WI: Clinton signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995

The modern Democratic might well have more diversity on the abortion issue, and as a result, the Republican might as well. As it is, you've got effectively 0 pro-life Democrats (and all having to take a pretty hardline/absolute position) and a mixed bag of Republican positions mostly against it, with a few exceptions like Tom Ridge or Colin Powell. Make this change, and a few others, and it'll change some things.
 
It really wouldn't change anything, and it's a terrible Grand Bargain to sign because it doesn't get you anything. Anti-choice Republicans aren't going to suddenly be like "oh yeah he supports some extra restrictions, I'll vote for the Dem now." All you get is anger from the liberal base that actually votes Dem, and you make happy some Nixon Dems and Dixiecrats that are leaving the Democratic party regardless over racism.

I mean yeah that sounds like Clinton, so it's plausible, but it's a poor tactical move unless Clinton needs something like it to scrap out a weird re-election win in '96 and either way it's bad strategy long term.

kusqw0abauy5oep1b1wrmg.png
 
What I'm looking for is the effects on the GOP's willingness to work with Clinton, the 1996 election, the reaction to Lewinsky, the 1998 midterms, the 2000 election, and how Hillary is perceived.
 
Signing a law you oppose so that it gets struck down by the SCOTUS would be brilliant.

Not really. Feminists would still consider it a betrayal ("he had no right to gamble on the outcome in the Supreme Court--and besides, he, not just Supreme Court justices, took an oath to uphold the Constitution") while social conservatives would say that he always knew a Court with his appointees Breyer and Ginsburg would strike down the law. (And remember, Ginsburg replaced Byron White, who had been one of the two dissenters in Roe.) In short, he might just be seen as cynical by both sides.
 
Not really. Feminists would still consider it a betrayal ("he had no right to gamble on the outcome in the Supreme Court--and besides, he, not just Supreme Court justices, took an oath to uphold the Constitution") while social conservatives would say that he always knew a Court with his appointees Breyer and Ginsburg would strike down the law. (And remember, Ginsburg replaced Byron White, who had been one of the two dissenters in Roe.) In short, he might just be seen as cynical by both sides.
I didn't mean to say that he should have told anyone that that was his plan. Also keep in mind that the Supreme Court striking it down would prevent a future GOP government from enacting it.
 
I'm guessing that @interpoltomo is referring to LGBT rights and the "SJW" and "metoo" eras of feminism.

SJW was a thing in the 90s, and stronger, under the name PC. It was referenced in pop culture a lot- the movie PCU, it was in a Meatloaf song, and the biggest female heel of the 1990s (Sunny) got her start as a Hillary Clinton copy.

I don't think this would change much in the long-term, outside of speeding up the speed at which Clintonism is discredited upon the left. Might lead to Bernie winning in 2016, but I don't think it would due to the Black Church ladies in the Southern Dem caucus not caring about abortion rights much. You might see more of a wedge long-term between black church Dems and white progressives.
 
Top