Wow. A post about abortion.

You probably won't be able to read this article in The Economist, since it's recently been changed to subscribers-only. Luckily, you have me, your faithful blogger, to summarize it for you.

The article presents an idea for Democrats: abandon the political defense of Roe v. Wade. The reasons the writer gives are:

1. The decision has lulled pro-choice forces into a false sense of security, while galvanizing anti-abortion forces, energizing the Republican base in the process.

2. Every Supreme Court judicial confirmation hearing has basically been turned into a referendum on whether the candidate supports upholding Roe, debasing the judiciary and detracting from the importance of other issues.

3. Abortion would likely remain legal in most places even if Roe were overturned, especially in places where abortions are currently easy to get.

4. Roe rests on shaky constitutional ground anyway.

5. A democratic, electoral victory in favor of abortion rights would be more lasting and legitimate than a judicial fiat.

Basically, I find myself persuaded by most of these points (not knowing much about law). Most importantly:

If we, as citizens, really respect our independent judiciary, then why should we have to spend so much political effort and capital trying to ensure that judges make the "right" decisions? Isn't the idea of judges that they make up their own minds?

If we want abortion to be legal, why don't we just fight for a federal law making it legal? Could Roe be acting as a crutch for pro-choice forces, preventing them from drumming up basic grassroots democratic support for abortion rights?

I'm certainly not sure yet that the idea of letting Roe fend for itself is right. But I think it's important to realize that the world will not end if the court decision is overturned; there will still be that good old standby, democracy, to fall back on.

BONUS READING GUIDE:
Culture wars over Narnia? Apparently there are a few people who think that the fact that Narnia was inspired by Christian allegory means that the new Narnia film represents insiduious Christian propaganda (they don't mention whether the presence of fauns and other Greek mythological elements will induce kids to believe in Zeus). Of course, the sort of conservatives who relish any "culture war" that they feel they can win have fought back against the imagined hordes of Narnia-haters. As for me, I tend to agree with those who believe Narnia has a lot less to do with religion than most people think (except for The Last Battle, which was extremely religious and also happened to royally suck).