For (usually male) Democrats, it's sometimes quite tempting to give up Roe v. Wade for political gain. If abortion were made the province of the states, they think, the Republicans will lose their big national wedge issue and they'll lose the pro-life advantage--plus, the backlash that'll come when abortion suddenly becomes illegal in many states will eventually lead to the relegalization of abortion!

Right?

Wrong.

Yesterday I was preparing to speculate on whether Bush would nominate an obviously anti-abortion judge in order to please his base or a stealth pro-choice judge in order to keep abortion an issue on the national scene. I outlined the short-term and long-term political ramifications of each... and suddenly realized I had misjudged the political calculus.

There are various anecdotes told about family members who would have voted for Kerry if only he were anti-abortion. It doesn't matter that he doesn't like the procedure, wants to reduce its incidence--all that matters is that he wants to keep abortion legal. It's a bit naive to think that removing Roe v. Wade is going to lessen the zeal of these voters. If we shift the matter to a state-by-state issue, then--as with gay marriage--we'll suddenly have the "I just want to reverse Roe v. Wade" line replaced with "I'll only vote for a presidential candidate who supports a Constitutional amendment barring elective abortions." Because if you believe, as some of the most adamant anti-choicers do, that legalized abortion has produced a holocaust, then how would you tolerate it being legal anywhere?

One hundred and forty-seven years ago, the debates between two men running for the same Senate seat focused on the issue of slavery; one year ago, one of the men running for that same Senate seat compared himself to Lincoln when arguing against abortion. And the same words apply:
"A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free."

Will we end up as slaves, or free?