either have the connections to obtain gray market abortions or the resources to travel to a jurisdiction where abortion is legal, are likely to have reasonable access to abortion under any plausible legal regime.   To women who lack these advantages, Roe matters substantially, even though both courts and legislatures should be doing more to protect abortion access for poor women.  (Amanda has more on this general point.)

Comments (138)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Jon says:

    Can I just add that the two federalism arguments are simply about process and not substance. Anyone who wants something done just “the right way” is verging on concern troll and obviously doesn’t really care about the issue to begin with.

    Personally, I wish my state could set its own course without subsidizing the red states, bailing them out from their own suicidal intentions with respect to civil liberties, and at the same time keep them from stopping all of the evil socialist schemes we might cook up. But I also want a pony.

    In real life, as you point out, if Roe (or, really, Casey) goes down, abortion will be criminalized in a majority of states and a series of federal laws will make it more or less illegal everywhere (imagine no abortion doctor being allowed a license to prescribe drugs, or a huge tax on anyone who sells them equipment, etc. etc.) even if it’s not the case that in overturning it, the holding would be that the right of the “child” controls and therefore not only is it not a Constitutional right to abortion, but it’s unconstitutional to abort.

    • Murc says:

      Anyone who wants something done just “the right way” is verging on concern troll and obviously doesn’t really care about the issue to begin with.

      By this definition, President Obama is a concern troll who doesn’t give a damn about gay rights.

      As is anyone pissed off at what the State Senate in Virginia did yesterday.

      Procedural legitimacy is important.

      • rea says:

        Procedural legitimacy may be important, but what on earth about Roe was procedurally illegitimate?

      • Jon says:

        Procedural legitimacy is important.

        Sure. But it is not paramount. It’s funny you mention gay rights. Ten years ago, I would have agreed with your sentiments, but the thing about it now is that, #1 the current approach is winning, and, #2 a “procedurally questionable” vindication of those rights is potentially on deck.

        Was there a chance that a slower, more state-by-state and then tipping-point approach to abortion would have worked? Sure. But in order for that to matter, you have to believe the suggestion with real concern trolls like Mickey Kaus, that the Supreme Court making this decision created the anti-abortion movement. Created? If by that you mean “put on the defensive” sure. But ex nihilo? The “movement” was all the laws on the books up to that point!

        Procedural legitimacy is a vague term. If by it you mean “I wholeheartedly support the filibuster” then we don’t agree. If by it you mean through the operation of law, sure. But it’s still not paramount. We’re not talking about government contracts here.

  2. Incontinentia Buttocks says:

    One interesting variation of Myth #1 (which I heard repeated on NPR this morning) is that Roe is no more popular today than it was two decades ago. This is, at least, more or less correct…but so what? Roe’s overwhelmingly popular and has been for decades.

    (To NPR’s credit, they ran a quite good piece on the history of abortion politics this morning that was aimed squarely at debunking Myth #2.)

    • liberal says:

      Actually, it’s amazing considering the large amount of propaganda devoted against it.

      • cpinva says:

        good point.

        “Actually, it’s amazing considering the large amount of propaganda devoted against it.”

        however, the vast majority of that propaganda is extreme, fundie christian based, which has a limited appeal, outside the former confederate states.

        if the republicans had free reign, they would quickly pass legislation, at the federal level, making women chattel of their fathers/husbands, just like in the “good old days”.

        • JL says:

          Quite a bit of it is Catholic, which does have appeal outside the former Confederate states.

          When I act as a clinic escort in my liberal, Catholic, “ethnic” city, unless there are visiting out-of-state picketers (which has happened), ~100% of the clinic picketers are Catholics. Republican Catholics, for sure, but not Southern fundamentalists.

  3. Yossarian says:

    Good stuff, Scott. BTW, in case you weren’t aware your three-part “Rightness of Roe” links are broken. Too bad — they make excellent reading and analysis.

  4. sharculese says:

    The short version is that the idea that we would have arrived at the same place with less conflict had the Court intervened is ahistorical nonsense.

    Should be had the Court not intervened, yes?

  5. Joe says:

    Good stuff though what is “Roe” in particular? Is it the right to choose an abortion or the right to choose an abortion as freely as Roe as compared to the limits that are allowed under Casey?

  6. Matthew Stevens says:

    Roe created the anti-choice movement.

    I’m sure it’s true in the way that _Brown_ “caused” Orval Faubus to deploy the National Guard in Little Rock. So what? What were pro-choicers supposed to do, wait for total consensus?

  7. Watusie says:

    Cardinal Dolan is marking it with big a prayer service in NYC. I can’t be there, but I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that he will claim it is tragic that the Supreme Court as tied the hands of the right with this decision, while failing to utter a single syllable about IVF. However, anyone who genuinely believes that abortion is wrong because a new citizen is created at the moment of conception must also believe that the fertility industry commits murder and torture for profit. And despite there being nothing like Roe standing in their way, loud and proud “pro-life” politicians do nothing to shut the clinics down. And of course in this last presidential cycle they all lined up behind Mitt Romney, a man who has an unknown number of grandchildren in a freezer somewhere.

    I find this curious.

    OK, not really, I find this to be an example of rank hypocrisy. Overturning Roe would be a disaster for the right, because it would remove their ability to grandstand on this issue.

    • Murc says:

      Overturning Roe would be a disaster for the right, because it would remove their ability to grandstand on this issue.

      The right does actually BELIEVE in things, you know. They tend to be awful, awful things but they do have policy preferences and this is one of them. Overturning Roe wouldn’t be a disaster, it would be a victory for them because they’d have implemented one of their core policy planks.

      Arguing that overturning Roe would be a disaster for the right is the mirror image of this:

      Equally problematic is the argument you hear sometimes that overruling Roe would be OK because it would increase mobilization among pro-choice groups.

      It is only true if your calculus only assumes anti-choice mobilization is an end unto itself.

      • Abū l-Walīd Muḥammad bin ʾAḥmad bin Rušd says:

        It is only true if your calculus only assumes anti-choice mobilization is an end unto itself.

        I assume anti-choice mobilization is an end unto itself, for the moneyed portion of the far right. I imagine the Koch brothers love Roe. How else will they get the rubes to vote for their preferences?

        • Malaclypse says:

          Dammit, again.

        • sharculese says:

          Yeah, I think if you replace ‘right’ with ‘conservative movement’ this makes a lot more sense, but those are, of course, not the exact same thing.

        • Murc says:

          I assume anti-choice mobilization is an end unto itself, for the moneyed portion of the far right.

          I dunno. The moneyed portion of the far right seems just as hell-bent on making women into property as the non-moneyed portions.

        • UserGoogol says:

          It seems a tad conspiratorial to assume that rich conservatives only espouse their beliefs because they think it’ll benefit them. If the proverbial 99% is perfectly capable of holding conservative beliefs without being bribed into it, it stands to reason that the remaining one percent would as well. Rich people are more likely to be conservative than not-rich people, but that could be more plausibly caused by motivated reasoning and a different “rich people culture” than the idea that they’re actively trying to trick us.

          If the Koch brothers just want to make lots of money, there’s much easier ways to do that than to prop up a giant ideology as they do.

          • Hogan says:

            Rich people are more likely to be conservative than not-rich people

            Socially conservative? Why?

            • Lyanna says:

              They see no benefit in committed social liberalism. They have no reason to commit to reproductive choice when they have nothing to gain from it (hey, they can always fly to France), and no experiences that teach them the ill effects of the lack of such freedom. They think the issues are fluff, which leads to either the adoption or toleration of social conservatism.

              Also, they tend to identify with those in power, who are mostly straight white males.

              The exception to this may be rich women, who sometimes do identify with women denied abortions.

          • Manju says:

            Rich people are more likely to be conservative than not-rich people,

            I happen to have the relevant data for abortion handy, though it ends at 2004 and only includes whites.

            Scroll to the very end, page 42, and look at “Figure 6: Support for Abortion Rights by Income Class 1972-2004 (Whites Only)”

            http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/kansas.pdf

            As you can see, from ’72-’04 rich whites were less likely to be conservative on abortion than non-rich ones.

            Its possible that the inclusion of non-whites changes things (of the top of my head I think the data indicates that Blacks and Hispanics are more conservative on abortion) as well as going past 2004, but there’s a pretty significant gap to make up.

        • Manju says:

          I imagine the Koch brothers love Roe. How else will they get the rubes to vote for their preferences?

          Here’s summary of what the data says. From the same study I linked up to below (again, data ends at 2004):

          Do working class “moral values” trump economics? No. Social issues (including abortion) are less strongly related to party identification and presidential votes than economic issues are, and that is even more true for whites in the bottom third of the income distribution than for more affluent whites. Moreover, while social issue preferences have become more strongly related to presidential votes among middle- and high-income whites, there is no evidence of a corresponding trend among low-income whites.

          http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/kansas.pdf

          • The Dark Avenger says:

            Yes, Manju, that’s why Kansas is about to legalize abortion on demand this year.

            In one of last year’s infinitely more thoughtful political books, What’s the Matter With Kansas?, Thomas Frank wittily and skillfully deconstructed what might be dubbed the Great Con Job: the conservative canard that somehow Democrats have cornered the market on elitism, while the GOP’s bleeding heart is more with the little guy than with Enron’s Kenneth Lay. He also argued undeniably that any hope for a liberal renaissance must include some component of aggressive economic populism (to counter the faux cultural populism of the GOP)—a fancy way of saying that the white working class must be able once again to identify with the Democratic Party. You’ll remember that when a loose-lipped Howard Dean suggested the dead obvious—that he needed to win the votes of guys who drive pickup trucks with Confederate-flag decals—he was all but lynched by his nurturing, caring, gender-free Democratic colleagues. Oh, no, we don’t want those people in our party!

            Not to worry: as long as the most visible Democratic rabble-rousers are, literally, showbiz clowns like Michael Moore and Al Franken, liberals have yet some road to travel back before they run into a monster-truck jamboree.

            Although Frank dedicates only a few pages of his book to actually examining liberal Democrats, he’s not much amused by what he sees. The decline of labor unions and other social brakes on an increasingly unjust market “goes largely unchecked by a Democratic Party anxious to demonstrate its fealty to corporate America, and unmourned by a therapeutic left that never liked those Archie Bunker types in the first place.” For some reason (a marketing decision by his editors not to unnecessarily rile liberals?) Frank’s harshest and most insightful characterization of progressives comes outside the confines of his book—from both before and after the election. In a February 2004 essay in the obscure Le Monde Diplomatique, Frank mercilessly attacked aloof, self-absorbed liberals.

            Leftists of these tendencies aren’t really interested in the catastrophic decline of the American left as a social force … If anything, this decline makes sense to them: the left is people in sympathy with the downtrodden, not the downtrodden themselves. It is a charity operation.

            And in a post-election piece in The New York Times, Frank concluded that the Democrats “lost the battle of voter motivation before it started,” by choosing high-profile assistance from “idealistic tycoons” over a more natural class-based alliance with common people. As a result, “they imagined themselves the ‘metro’ party of cool billionaires engaged in some kind of cosmic combat with the square billionaires of the ‘retro’ Republican Party.”

            http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/04/thinking-of-jackasses/303838/

            • The Dark Avenger says:

              http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~dlinzer/Frank-ClassDismissd.pdf

              The fundamental assumption animating Bartels’ attack on What’s the Matter With
              Kansas? (WMK) is that studies like mine—based on movement literature, local history,
              interviews, state-level election results, and personal observation—are inherently inferior
              to mathematical extrapolations drawn from the National Election Surveys (NES). Indeed,Bartels seems to understand his assault on WMK as a blow struck for responsible academic professionalism against a contemptible “pundit literature.”2 My own feeling,after watching him steer his science around the proving ground, is that this vaunted
              research device is in reality a rickety and most unreliable contraption.

              • Manju says:

                Dark A…I have no idea what Kansas abortion laws or Thomas Franks belief in anecdotal evidence over scientific ones has to do with the subject at hand:

                Rich people are more likely to be conservative than not-rich people

                I pulled data indicating that they (rich) are not, at least on abortion. I have no idea what you are going on about.

                • The Dark Avenger says:

                  You really think that the Koch brothers wouldn’t use the abortion issue to get their way with policies that favor them?

                  You really put the N in naive, Manju.

                  Most rich conservatives probably don’t care if women in America have the right to abortion because they can always fly out of the country(Puerto Rico used to be a popular destination) if a woman in their class decides to have one.

                • Manju says:

                  You really think that the Koch brothers wouldn’t use the abortion issue to get their way with policies that favor them?

                  You’re presenting a hypothetical, as if they haven’t done it already. If they haven’t done it by now, I doubt they’ll do it going forward.

                • Manju says:

                  You really put the N in naive, Manju.

                  The point is that the Koch’s would be Naive to do it. Ain’t nobody voting on values except maybe rich people, not the presumed rubes.*

                  My message to you libtards is to stand by your fucking values already. stop being so scared of the Right: You. Are. Winning.

                  From the moment your asshole leader whined about losing the south for a generation you people have been running away from social issues. Well the only thing you lost for a generation was that which you gained illegitimately. Other than that, on these issues, you are winning. So fucking stand up for you values already. be a woman. Grow some cojones.

                  At least when the Right deludes themselves they delude themselves into believing they are winners(nate silver episode). Stop following this idiot thomas frank who convinces you that you are losers. i command you to only read books approved by Oprah.

                  *there’s some nuance here but I’m in rant mode…so keeping it simple.

                • The Dark Avenger says:

                  If they haven’t done it by now, I doubt they’ll do it going forward.

                  They have already:

                  It is worth noting that not every candidate targeted by the Koch/”Pro-Life” alliance has a pro-choice voting record. There were legislators that were included in hit list that had a 100 percent anti-choice voting record, such as Senate President Steve Morris. Like virtually all of the targeted Republicans, President Morris was defeated in the August 7th primary. Kansans for Life explains away the apparent disconnect in the following statement:

                  Senate President Morris came into his leadership position with a pro-life record, but then betrayed it by rigging Senate committees with pro-abortion majorities and working behind the scenes to hurt pro-life bills! But due to the pro-life routing of ‘moderates,’ there is a real possibility that after the November elections, as many as 32 out of 40 Kansas Senate seats could be filled by trusted pro-lifers!

                  Kansans for Life calls the primary election results a “pro-life power surge” and provides the following figures, “Kansans for Life’s endorsed candidates won handily: In the House, 74% (31 of 42 races) and in the Senate, 77% (24 of 31 races).”

                  It is apparent that both the Koch-funded Chamber and Kansans for Life are falling in line and stand in pursuit of the Governor’s demands for Republican state electeds that consist solely of an unwavering allegiance to his theocratic agenda. It is not merely enough to vote “pro-life” in order to garner “pro-life” favor, a legislator is required to check every free thinking brain cell at the door and march to the tune of Sammy’s big bass drum. It does cause a person to ponder whether the “pro-life” movement has successfully taken control of the Republican Party or vice-versa, with the tea-republicans having possibly taken control of the “pro-life” movement. Brownback’s former Chief of Staff resigned in order to assist the Kansans for Life PAC in this election cycle.

                • Manju says:

                  They have already:

                  OK, but the article alleges that a Koch/pro-choce/Teabagger alliance is going after Republicans.

                  So the Bankers party is cannibalizing its own. And you’re protesting? I’d be more like; “Please proceed Governor”.

                • Manju says:

                  a Koch/pro-choce/Teabagger alliance

                  pro-life

                • The Dark Avenger says:

                  Well, Manju, I’m more in favor of women in Kansas having the right to an abortion than them being ‘collateral damage’ in the effort by Koch et al to keep any Republican to the left of Attila the Hun from holding elective office in Kansas.

                  As for your little rant about liberals not coming out for what they believe in, that’s very funny coming from a self-described conservative who didn’t vote for Romney.

                  But I’m glad your fellow conservatives constantly confuse ‘liberal’ with ‘socialist/Commie’, this will speed the development of a redistributarian America where the Koch brothers are limited to 5 million $ a year in income, and there are abortion clinics on every street corner.

        • burritoboy says:

          The Koch brothers, personally, are libertarians. David Koch actually ran as the vice-presidential candidate for the libertarian party in 1980. That doesn’t mean that many of their creatures or surrogates aren’t anti-abortion, but they don’t seem particularly agitated by the issue.

      • I think overturning Roe vs. Wade is only ideal if you actually care about fetuses. I don’t believe most wingnuts do. I think they care about policing women’s sex lives and legal abortions gives them something to harass and harangue women. Nothing gives wingnuts a thrill up their collective leg more than characterizing women as slatternly idiots.

        • sharculese says:

          I have a Catholic wingnut friend who is incredibly sincere when he tells you that he really does care the fetuses, but if you press him he’ll admit that for a lot of the anti- crowd, it’s about putting women in their place.

          • I just think misogyny almost by default is at the root of all anti-choice sentiment,simply because I don’t think you can think of women as fully human without thinking they deserve to control what’s going on in their own bodies. I think anti-choicers comfort themselves by pretending to care about fetuses.

            • Murc says:

              simply because I don’t think you can think of women as fully human without thinking they deserve to control what’s going on in their own bodies.

              To play devil’s advocate here, if you really, truly believe a blastocyte is the same as a baby, then there’s no tension at all between believing women are fully human and that they shouldn’t have the right to abort. I’m fully human, but if a mad scientist sewed a one-year-old to me, human centipede style, I wouldn’t have the right to kill it to get it off me.

              • a.) I don’t believe they think fetuses are the same as babies. I think they scream about ‘the babies’ because it’s convenient to.
                b.) I predicate my belief on the idea that if men could get pregnant and enjoyed the same status they do now that suddenly fetuses would cease to be so pweeeeeecious. I think it’d be understood that men needed/deserved that control over their bodies.

                • I put that poorly but ultimately what I meant by “fully human” I was that “women should enjoy the same status as men.” And, again, if women were to enjoy that status I do think you’d see instances of shrieky fetus-hugging decline precipitously.

              • JL says:

                I’m fully human, but if a mad scientist sewed a one-year-old to me, human centipede style, I wouldn’t have the right to kill it to get it off me.

                It might be immoral to kill it. But I’m not convinced that you shouldn’t have the right.

                To me, that’s the point of abortion rights…we don’t require parents (or anyone else) to donate a kidney to save a dying kid, because their autonomy over their kidneys is important. Similarly, we don’t force people to perform the physical labor of pregnancy and childbirth, nor to allow someone else to live inside their body and feed off it, if they don’t want to. Whether it’s a baby or not is a red herring.

              • Scott Lemieux says:

                To play devil’s advocate here, if you really, truly believe a blastocyte is the same as a baby, then there’s no tension at all between believing women are fully human and that they shouldn’t have the right to abort.

                Well, yes, but based on their actual policy preferences the number of people who actually think that a blastocyst is the same as a baby could fit in a phone booth.

                • Murc says:

                  Well, I’ve met a few of them, but they’re roughly equivalent to the fabled Real Libertarian; they’re out there, but they have no real power and exist in very small numbers.

              • Bijan Parsia says:

                (As always with this sort of analogy, see Judith Jarvis Thomson’s “A Defense of Abortion”. A classic.)

                A lot depends on what the future conditions are. Assuming the child could be easily removed without threatening you with harm, then it’s pretty clearly wrong for you to not take that path.

                But suppose it could not be removed without killing it. Are you obliged to leave it attached? For a week? Month? 9 months? A year? Indefinitely? What if leaving it attached also threatened your health (vary from a small chance of slight negative outcomes to high chance of severely negative outcome).

                It’s going to be pretty hard to make this work without some pretty worrisome implications for your rights to bodily autonomy. (Again, it might be less than benevolent of you, but it’s hard to say that you don’t have the right to free yourself.)

                Of course, a one year old is typically far more developed than any fetus. If we’re going to this level of development, imagine that an innocent adult were sewn to you in such a fashion that it could not be removed without killing it.

              • DrDick says:

                The fact that only a tiny minority of the forced birthers advocates charging women who have abortions with murder demonstrates that they do not in fact view blastocytes or fetuses as the same as actual children.

                • Murc says:

                  I’ve always… this may be way to charitable of me, but I’ve generally assumed that the number of pro-lifers who would like to charge women who have abortions with murder is way, way higher than we think it is. They just don’t say so because they know that’s politically unpalatable.

                  Kind of like how I know a ton of left-wingers who moderate their views in public substantially, especially if they have a position of visibility or influence, because they figure that advocating policies that are explicitly socialist (really socialist, not the faux-socialism Fox News sees behind every bush) is going to get them killed.

                  I dunno, maybe I’m giving them too much credit. Or too little. But the nasty undercurrent I’ve generally gotten from the pro-lifers is that they really do want it all; murder charges and prison time for women who get abortions and anyone who assists them. They just try and hide it a lot.

                • Tofu says:

                  Yeah, and lawyers who charge people with manslaughter are secretly revealing that they don’t think the killer did it. Gimme a break.

                  One can hold that unborn life is still human life, worthy of our protection, and still recognize that any situation where two people literally overlap is going to be thorny, both morally and legally. Using their reasonableness, their recognition of this basic truth of the matter, against them to imply that they don’t believe, is silly, and counterproductive to boot.

                  If you still believe it, though, how about this: any politician who has said abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare” is expressing a deep-down belief that abortion is wrong. Why else make it rare? If we’re just going to speculate wildly about people’s secret motives, I mean.

                  That is the end result of the kind of reasoning you employ here: you basically shame everyone who dares to be even remotely moderate on the issue, because that moderation can and will be used as evidence of doubt. Pretty messed up.

                • Scott Lemieux says:

                  Yeah, and lawyers who charge people with manslaughter are secretly revealing that they don’t think the killer did it.

                  No, they’re presumably revealing that they don’t think it was intentional (or, at least, that intent can’t be proven.) There’s no connection here with abortion law at all…unless, er, you think that women aren’t rational moral actors.

                  If you still believe it, though, how about this: any politician who has said abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare” is expressing a deep-down belief that abortion is wrong.

                  Not necessarily. I would prefer that appendectomies be as rare as possible without believing they’re immoral. There’s a difference between wanting to reduce the number of abortions by making contraception more accessible and by passing arbitrary laws that make it less safe for women to obtain abortions. In any case, I don’t really care if people think abortion is immoral as long as they don’t want to make it illegal.

                • Tofu says:

                  No, they’re presumably revealing that they don’t think it was intentional (or, at least, that intent can’t be proven.) There’s no connection here with abortion law at all…unless, er, you think that women aren’t rational moral actors.

                  The connection is that killing isn’t treated binarily by the law, and there’s no reason to think it has to be in this case, either. Being connected to another human is an extenuating circumstance and there’s nothing remotely inconsistent about factoring that into any legal considerations that arise from being pro-life.

                  Not necessarily. I would prefer that appendectomies be as rare as possible without believing they’re immoral. There’s a difference between wanting to reduce the number of abortions by making contraception more accessible and by passing arbitrary laws that make it less safe for women to obtain abortions. In any case, I don’t really care if people think abortion is immoral as long as they don’t want to make it illegal.

                  If “rare” were the only example here, sure. But we both know it isn’t. It’s not unusual for pro-choice politicians to lament that abortions are necessary at all. I find this to be the far saner version of the pro-choice position, but the point here is that if not wanting to prosecute women who get abortions for outright murder is somehow indicative of pro-lifers apparently not believing their own stated principles, the necessary flip side is that pro-choicers who express any lament about abortion, or any desire to reduce them as an ipso facto good, are doing the same.

                  I don’t think either position is reasonable, but applying this sort of skepticism in just one direction is just silly. But that’s what you get when people of like-mind in a comments section start piling on.

                • Scott Lemieux says:

                  I find this to be the far saner version of the pro-choice position, but the point here is that if not wanting to prosecute women who get abortions for outright murder is somehow indicative of pro-lifers apparently not believing their own stated principles, the necessary flip side is that pro-choicers who express any lament about abortion, or any desire to reduce them as an ipso facto good, are doing the same.

                  There’s no equivalence here. I think adultery is generally immoral; that doesn’t mean that I think it should be illegal. It’s also entirely possible to have moral qualms about abortion that don’t see a blastocyst and a baby as being equivalents.

                  If you think that the fetus is the equivalent of a baby, it’s impossible to defend the proposition that women should not be prosecuted at all, and that goes triple if you think doctors who perform abortions should be.

                • Tofu says:

                  There’s no equivalence here. I think adultery is generally immoral; that doesn’t mean that I think it should be illegal.

                  You should already know where this is going, I think: if abortion is immoral, the clear implication is that a fetus has value beyond being a “clump of cells,” as pro-choicers are so fond of describing it. And if that’s the case, then a lot of pro-choice rhetoric has to go right out the window. To concede this point is wise and logical, I think, but it forces people in favor of legalized abortion to start drawing some fairly arbitrary distinctions between different phases of human life, assigning different types of value to each. That’s a conversation most people on the pro-choice side of the issue would obviously rather avoid, but it’s inevitable once you express any moral concern about abortion.

                  It’s also entirely possible to have moral qualms about abortion that don’t see a blastocyst and a baby as being equivalents.

                  See above: what would these moral qualms be, exactly?

                  If you think that the fetus is the equivalent of a baby, it’s impossible to defend the proposition that women should not be prosecuted at all, and that goes triple if you think doctors who perform abortions should be.

                  We weren’t talking about them not being prosecuted at all. The absurd comment that set this line of discussion off was that not wanting to prosecute all of them with murder indicated a lack of belief in their stated principles.

          • NonyNony says:

            I have a Catholic wingnut friend who is incredibly sincere when he tells you that he really does care the fetuses

            In my experience, Catholics who are really sincere about fetuses also espouse a few other ideals:

            1) Invitro fertilization is one of the most horrible things on the planet and needs to be made illegal
            2) The Church is wrong about birth control – if you want to stop abortions, access to birth control is crucial

            I come from a Catholic background and the wingnuts in my family believe 1 (because the Pope says so) but not 2 (because the Pope says so). The non-wingnut but still conservative members believe both. Getting my younger brother on my side for 2 was a huge victory in my eyes – he’s still pretty far right in a lot of his beliefs, but he has come to thinking that if you really want to stop abortions you encourage birth control in non-Catholics (Catholics are supposed to just abstain, but that’s a religious choice and non-Catholics should just use birth control and risk Hell. I count that as a win :)

        • Joe says:

          Given how things are in Latin America etc., not sure how valuable overturning Roe v. Wade in particular is respecting caring about fetuses, putting aside something like 80% or so of abortions occur before a ‘fetus’ exists.

        • Murc says:

          I think they care about policing women’s sex lives and legal abortions gives them something to harass and harangue women.

          Er… but wouldn’t illegal abortions give them even MORE ways to harass and harangue women?

          Now they can call the cops on the slutty slut sluts, open police investigations, get them thrown in prison. Seems like a huge win to me.

      • Watusie says:

        It is only true if your calculus only assumes anti-choice mobilization is an end unto itself.

        That is exactly my calculus. The purpose of the anti-choice movement is to amass political power that will then be used for all sorts of things unrelated to being “pro-life”. Case in point: IVF. If you believe that person is created at the moment of conception then IVF is a horror show. And it has no SC decision protecting it. So why isn’t the “pro-life” movement getting the governors and legislators it has helped to elected to shut it down in their states?

      • S_noe says:

        I’m with you Murc – just want to optimistically speculate that overturning Roe would be a long-term disaster for the right because it would be incredibly unpopular. Not worth the cost, but a losing proposition – probably – nonetheless.

  8. cpinva says:

    my guess is that the very same people who oppose Roe, also oppose desegregation, and anti-discrimination laws, and they’re very concentrated in one geographical area of the country.

  9. vee says:

    I’ve heard a contention that Roe is not a particularly strong case and so overturning it would/could eventually lead to a more robust opinion.

    it sort of reeks of the ‘destroy the village in order to save it’ mentality but I am curious if that is a reasonable description of Roe

    • Lyanna says:

      No.

      (1) Roe is not much worse than many longstanding judicial opinions, in terms of sheer legal reasoning. It follows pretty logically from Griswold, Eisenstadt, and a couple of other cases I’m forgetting and too lazy to look up.

      (2) Once overturned, do you realize how long that “eventually” would be? The Supreme Court would have to receive, and decide to take, another case on the same issue. It could be years.

      (3) You are assuming that the overturning of Roe will not include a judgment that allowing abortion is unconstitutional. If that happens, not only will we lose abortion as a constitutional right, but it will start becoming entrenched in precedent as an unconstitutional wrong. In that case, it’ll become even harder to follow it up with a robust pro-choice opinion.

    • rea says:

      I’ve heard a contention that Roe is not a particularly strong case

      That’s a myth, put about by people who want to claim that we have only those rights explicitly granted in the Constitution. It doesn’t work that way.

      • Craigo says:

        If someone wants to argue that the framework is arbitrary, I’ll agree. So would Harry Blackmun. But pr-lifers and concern trolls confuse the very real disagreement the Justices had over that issue with the right to privacy, which is usually put in scare quotes as if the Sixth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments don’t exist.

      • Joe says:

        I don’t know. Said people repeatedly focus on “rights” or limits not really explicitly there (e.g., some “right” not to buy health insurance w/o paying something while free riding).

        They just selectively call attention to this for some such reason.

    • Joe says:

      I have heard this too though often from people who don’t seem to have actually read Roe. The opinion is overall pretty strong. I think the opinion could have done more to clarify the constitutional right to privacy but the concurrences helped there. On that front, Planned Parenthood v. Casey might have done a better job. But, as Scott notes, the general public are not consistently a big stickler as to legal reasoning. They care more about results.

  10. Crackity Jones says:

    Speaking of bad decisions, I think many conservatives would love a digital Lochner. A far worse and far more damaging decision. The judicial coup Bush v Gore? That was just baldfaced chicanery. Slaughter house cases and their egregious misreading of the 14th amendment? I can think of dozens upon dozens of cases worse than Roe. Thanks for this post.

    Speaking of getting more conservative as you age-I don’t know what’s up with my mother anymore. She’s a Mass native, was a bona fide JFK worshipper, registered Democrat all her voting life, and last election cycle she told me she liked Rick Santorum. Rupert, what have you done to my mother??

    • Chuchundra says:

      My mother-in-law is on that same glide path. She constantly e-mails my wife all manner of right-wing conspiracy nonsense and I have to hear about it from my wife on a regular basis.

      A guy I’ve freelance work for for nearly 20 years has undergone a pretty horrifying transformation and he’s only ten or so years older than me. Back in the 90′s he was a pretty big Clinton fan and left-center Democrat, now all he posts on his Facebook page are screeds from various Tea Party pages.

      It’s something I worry about from time to time. We used to call it “the brain eater” back in my Usenet days.

      • Clinton fans seem particularly susceptible to this. I work with a number of people who were big fans of Clinton but find the Democrats too “tax-and-spend” in general and support Republicans otherwise.

        To be fair, in NY you can usually find some relatively moderate Republicans somewhere, but they’re rather few and far between federally these days.

        • DrDick says:

          Clinton really was in many ways an old school moderate Republican.

          • Murc says:

            As I’m sure many here remember, it used to be a fairly common joke about Clinton among Democrats to describe him as “The best Republican President of the past half-century.”

    • Jeremy says:

      My own mother is a lifetime Republican (the whole family is), and she’s become progressively more liberal over the past decade. Part because of health-care (she’s always supported reform), and part because of Mitch Daniels and the douchebag Superintendent of Public Schools trying to ruin her life.

  11. It is interesting to see how the rest of the world treats this issue. Unsurprisingly the places with the harshest restrictions are mostly places I wouldn’t particularly care to live in. Why do anti-choice proponents want the US to be more like Saudi Arabia? The question answers itself!

  12. Crackity Jones says:

    I don’t know how people figure Marbury is illegitimate. Couldn’t the Congress have modified the Judiciary Act or something if they disagreed with it?

    Also, judicial supremacy is a dangerous doctrine. Although when there are Insane members of Congress, dumber than your average pile of dogshit, and executives like Pretend President Bush, maybe it’s not a bad thing.

    • Murc says:

      Also, judicial supremacy is a dangerous doctrine.

      It’s also a necessary condition of living in a constitutional system.

      Legislative supremacy is a perfectly cromulent way of doing things, of course. But if you’re going to have a governing document that binds the hands of the legislature, you need an independent third party with the power to adjudicate it. The obvious place to vest that power is in the judiciary.

      Without judicial review (which is what I think you mean when you say judicial supremacy), anything that a majority of Congress says is constitutional, is constitutional, because they’re the ones in charge of interpreting the constitutionality of their own laws. At that point, why even have one?

      • Jon says:

        Not exactly. You can have judicial review without judicial supremacy. This is pretty much exactly what happens with statutes. If Congress doesn’t like the interpretation of a statute, it changes the statute. So, in that realm, there is judicial review and legislative supremacy.

        Anyway, if you believe the Warren Court was the norm, everything sounds great. If you realize it was a total anomaly and that in general the court is a totally regressive institution, then not so much.

        Is the UK less “free”?

        • John says:

          Then your problem isn’t Marbury, it’s Article V.

        • L2P says:

          You can have judicial review without judicial supremacy.

          Yes, we call those people “law professors.” Sometimes “conservative radio personalities.”

          If your judiciary doesn’t have the power to conclusively interpret the constitution, it’s review function is meaningless. If Justice Warren says, “Oh, BTW, Alabama, segregated schools are unconstitutional. Just FYI,” it literally doesn’t matter. Alabama keeps on putting black kids in crappy schools.

      • Jon says:

        P.S. You said above, mostly correctly, that procedural legitimacy is important. In countries without a Supreme Court escape hatch, voters are conditioned to remove representatives that enact laws they don’t like through shady means. Here, laws are passed with full intention of them being struck down for show.

        In many countries, a “constitutional” change like this can break governments if it’s not popular and *that* is the procedural check.

        In this country we have gone too far with process. 60 senators having to vote for months and months to get a law enacted, and then have it reviewed by 9 unelected poobahs for years is simply a number of minority veto points—there is nothing democratic about it nor anything that makes us necessarily “freer.” The UK still has the NHS despite decades of Tory rule—and it’s not because they didn’t have the desire or the power. They just knew that they would get thrown out of power and have it put back.

        This is also why Atrios is right that the Dems should quit fixing all the messes so the GOP can fuck shit up again later. They should put sticky policies in and get their agenda done.

        • Murc says:

          The UK still has the NHS despite decades of Tory rule—and it’s not because they didn’t have the desire or the power. They just knew that they would get thrown out of power and have it put back.

          Yup.

          There are a number of perfectly good ways to have a functional or semi-functional democracy. Canada, for example, has elements from both us and the UK; they’re mostly a Westminster system, but they have a Constitution and judicial review. The Supreme Court of Canada has in fact been very instrumental in policymaking ever since they assumed the rule of being the final arbiter as to what is and isn’t allowed by the Charter.

    • Hogan says:

      Also, judicial supremacy is a dangerous doctrine.

      Anything supremacy is a dangerous doctrine. At least the Supremes can only choose to rule on the issues that someone else brings to them.

      • Scott Lemieux says:

        I have a paper arguing that, in fact, there’s no judicial supremacy in the United States in any meaningful sense.

        • Manta says:

          Would you have written the same paper had the Supreme Court struck down Obamacare?

        • L2P says:

          That “meaningful sense” must carry a lot of weight in your argument; otherwise, Nixon’s ghost (among others) would really like to have a word with you.

          I think a lot of people tend towards the “in the long run, the judiciary can’t interpret the constitution contrary to majority opinion” view. I know many people who subscribe to the “court must conserve its political capital” theory.

          But the “no meaningful judicial supremacy” theory is definitely a new one to me. That must turn some heads.

          • Scott Lemieux says:

            Nixon’s ghost (among others) would really like to have a word with you.

            The Supreme Court’s position in the Nixon Tapes case had far more political support than Nixon’s did. Nixon resigned because the Senate had the votes to convict him, not because of the Supreme Court. Same with Bush v. Gore — anyone who was in a position to actually defy the Supreme Court strongly supported the decision, so it doesn’t actually prove anything. As for Cooper v. Aaron, there was basically no desegregation until Congress intervened.

            • Manta says:

              How is this kind of argument compatible with the post we are commenting on the importance of Roe vs Wade?
              The argument would seem to imply that, even if the composition of the SC changed, the right to abortion would remain because it has widespread support.

              • Scott Lemieux says:

                the right to abortion would remain because it has widespread support.

                If the United States was a unitary state governed by referenda, I suppose this might be true.

                • Manta says:

                  What I am trying to say is that it’s difficult to reconcile the following 2 positions:
                  1) Abortion is legal in US thanks to the SC decision: without it, the legislature would not have made it legal
                  2) “there is no judiciary supremacy in the US in any meaningful sense”.

                  Making abortion legal against the will of the legislature seems to me a pretty compelling case of judiciary supremacy.

                • Scott Lemieux says:

                  So does the presidential veto mean that we have presidential supremacy?

                  The other problem is that there’s no single “legislature” in questions here. The political support for abortion rights means that abortion would remain legal in some states, and it would be difficult for Congress to pass a national abortion ban. But there are certainly a significant number of states that would have banned abortion without Roe. This doesn’t mean that the judiciary is the sole branch that can interpret the constitution, though; it means that in our system you need the agreement of a lot of veto points. If the courts think something is constitutional but the president doesn’t the president’s view (if expressed in a veto) prevails.

                • Manta says:

                  “If the courts think something is constitutional but the president doesn’t the president’s view (if expressed in a veto) prevails.”

                  Please explain how the president (or congress, for that matter) can make abortion illegal, then (save than by changing the composition of the SC).

  13. Sly says:

    6. Roe v Wade caused evangelicals to join the conservative movement.

    Major evangelical organizations were either mute about the decision in 1973, or, in cases such as the Southern Baptist Convention (then and now the largest organization of evangelical churches in the United States), praised the decision. Jimmy Carter, who was vocally supportive of legal abortion, won a majority of evangelicals in 1976 only to lose them in 1980.

    The court decision that prompted evangelicals to become politically active, if there was one, was Green v. Connally, a little known 1972 opinion out of the District Court of D.C. that permitted the IRS, under the Civil Rights Act, to deny tax exempt status to any private charity that maintained a policy of segregation.

    For a variety of reasons, the decision greatly irked evangelicals. A lot of them were hard-line segregationists, but even those who weren’t had been profiting off the mass turn to private religious schools in the South as an alternative to public schools in the wake of Brown. The potential loss of this golden goose neatly justified protesting the decision based on the conceit of Federal overreach. The protests grew greater when the IRS announced to Bob Jones University in 1975 that its tax status was revoked, but evangelical leaders never connected it to a broader political movement and, being Southern Democrats, supported Carter.

    Enter Paul Weyrich in the late seventies, who recruited James Dobson and Jerry Falwell to blame Carter for the policy change at the IRS. Weyrich had been desperate to engage the evangelical community over issues like school prayer and abortion, and had tried for more than a decade, but was never successful until the issue of tax exemption popped up. Though they lost the tax fight, and despite the fact that Carter hadn’t even been President yet when the fight began, evangelicals bolted from Carter in 1980 and backed Reagan. High off their new-found political influence, evangelical leaders began looking for other issues on which they could flex their muscle, and Weyrich already had a list ready.

    • Malaclypse says:

      This can’t be said enough. I spent my childhood being “educated” in a fundie school. Pretty much every year, one English assignment was writing our congressperson in defense of Bob Jones. I didn’t hear much about abortion until late middle school.

    • Sly says:

      Which inexorably leads to:

      7. The Pro-Life movement is the new Abolitionist Movement.

      The myth status of this contention, per the above, should be self-evident.

    • This is what I just read in Max Blumenthal’s “Republican Gomorrah.” It’s a pretty scathing look at who are the biggest grifters on the Evangelical side.

  14. Crackity Jones says:

    I’m on my phone so no option to respond to Murc at 1:27. I generally agree, I would just like to emphasize that this is not uncontroversial, and in fact I don’t believe it was considered “the” way (not sure how to phrase that) until the 1960s.

  15. bradP says:

    Unfortunately, I think the importance gap the fifth chart down shows might be the most telling. Those who see it as a critical issue typically want to overturn, those who don’t see it as a critical issue don’t want it overturned.

    Also interesting is how both for both 18% of both men and women consider it an important issue.

  16. S_noe says:

    I don’t want to write off voter enthusiasm in all cases. But here we are talking about a minority who place this at or near the top of their list of issues. Think of birthers as an analogy – their position is unpopular, but for those who believe, this is issue #1. If they were within spitting distance of winning, the polling would be different.

  17. [...] Five myths and five things you may not know about Roe. [...]

  18. [...] Five myths about Roe v. Wade debunked. [...]

  19. ironic irony says:

    I hate Hyde with a passion. That is all.

  20. Tofu says:

    So…the entire Constitutional issue is handwaved away with an invocation of the ad hominem fallacy? Awesome argument.

    And boy, just look at the rest of the comments section, teeming with people certain that people who think differently than them have the sinister motive of controlling women. Which is roughly on par with rabid pro-lifers who say that all of you just hate babies.

    I’m sure life is much simpler when you can assume the worst about people with different beliefs. Just don’t mistake it for thoughtful analysis.

    • The Dark Avenger says:

      I judge the “Pro-lifers” by their actions, and putting the wombs of Amurican women under state control is, of course, an example of conservatives fighting for FREEDOM!

      • Tofu says:

        If you happen to think those wombs contain people, then yeah, it kinda is. Way to assume the thing being disputed, guy.

        Either way, you really haven’t responded meaningfully to anything in that comment. Perhaps you judge them by their actions. The point is that lots of others here apparently don’t: they’re quite comfortable assuming that people who think differently are being entirely disingenuous about their motives. To say this is a psychologically convenient way to approach difficult issues is an understatement. It shows an unwillingness or an inability to grapple with the complexities of the problem.

        • The Dark Avenger says:

          Their actions, as in the case of making women go through a vaginal ultrasound before getting an abortion, is to make it more difficult, and to discourage them from having autonomy over their own body.

          If you happen to think those wombs contain people, then yeah, it kinda is. Way to assume the thing being disputed, guy.

          But, they don’t assume that those wombs contain people to the point where they’ll prosecute anyone killing them as murderers. This inconsistency is why they shouldn’t be taken seriously.

    • Scott Lemieux says:

      So…the entire Constitutional issue is handwaved away with an invocation of the ad hominem fallacy?

      I’m afraid like 99% of the people who use the phrase, you apparently don’t understand what an “ad hominem” argument is.

    • sharculese says:

      And boy, just look at the rest of the comments section, teeming with people certain that people who think differently than them have the sinister motive of controlling women. Which is roughly on par with rabid pro-lifers who say that all of you just hate babies.

      Your concern has been duly noted.

  21. Tofu says:

    It’s Latin for “at the man.” It refers to making an argument about someone’s motives or consistency, rather than the substance of their position. And the second “myth” response that begins with “Show me a Republican congressman who advocates…” is a clear example of it. I’m not sure what part of this is supposed to be arguable.

    • Scott Lemieux says:

      It’s Latin for “at the man.”

      Gee, thanks!

      And the second “myth” response that begins with “Show me a Republican congressman who advocates…” is a clear example of it.

      No, it’s isn’t. “Overturning Roe would leave the issue to the states” is an empirical claim. The actual behavior of the officeholders falsifies the claim — these officeholders do not think that abortion is beyond the reach of Congress and will not refrain from passing any federal restrictions they can. I’m judging them on their public actions, not their motivations. (And pointing out the inconsistency of a substantive claim is not, in fact, an ad hominem. This isn’t in fact arguable.)

      • Tofu says:

        Gee, thanks!

        If you’re going to be condescending, then I’m going to be pedantically thorough, to ward off future condescension.

        No, it’s isn’t. “Overturning Roe would leave the issue to the states” is an empirical claim. The actual behavior of the officeholders falsifies the claim — these officeholders do not think that abortion is beyond the reach of Congress and will not refrain from passing any federal restrictions they can. I’m judging them on their public actions, not their motivations. (And pointing out the inconsistency of a substantive claim is not, in fact, an ad hominem. This isn’t in fact arguable.)

        No, it doesn’t, because their actions exist in response to Roe. You can’t warp that battle into an alternate universe where Roe doesn’t exist and make a counterfactual out of it.

        • Scott Lemieux says:

          You can’t warp that battle into an alternate universe where Roe doesn’t exist and make a counterfactual out of it.

          Given the history of “federalism” in the United States (not to mention that nothing in Roe distinguishes between federal and state power) I think you pretty safely can. At a minimum, anybody who would take the word of a politician who claims that they would stop supporting federal abortion regulation if Roe was overruled probably sends about 5 money orders a day to emailers claiming to represent the Nigerian government,

          • Tofu says:

            But you were debunking the notion that overturning Roe would return it to the states, not the notion that some politicians would still try to control it on a federal level. So you’re positing a world where Roe is struck down on federalist grounds…but national abortion restrictions aren’t, for the same reason? Huh?

            • Scott Lemieux says:

              But you were debunking the notion that overturning Roe would return it to the states

              Indeed I was. Absolutely nothing about either the contemporary Republican Party or American political history generally suggests that this would be the case.

              . So you’re positing a world where Roe is struck down on federalist grounds but national abortion restrictions aren’t, for the same reason?

              ? I am, in fact, quite confident that Roe would not be overruled on “federalist grounds.” It would be based on 5/14th Amendment law that applies to the states and federal government alike. I’m also very confident that no member of the Supreme Court with the possible exception of Thomas would vote to strike a federal abortion regulation on federalist grounds (and when Thomas had the chance, he declined.)

              • sharculese says:

                (and when Thomas had the chance, he declined.)

                This. Tofu’s argument only makes sense if he’s communicating with us from the alternate universe where Carhart II didn’t happen.

                • brewst says:

                  Indeed I was. Absolutely nothing about either the contemporary Republican Party or American political history generally suggests that this would be the case.

                  This is a weird thing to say. The “contemporary Republican Party” is-as was pointed out above-operating in a post-Roe world. It’s fighting abortion in the manner which is available to it. You suggested it would be gullible to “take the word” of a politician who says this, but that’s not the question. You’re advocating the opposite: that we can “debunk” this idea by explicitly assuming the worst. That’s not any better.

                • Scott Lemieux says:

                  This is a weird thing to say. The “contemporary Republican Party” is-as was pointed out above-operating in a post-Roe world. It’s fighting abortion in the manner which is available to it.

                  This is just a massive non-sequitur. Nothing about Roe or Casey prevents Republicans from limiting abortion regulations to the state level.

                  that we can “debunk” this idea by explicitly assuming the worst.

                  It’s not “assuming the worst”; it’s “assuming the blindingly obvious.” Are you seriously arguing that, say, Republicans would act to repeal the federal “partial-birth” abortion ban after Roe is overturned? What possible basis could you have for that assumption?

  22. [...] Republicans Give Blacks the Finger on MLK Day Root of all evil? Seneca, Selma, and Stonewall 5 Myths About Roe v. Wade GOP Governors Deny The Poor Health Care In Opposing Obamacare’s Medicaid Expansion Share [...]

Leave a Reply




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.

  • Switch to our mobile site