Roe v. Wade More Than a Scare Tactic

The LA Times reports that, although warnings about protecting Roe v Wade (the Supreme Court decision that gives women the right to choose whether to end a pregnancy or not) are viewed by many as the clucking of Chicken Littles (Chickens Little?), the danger is very real this time around.

This time, Roe vs. Wade really could hang in the balance

If Justices John Paul Stevens, pictured, or Ruth Bader Ginsburg were to be replaced by a staunch conservative, that could tip the majority against abortion rights. The Supreme Court's onetime wide majority in favor of abortion rights has shrunk to one: Justice John Paul Stevens, who is 88. Now the decision's fate may depend on who becomes the next president.

"Clearly, Roe is on the line this time," said Indiana University law professor Dawn Johnsen, a former lawyer for NARAL Pro-Choice America. "It is quite clear they have four votes against it. If the next president appoints one more, the odds are it will be overruled."

Couple that with the story I reported yesterday, that 73% of women in battleground states don't know John McCain's position on abortion rights, and you have a perfect storm that could capsize Roe.

Ironically, there are some former Hillary Clinton supporters who now say they will vote for John McCain, regardless of his stance on choice. Some reason that the Democrats would block McCain's anti-Roe appointments, a truly comical notion. The Democrats couldn't block a kindergarten class from a plate of asparagus.

Others have told me that, if Roe falls, it is up to today's generation of young women to re-wage that fight.

Most assuredly, there are some that fall into that 73%. At least the Times tries to reduce that number a bit.

McCain's website says he "believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned."

Tommy Christopher co-hosts "Unusable Signal",on BlogTalkRadio, Tues through Thurs at 10pm, and Fri, and Sat at 11pm. (Eastern) Click here for the Unusable Signal homepage.