Roe VS Wade revisited

Yesterday I discussed the future of Roe VS Wade and suggested that it might not be in danger. Well Eric Alterman thinks I'm wrong, he thinks Roe VS Wade is gone and he thinks that may not be a bad thing.

...the Roberts nomination seems to mean we should plan on saying goodbye to thirty-two years of life under "Roe," which is not entirely a bad thing, even for pro-choice advocates. After all, Bush did terrific with unmarried women without college educations. It would be helpful, politically (and democratically) for them to learn just what it was they were voting for. There's a much longer argument to be made here, about how judicially-created and enforced liberalism has weakened its cause and alienated its potential supporters while not gaining terribly much in real world terms.

This has already set off a firestorm among the pro-choice people but Alterman makes a couple of good points. The first is that in states that are likely to make abortion illegal it's virtually impossible to get an abortion now. The threats are so great that many doctors are unwilling to perform abortions. In the more enlightened states abortion will continue to be available. The second point he makes is that Roe VS Wade has been a disaster for liberal and progressive causes in general. Let's be honest, the radical flat earth Republicans are in charge today for one reason and one reason alone, Roe VS Wade. We have tax cuts for the rich, the erosion of the new deal, the threat to Social Security, the threat to Science, the bankruptcy bill and the debacle in Iraq because of Roe VS Wade.