Roe: Which Is Worse, Death By A Thousand Cuts Or

[cali]

overturning it? I've been wrestling with this for a while, and I tend to think the first option is even worse than the second. It's a hobbsian choice, but it's much more difficult to motivate people over something that's complex. Roe is more endangered by the prospect of limitation of its scope, than by the overturning of Roe. The former has been happening since 1992 and the pace of gutting Roe is increasing. For this reason I'm glad about the SD and MS legislation. We can demonstrate to people that the wingnuts are pushing draconian laws that lack all compassion.

[bryant69]

1. I don't know

It certainly ramps up the issue, and I don't know how I feel about that. This will be win or lose crunch time - Liberals and Conservatoids slamming into each other as if their lives depended on it. We think things have been ugly before, wait until every Republican starts calling us "Baby-Killers." On the other hand you might be right - this is a fever, and it might be for the best to burn it out as quickly as possible, rather than let it corrupt our system piece by piece.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[HereSince1628]

2. That was a topic on yesterday's Talk of the Nation the bloviators

from both sides were saying that any action motivates the opposition more than the supporters.

Personally, it seems to be like advocating a rally to call for closing the barn door after the horses are out.

Stripping people of Constitutional protections to rally support could only be seen as a great opportunity by political consultants.