On the national stage, you are part of a dying breed Matt. The Republican party is increasingly controlled by theocrats who hope to impose their fundamentalism on the rest of the country. That is the base of the Republican party.

Unfortunately, parts of the base of the Democratic party are equally unsavory for many moderates.

As to parental notification laws, I think that there need to be bypass mechanisms in them. Should a daughter raped by her father have to get his consent? And what if her parents are uber-fundamentalist, and would subject her to psychological abuse? In general, the mechanism is fine, but when there are legitimate grounds to fear for the safety of the teenager, there needs to be a bypass mechanism.

How do you define "far-right," Matt, in describing pro-lifers as the "far right wing of the Republican Party"? According to this Survey USA poll (http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2005/50StateAbortion0805SortedbyProLife.htm), even in Vermont, 25% of the people describe themselves as "pro-life." Are you really going to write off 40% of the American public as "far right"?

There's a fact you have to deal with: the GOP is the Pro-Life party, full stop. The question for people like you, the minority of Republicans who are not pro-life is: where do we compromise?

Once Roe v. Wade is overturned--and it will be--Republicans will push for restrictions on abortion in every state in the Union. You can either fight against that, or work for a compromise that is acceptable, though perhaps unappealing, to the majority of the State.

Not all pro-lifers want (or need) help from people like you, but here in Washington, we do. Are you willing?

Even if the Supreme Court reverses Roe, this will hardly make abortion illegal. It will only return the issue to state legislatures, and in most cases, return it to the status quo that prevailed in 1973(?). As I understand the situation, most states then allowed abortions while some did outlaw the practice. I would expect that most states would move to address the issue at the state level, and, with the normal compromises that are politics, craft solutions favored by the majority or elected officals will risk the normal electoral stumble. My expected result, abortion continues to be legal in a majority of states with common sense restricitons in place.

Far from a future problem for Republicans, it allows for the eventual settlement in the political arena, where it belongs. If the reversal of Roe occurs, it's part of a welcome process that removes the courts from shaping social policy, a far more dangerous problem for the nation. One only has to look to the Alito hearings and the reactions of the Left to understand what the Left recognizes is a stake. They risk a court that recognizes it's proper role and the proper role of elected officials.

And by the way, I support the right to an abortion, I'm a Republican and, I want the issue resolved in order to focus our energies on other issues.

Matt, I would argue that the majority of Republicans (though I am not a Republican, I tend to vote R) agree with you here, and would call themselves the "base;" the majority of anti-abortion Republicans would, in turn, declare themselves "the base."

I think that it's pathetic that we're even having this discussion still. Most anti-abortion people I know want a total ban; I prefer that it remain legal nationwide, or revert to the states. However, that having been said, look at the abuse of the interstate commerce clause and the comfort many Republicans (and, of course, Democrats) have with robbing states of the right to decide for themselves.

I'd like to see an individual rights party, but I'm no holding my breath.

Gary B. is certainly correct about the legal consequences of overruling Roe v. Wade, and the political consequences he anticipates are probably our only hope for letting some of the air out of this issue that has distorted presidential and Supreme Court politics for more than three decades.

The Supreme Court created this problem by nationalizing the constitutional right to an abortion, and only the Supreme Court can undo it. Like Matt, I do not forsee a frontal assault on Roe, but the Court can do a great deal to chip away at its scope, so that implementation of the right to an abortion depends, for all practical purposes, more upon what happens at the state and local level than what happens at the national level.

Perhaps then the abortion issue will begin to defuse in the way Gary B. suggests. In the meanwhile, I am not anxious to pick any more fights with pro-lifers than I have to. Peace and goodwill to anyone who is for reducing my taxes and fighting jihadists.

Amen Tom. Anybody who agrees with me 80% - 90% of the time is a friend and a welcome partner in the broadest coalition possible that embraces liberty, security and economic freedom.

"And I'm pro-choice but not pro-abortion."

If you are pro-choice under today's wide open law on abortion you are necessarily pro-abortion. To make the distinction that you have, for yourself, is just a nicety that allows you to feel somehow "more moral" than those who promote outright abortion for any arbitrary reason.

I'm sorry, but that is just how it stands.

And all the political rationale? Just one more example of how politically motivated people just don't want to pay the piper.

I think there are some real issues of disingenuity in this post. Not that you are alone in your thinking, but perhaps that should be faced a bit more squarely than you seem to desire at this time. There will be times when political expediency and moral integrity will have a full-on clash.

Perhaps this is one of these times.