Former Hilary Supporter at GOP Convention?

Last night, I was especially struck by something that took place hours before Sarah Palin took the stage. CNN found a middle-aged woman at the convention who was a former Hilary Clinton supporter eager to learn more about Palin and listen to her speech. Since this was a woman who is traditionally Democrat and pro-choice, the reporter naturally asked her if she was concerned at all about Palin's position on abortion. Her response was that she was not at all worried and her exact words were, "abortion rights are not going to go away." She then pointed out that at every presidential election, the Democrats use the abortion issue to "scare" women into voting for their candidate, insisting that the days of female reproductive rights are numbered with a Republican in the White House. Perhaps that after years as a Democrat herself, she's caught on to something.

I had never thought of it that way before, but then I began putting things into perspective. Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. After eight years of Reagan, four years of the first Bush, and eight years of the neocon goon whose time is almost up, abortion rights are still alive and well. There is no evidence that the Supreme Court is even CLOSE to overturing Roe. Bush's two nominees, despite being solidly conservative, are not so to the extent that the far right, and probably George W. Bush himself, had hoped for. Being staunchly pro-choice myself, I insist the warning thundered by the Democrats that the two newest judges are deadset on ruling against abortion rights is simply unfounded. 

A decision from the past Supreme Court term, also dealing with women's rights, clearly demonstrates this. A female employee at Federal Express sued for gender discrimination. FedEx tried to get the suit thrown out because she had not filled out the proper "charge form" with the EEOC before filing the lawsuit. The reason this happened is that the EEOC gave her the wrong form. This woman thought she was filling out the proper form, when it turns out she was not.

If Bush's two nominees, Justices Roberts and Alito, were as far to the right as some people think, they would jump at any chance to throw out a gender discrimination lawsuit, even on a technicality, since they would not think very highly of employment discrimination laws in the first place. However, only Justices Scalia and Thomas, as you'd reasonably expect, jumped at this chance. Neither Roberts nor Alito joined them in their dissent, and the court ruled 7-2 (coincidentally the same margin the 1973 court decided Roe v Wade) that the woman should not be disqualified from filing her lawsuit because some incompetent EEOC employee screwed up by giving her the wrong form.

Also, even if these two newest judges were as far right as some still claim, that would only mean four votes to overturn Roe v Wade, which is one short of a majority. The Democrats point out that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, probably the strongest supporter of abortion rights on the court, is getting very old and that if she retires within the next four years and is replaced by a pro-life justice, that would give a fifth vote. This idea is comical because again, there are not four sure votes to overturn Roe (only two), and I guarantee you that there is NO WAY Ruth Bader Ginsburg will step down if there is even a chance that her seat would go to a pro-life justice. I guarantee you that the woman would sooner be wheeled into court on a gurney than give her seat to anyone but an abortion rights support her.

Furthermore, even if worse comes to worse (and it won't for precisely the two reasons I've mentioned), people still don't understand what Roe v. Wade even says in the first place. If the case were ever overturned, this would NOT criminalize abortion. A court does not make the law, only interprets it. Overturning Roe would mean that an individual state would be allowed to make the decision whether or not abortion remains legal in that state. So if a woman is faced with an unwanted pregnancy, and abortion is illegal in her state, I guarantee you that she'll have plenty of states to choose from where she could get an abortion legally. Ironically, it would in a way make freedom of choice even more expansive! Again, however no need to worry since Roe v Wade isn't even close to being overturned anyway and will not be no matter who wins the presidential election.

So the argument clearly fails, for at least those three reasons, that electing McCain and Palin will place abortion rights in jeopardy. Nonetheless, the Democrats are still pulling their typical tricks on women just to get the female vote. Thankfully, many women, including some Democrats themselves, just aren't buying it anymore. 

I suppose this teaches us all a valuable lesson: When someone warns you that "the sky is falling," remember to look up and make sure it really is.