From a mail list I subscribe to:

If a Republican is elected President in November '08, Roe v Wade is a dead fetus walking.

Of course, I think that Roe should be reversed simply because it was such an atrocious opinion, independently of my opinion on abortion. People should also understand that a reversal wouldn't outlaw abortions, per se. It would simply restore the issue back to the states, and the political process, where it always belonged.

Just the same tired old shibboleth the Dems trot out whenever they don't really have anything to say. It ranks alongside "Soak the rich" as something for the troops to mouth until they get a real issue.

It would simply restore the issue back to the states, and the political process, where it always belonged.

Rand,
stating the correct way for abortion to be handled, and making sense are not allowed once Roe v Wade is mentioned.

With respect to state elections, a reversal of Roe v Wade would be very very good for a large number of state Democratic parties and very bad for a smaller number of state Democratic parties.

But Rand has a good point on the federalism issue (in theory) and the firestorm that reversal would cause would make terrific political theater.

Reversing RvW would mobilize Democratic Party like nothing else. It would also put at least some of Republican Party base to sleep -- "We won. I need not pay attention any more." The subsequent election would see huge Democratic gains. OTOH, as long as RvW stands, Republican leadership can use it as goad to mobilize its base.

I am certain some Democratic strategists are secretly praying for Supreme Court to overturn RvW, and equally certain some Republican ones are praying for the opposite.

You are making the assumption that RvW would be overturned in a states-rights manner. However, the most recent major abortion ruling upheld a federally-imposed restriction on abortion, the so-called "partial-birth" abortion ban. Given other rulings by Scalia and Thomas, and the very pro-executive branch bent of Roberts and Alito, there are no guarantees that a more conservative court would not go for a de facto federal ban.

It's not 1973 any more.

You are making the assumption that RvW would be overturned in a states-rights manner.

That is the only way that Roe could be overturned, by definition, since it was Roe that took it away from the states. Upholding a federal ban on abortion would be an entirely different decision. It is possible to support one, and oppose the other (which is my position, in fact).

Uh, Roe took the power to regulate early abortions away from the state and, implicitly, the federal government. If 14th amendment protections are lifted for pregnant women, they will have constitutional cover from neither level. (see Gonzales v. Raich, the medical marijuana case).