I'm gonna say some pretty inflammatory stuff here, sorry. I want to preface things by saying that I care deeply about the abortion issue, and have taken personal steps in my own life to ensure that no woman I am involved with will have to deal with it.

Prior to the 2004 election, Ginsberg gave an interview to NPR in which she said that the only reason she didn't retire was to preserve the majority on Roe v Wade. She implied that she would retire if a Democrat were elected. If Rehnquist kicks th bucket, Bush will appoint another right-wing troll, thus killing in the majority on R -v- W permanantly, and Ginsberg will prolly retire as well, which will give Bush another seat to fill.

So we have to think about R v W as a ruling that will likely be overturned. I've been considering this in my head since the little weasel was elected the first time. We'll need a constitutional amendment to get past the SCOTUS, making the abortion debate national and vigorous. It will also have to codify the implied protections of the 4th and 14th amendment as applying to the imaginary "right to privacy." I say imaginary since the constituion only obliquely mentions a right to privacy in any form in the term "domestic tranquility," or people living secure and safe in their homes. The current "right" to privacy is seen as a shadowy extension of the current constitutional amendments. If you disagreed with something, would you want the law using the "Shadow" of an existing law to cover the issue? As long as we had this sort of judicial ruling relying on "penumbras" of various amendments to preserve privacy, then abortion rights, (and privacy rights in general,) are unstable. They hang by a thread and are subject to the whim of whatever administration is in power. If the Bush appointees all turn "O'Connor" and act according to their conscience instead of their record, then this issue may stall again. But what good would that do? We'd still have status quo, with half the country out for blood on the "abortion holocaust." Compare this to say, the right to assemble or free speech, which are pretty much solid and immobile in the public mind. The Brennan Court denied the nation a vigorous debate on abortion, which should have happened in legislature and in the public eye, and now both sides feel like the other is somehow cheating on the issue. (Right wingers feel that activist judges have legislated from the bench, and Left wingers feel that activist groups are trying to take away a fundamental right.) We've just stalled a debate that divides the country and needs to be resolved, and now it's going to have to come home to roost.

I didn't think that was inflammatory--well-thought out, made a lot of sense. From the legal standpoint I think things are going to happen pretty much exactly as you say. My deep hope is that everyone can step back and examine why women get pregnant when they don't want to rather than this scream of "abortion is murder" and "abortion is a choice." If we could all examine as a society the CAUSE of abortion and attack that with the same viciousness and monetary resources that we've attacked this "is it right or wrong" debate, we may make headway in education, contraception, increased self-esteem, all those things that make girls have sex before they are ready to, or without protection. (As a side note, they've proven over and over again that the better our economy is, the less abortions there are. If a woman/family feels financially secure, they are more likely to opt to keep the baby.) I agree with what Bill Clinton said. Abortion should be safe, legal and rare.

But the Supreme Court thing bothers me not only about RvW but also about the environment, other privacy issues and a host of other issues. I am pretty rabidly anti-death penalty, but I lose hope of that ever being outlawed now with Texas frying and injecting people every other Thursday. (And how someone can be pro-life and pro-death penalty has never ceased to make my jaw drop.)

Okay, done rambling now. :-)

Not rambling, nice reply.

Completely off topic -- in my husband's undergrad thesis, he typo'd Rehnquist's name as "rankist". Tee hee hee.

That made me giggle. I can see how someone could make that slip. :-)