Another Republican for Roe?

This one could be titled: "Why Republicans Secretly Love Abortion" ... sadly, this article, in my view, is dead-on accurate. Another Republican for Roe?

James Taranto over at the Wall Street Journal has been saying much the same thing for a while. His thesis is that the vast majority of Republican office holders would never really want Roe v. Wade overturned. Having Roe to kick around is a good thing, so the theory goes, because it allows them to pander to pro-lifers while never having to lose those on-the-fence or pro-choice Republicans. This NY Times piece concurs ... in full ...

STOP me if you've heard this one. A pro-life Republican president nominates a Supreme Court justice. The fate of Roe v. Wade, that momentous, muddled law of the land since 1973, hangs in the balance. Despite the best efforts of Democratic senators to force a confession, the elusive nominee remains mum on Roe and rides overwhelming Republican support to confirmation. (A pro-choice group immediately issues a press release that the sky is, in fact, falling.)

But a funny thing happens once the nominee is safely ensconced on the court: instead of sinking Roe, he supports it.

This, of course, is the story line of both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, who allegedly suffered knife wounds in the back from high-court appointees who upheld Roe. There are various theories to explain these instances of Sudden Pro-Choice Syndrome but no clear explanation. It's the darnedest thing, but when it comes to the most sacred cause in the Republican canon, the right to life, Republican presidents somehow find a way to mess up. You'd almost think they were doing it on purpose.

Of course, it's possible that Republican presidents are just really, really bad at picking judges who share their beliefs. But try to imagine a reverse situation in which President Bill Clinton opens up the newspaper to discover that one of his two appointments to the court has voted to overturn the constitutional right to privacy and abortion. There's a reason this is hard to imagine: it borders on the preposterous.

Roe v. Wade is not a fine point of law that busy presidents and their staffs overlook. It is the most visceral, emotional and politically contentious issue the court has decided in the past three decades. If you were president of the United States and truly believed abortion to be a modified form of murder, I suspect you would not only nominate someone who seemed to share your view on this paramount issue, but you'd also make damned sure there was no margin for error.

Yet as more than a few abortion opponents have come to suspect, in the Oval Office the "culture of life" is from time to time trumped by the culture of electability. With abortion rights safeguarded by Roe, and Roe, in turn, safeguarded by the court, a candidate's public opposition to abortion is treated by much of the nation's pro-choice majority as a more or less immaterial wish that's unlikely to be fulfilled. For the millions of highly motivated pro-life voters, however, it's much more: it's a statement of solidarity and a solemn vow to advance their special cause.

This lopsided investment in anti-abortion rhetoric has allowed Presidents Reagan, Bush and Bush to collect the votes of the anti-abortion faithful without paying much of a price among the electorate at large. But imagine what would happen if a Republican president actually honored the promise, explicit or implied, to engineer a court majority to overturn Roe. Republican opposition to abortion rights would no longer be theoretical. And moderate voters, who have learned to discount anti-abortion hypocrisy, would surely exact a high electoral price for the Republicans' new sincerity.

Unless President Bush is cut from truer anti-abortion timber than his two Republican predecessors, my guess is we'll discover down the road that he, too, has appointed at least one pro-Roe justice to the court and that the status quo endures.

In her appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the president's latest Supreme Court nominee, Harriet Miers, will surely dodge, duck, weave and stonewall to avoid revealing her thoughts on Roe. Democrats and pro-choice advocates will suspect she is eager to avoid raising alarms in pro-choice environs. Maybe they'll be right.

But no group will have more cause for suspicion than the anti-abortion stalwarts who make up the backbone of the Republican Party. They've suffered multiple betrayals at the highest level. But they keep putting their faith in Republican presidents just the same. And like that most faith-based character of all, Charlie Brown, many of them still seem to believe that, one of these days, their friend in the White House, like a penitent Lucy, really will let them kick that political football named Roe.

Francis Wilkinson is a communications consultant for corporations and Democratic campaigns.