Seems that people are anxious to know (thanks HuffPo) just where Judge Roberts stands on abortion. In light of this, I found an interesting concept on Echidne, and found a little more on Feministe. They are about a Katha Pollitt column opining whether losing Roe v. Wade is necessarily all that bad. From the portions of the column I have read, it seems she concludes that we will not gain much by taking abortion off the political table. Though many say the Roe decision itself is what put abortion on the table and caused the backlash against abortion rights, Pollitt thinks that, if Roe is overturned, abortion will continue to be a prominent and perhaps overshadowing issue in state elections, still to the detriment of wider discussion. She may be right.

The question: should the Dems simply stop campaigning on the issue? That depends. It may depend on the state. It may depend on whether the Republicans will force the issue and force the Dems to take a stand. Or maybe abortion is a question of basic human rights that would be unconscionable to abandon.

Could there be another way? Bear with me, these ideas are new, for me at least.

As it stands, Roe may be overturned. If so, Dems could be in for the fights of their lives to defend abortion rights in the states. Sadly, this fight will probably be to the detriment of *gulp* the less “gonadal” (to quote Ralph Nader, though he was sadly referring to gay rights… but the sentiment is not without validity) and the *gulp* more important systemic economic and social issues that go largely ignored.

Instead of funnelling all of our resources into electoral campaigns and lobbying, perhaps we should work outside of (er, wiggle around) the law. We can put our resources normally used for political purposes into a vast network of people and organizations that can guarantee free and safe abortions to anyone in the nation. The network can provide money for transportation, when necessary. Also when necessary, doctors with social consciences can provide free services when economically feasible, else the pro-choice organizations may pay for the procedures.

More details need to be fleshed out. And this may not solve the problem of minors seeking abortions, of course.

And what if a federal law banning abortion is passed? Perhaps this pro-choice “underground railroad” can stretch to Canada, or off-shore. Or perhaps we can simply establish a massive and supportive network of law breakers. But that opens up good people to potential criminal prosecutions.

And who knows if enough resources could be mustered to achieve these lofty goals. Perhaps the electoral process is the best investment, and perhaps we should be putting abortion-rights front and center of electoral contests. But maybe if we put abortion aside, anti-choice voters will have no further need to pledge allegiance to the Republicans who so often act against their interests on every other issue.

Women seeking abortions shouldn’t need to feel like criminals. They shouldn’t need to go through these efforts. But gosh, we’re losing everything else. Of course, I am probably exaggerating the sway of abortion as an electoral issue.

Even if a strategy which places aside abortion is not adopted, we may lose these abortion electoral battles anyway, which means we may need to start thinking about how we can make abortions available in the face of draconian laws.

Just some quick thoughts, and quite controversial. So I’d like to hear more nuanced critiques than I have provided, please comment away.