Pro-choice v. pro-life map (SUSA poll)

[angus]

Interesting.  Which goes to support what I've been saying all along.  You needn't get bent out of shape over Roe being overturned.  The map we see here suggests at most 14 of the US states have legislatures which would likely criminalize termination of pregnancy under all circumstances.  So if you're in one of the other 36 states, and you're keen on keeping the procedure available, the prospect of an overturn shouldn't really matter.  Now, of course if you're in one of those 14, especially if you're smack-dab in the middle of that huge blue area centered on Starkville, then it might be disconcerting.  Don't knock anybody up, Harry, unless you're ready for a 300 mile drive in any direction in order to get it taken care of.  Of course, if you are hardcore pro-life, you clearly have your campaign work cut out for you.  Start working on South Dakota.  They seem rather ambivalent about it all.

[angus]

Support for Roe DOES NOT EQUAL support for abortion. Most believe that eliminating Roe ends abortion (both sides seem to believe this for some reason).

an excellent point.  one that I try to make often.  You see, there are two ways to divide people on this debate.  One is the classic Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice (with apologies to rice owl, who makes an excellent point, but I don't want to sprinkle my post with subtle but important complexities at the moment).  The other way, the way that lawyers, and smart posters like Emsworth and Richius, and even congresspeople when they're talking among themselves and not to sound-bite hungry journalists is Federal rule versus State rule.  And I agree with Jake's tacit position that it would make more sense to take the issue out of the hot, emotionally charged We promote the culture of the Sanctity of Life versus Git yer laws offa my uterus fascist pig arena.  And put it into the more sophisticated arena of those who think.  In this view, it is simply a matter of sovereignty.  An overturn of Roe verus wade does not make abortion illegal.  (Democrats often omit this important fact when talking to the great unwashed masses)  And upholding Roe doesn't mean you'll ever be able to get an abortion in a state like MS.  (Republicans often omit this important fact when talking to the great unwashed masses.)  But it's true.  Many of those blue states are states in which you cannot now have the procedure performed.  This would not change with an overturn.  Many of those red states are states in which you can get the procedure performed now, and will still be able to have the procedure performed in case of an overturn.  I have never let a candidate's position on abortion affect my vote.  I personally think it should be legal in all cases, but have voted for all sorts of candidates depending on their positions on issues which I do find important.  But I recognize some voters do vote on this issue.  And jfern correctly points out that most single issue abortion voters are decidedly anti-abortion.  he misconstrues its practical manifestation, however.  And it's important to keep this in mind.  No one among us can say which of these states would immediately outlaw the procedure.  Admittedly my number was lowballing, and opebo's was highballing, and both of us have a habit of using hyperbole to make a point anyway.  Still, keep in perspective Jake's excellent reminder that the overturn doesn't mean outlawing the procedure.  It then becomes incumbent on the debaters to think long and hard about federalism, and the role of the federal government vis-a-vis the various legislatures.  Framing the debate in these terms not only more accurately describes the real debate among legal scholars, but also helps avoid (but not alleviate) emotionally charged confrontations from which everyone will emerge angry and less likely to hear the other's side.

[angus]

I think you are drastically underestimating the effect of a loss of a basic constitutional right would have on the country.

possibly.  but it is equally possible that you are drastically overestimating one.  some would even go so far as to suggest that you are completely ignoring one:  the right to be born.  Which again just goes to show we need to move the debate out of this prochoice vs prolife arena and back into the legal arena.  Let's argue over whether the constitution says it's a basic right.  There's a pretty good case to be made that it is, but there's an equally good case to be made that the matter is left, by the framers, up to the states.  I think any supreme court revisit of Roe will rest on those terms. 

Still, I recognize that's not the point of this thread.  This is merely a presentation of polling data.  So a comment on topic:  none of it is surprising.  In Elazar's political culture terms, most of the traditionalist area is blue, most of the individualistic and moralistic areas are red.  If you take a look at Elazar's model, the result is easily explained.  There are fringes, of course, where two cultures meet.  e.g., Is Texas more Cowboy or more Southerner?  There's a long standing debate between Al and M about this.  The data herein would suggest Al is correct.  Individualism trumps Traditionalism in the lone star state, for example.  Utah is an anomaly.  Very cowboy, and thus very individualistic.  But on this issue the prevalence of Mormon culture trumps cowboy culture.  SD is also kind of strange.  And Virginia?  Well, the influx of New Englanders and folks from the middle atlantic and upper midwest to the DC metro area has occurred since Elazar first published the model.  Makes perfect sense to me.  The model isn't perfect, but goes a long way toward explaining most intranational political trends, including this one.

[angus]

I'm really not the one to argue with you.  I happen to agree that we're better off allowing abortions in all cases.  But I think you are mistaken if you think it won't ever come up again.  And when it does, in an appellate court, or the supreme court, because some legislature decides to restrict the procedure, it will be argued, at least in part, based on the Bill of Rights, which can be argued to show it's not a federal matter.

If the US supreme court agreed with what you typed about precedent then Plessy v Fergusson would still be law.  You know better than this opebo.