I have to disagree…
I have to disagree with ANONY’s claim that:
<blockquote><p>Actually, the essence of the conservative argument against Roe claims that the issue will be return to the political process.</p></blockquote>
<p>The essence of many vocal abortion opponents’ (who claim, at least, to be conservatives) is that Roe legalized what they consider to be murder, on a massive scale. The groups who advocate <em>amending the Constitution</em> to enforce an anti-abortion position on all states are certainly <em>not</em> mainly interested in federalism or in keeping the abortion debate within the legislature. (Of course, a Constitutional amendment has to pass various legislative bodies, but the point of the amendment is to <em>remove</em> the issue from the usual deliberations of legislatures as well as from courts.) (If they complain about “judicial tyranny” or an overweening federal governments, that is no different from when Confederates started crying state sovereignty after cheering Dredd Scott and the Fugitive Slave Act a decade before.)</p>
<p>Of course, there <em>are</em> some whose arguments are consistently focused on federalism and the separation of powers.</p>
<p>I also fear there is also a certain lack of imagination involved when ANONY asks:</p>
<blockquote><p>Why liberals are afraid of making their case is beyond me.</p></blockquote>
<p>I think that in many ways it’s regrettable that Roe is the court decision that we pro-choicers are stuck with defending; and the nationwide scope of the decision had very unfortunate side effects, insofar as it turned the burgeoning feminist movement away from local activism and enmired them in the federal bureaucracy. Nevertheless, the answer to this quandry is not at all difficult: the immediate effect of devolving abortion to the state legislatures would be an immediate wave of abortion bans in something like half the states in the country, at least. It might be better, in the long run, for pro-choice organizers to have to get on the ball and win the battle state by state. But women who need an abortion–by definition–<em>don’t have time to wait</em> for the long run. Their body is imperiled <em>now</em>, and if you believe (as you do, if you are pro-choice) that the right to abortion is entailed by a woman’s right to control her own body, then you believe that women who live in states where abortion is outlawed would be facing conditions of <em>slavery</em>. Set aside for a moment the question of whether or not this view is correct (although it <em>is</em>); it should, at least, not be hard to see why someone who holds it would think that an overturning of Roe would be a pretty dreadful thing.</p>