Plus the pro-choice number is low because "pro-life" is a misnomer. Some who label themselves that don't want abortion to be illegal.
If you ask people if RvW should be overturned, 60% or more say no.
Posted by dave at September 6, 2005 06:11 PMWell, that won't stop Bush or the future new Supreme Court from trying to gut Roe v Wade or overturning it.
Posted by Judith at September 6, 2005 06:26 PMThat's pretty refreshing to read. I was under the impression that all hope everywhere for everyone about anything is lost.
At least we've got one thing right.
Posted by DukeRevolution at September 6, 2005 06:27 PMI don't know, Judith. The abortion issue, if it stays up in the air forever, is a good rallying cry. And, Limbaugh-educated as they are, any failure to overturn it is the libruls' fault.
I've heard about the whole reli-right flight to Perot back in the days of the Clinton elections (I was too young to know what was going on; all I remember is my aunt doomsdaying about the evils of ATMs and singing the songs of Ross Perot), but they always seem to come back.
Posted by DukeRevolution at September 6, 2005 06:33 PMA technical question ... what happenes if Roe vs Wade gets overturned? Wouldn't the legal determination then default to each of the individual states?
I realize that there are deeper implications - privacy, choice, etc - but there's no way a constitutional amendment to abolish the medical procedure of abortion gets by 2/3 of the states.
Posted by Jim Faith at September 6, 2005 08:30 PMS mrdr s K wth lt f ppl. Tht jst mns w hv mr rprbts thn vr bfr.
[Editor: ignore=off]thanks for that enlightenment Bendito.
Posted by Steve Soto at September 6, 2005 10:27 PMBendito, you are sooooo tiresome.
Posted by Judith at September 7, 2005 03:11 AMBendido, I think your mama's calling you. Better go see what she wants.
Posted by Hank at September 7, 2005 11:07 AM