Calling all Democrats: it's Roe v. Wade, stupid!

***To NARAL staff member: contact me at timsw at uchicago dot edu***

First of all, right this minute, go contribute $25 to NARAL Pro-Choice America. Just do it. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Out of all of the Democratic Party's constituencies, the pro-choice organizations are the only ones who know what they're doing right now. Bush's team chose made such an incredibly brilliant choice of nominee that the top liberal organizations have been scrambling, with remarkably little success, to figure out what the hell he's all about.

Many Democratic politicians seem incapable of actually talking about reproductive rights or about Roe v. Wade, or to say in public the simple fact that 65 percent of Americans are in favor of keeping Roe. They're desperately trying to find some other reason to oppose Roberts, but the pro-choice lobby knows what's at stake. There really is no other reason to oppose Roberts. He has very little paper trail, on the abortion issue or on anything else, but here's a clue: his wife is "deeply involved in the antiabortion movement."

The New York Times talked to one of the other people Bush apparently interviewed for the job, and they make it sound like Bush basically picked him cause he's a swell guy. But the conservatives seem pretty sure they know his politics. Check out JudgeRoberts.com, a website where you can view a new right-wing TV commercial now hitting the airwaves. It proclaims Judge Roberts to be an honest man, top in his Harvard Law class, who deserves a fair hearing. The website was created by a right-wing 501(c)(4) organization called Progress for America, which according to an email I received from the Feminist Majority, has already raised $18 million just to campaign for the confirmation of Bush's Supreme Court nominees. (Did PFA buy the domain names for all of the 11 candidates Bush that were supposedly on Bush's short list?)

For those who "want to know more," PFA has created an ever-so-slightly-higher-brow website, UporDownVote.com. Play Senator - browse Judge Roberts' "resume." Things like that. In dramatic contrast, the liberal Alliance for Justice has only a fairly mealy-mouthed statement on its specialized website SupremeCourtWatch.org:

At this time, Alliance for Justice cannot support Judge Roberts’ elevation to the Supreme Court. While we will be conducting a complete analysis of his record on and off the bench, an initial review has led to serious concerns about whether he will be fair, independent and will protect the rights and freedoms of all Americans.

In a sidebar, AFJ says something slightly more interesting (and, I think, right on the money):

The radical right groups screaming about fulfilling promises and not engaging in consultation are pleased with the outcome--Sekulow has replaced his “don’t consult” petition with a “support Roberts” petition. What do these groups and the White House know about Roberts’ record that we don’t? That’s a question Roberts and the White House must answer. They must be transparent and fully answer questions. We all have a right to know before putting Roberts on the Supreme Court.

You can download a "podcast" for "an in-depth discussion of these issues."

The Toronto Globe and Mail had a lead paragraph that's pretty devastating:

WASHINGTON -- With richly stocked war chests and massive media campaigns planned, the public battle over the U.S. Supreme Court nomination of John Roberts was brewing yesterday, even as it became evident that Judge Roberts may face robust scrutiny but no real opposition in confirmation hearings.

Christian conservatives expressed hope that the conservative judge would help bring about an end to the "killing" of millions of "pre-borns," a source of bitter controversy since the Supreme Court affirmed a woman's right to abortion in 1973.

Senator Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the Senate's judiciary committee, said confirmation hearings "will be full, fair and complete." They may also be anti-climactic.

While some environmentalists worry over an apparently flip reference to an endangered toad in one of the judge's opinions, wags noted his hard-hearted backing of police who busted a teenager eating French fries on the Washington Metro, whereas the woman he is likely to replace on the Supreme Court voiced regret that U.S. President George W. Bush selected a man.

But everybody knows what this is really about. The pro-choice organizations certainly do. At a panel discussion during a "Counter-Inaugural" held at the University of Chicago on January 20th, George Chauncey said he thought unfortunately that it might possible take the rollback of reproductive rights to generate the next major electoral realignment in this country. Melissa Harris-Lacewell, a political scientist, responded by saying that in her view of political transformation, "more oppression" doesn't necessarily lead to "more activism." Thoughts?

(If you want to be additionally creeped out - and I do this periodically in order to see what we're up against with these religious right folks - check out the Family Research Council website. Then go give money.