Convictions: Slate's blog on legal issues

A View on Crawford From Indiana

Sure, it's a relatively conservative state. But if this were a political blog, I would (and could) post a lengthy list of major differences between the Ds and the Rs, both among our current candidates and among our previous officeholders—including in how our state was run under our three Democratic governors who immediately preceded Daniels. (Full disclosure: My husband was part of two of those three Democratic administrations.)

By the way, I can match your story of pressure to register as an R in Indiana with my own from the blue state of New York, where I first registered to vote. In my case, they came into our high-school classes to register us all, and our teacher explicitly advised that if we ever wanted a shot at one of those coveted, cushy summer jobs working on the beaches of Long Island, we had better register as Republicans.

But this is a legal blog, so let me say a few things about the Crawford decision. First, Indiana's votes in the presidential races of the last decades are not representative. We have many very close races here—local, state, and Congress—with frequent party switches. Just one e.g.: The Indiana House was evenly split twice in the last two decades. So, Rs don't have to suppress many votes—through this excessive and indefensible ID requirement and other tactics—for it to make a difference.

Second, I recall stories from poll workers last election about how sad and outrageous and punitive it felt to have to turn away honest citizens seeking to vote. Little wonder that young people and others often feel disaffected and discouraged from participating when the atmosphere is comparable to being sent to a high-school principal's office rather than being welcomed and encouraged to participate in our great democracy. 

Reading some of the reactions here in Indiana to the Crawford decision, it struck me that many (by no means all) of the people who support the court's outcome simply don't feel that way. The point for some is that they really don't want certain kinds of people to vote, that they even feel if people won't take the "trouble" to manage the logistical and financial barriers our state has erected (which pose no problem for most), then they simply don't deserve to vote. Of course, everyone is against fraud, but who really thinks this is about fraud?

Finally, at that fundraiser last night, there actually was strikingly little discussion of Crawford. Intense and heated feelings about the presidential primary of next week was soaking up all of the oxygen, and I think muting the outcry the court's decision deserves.

More on Roe and the Republican Coalition

[Dawn Johnsen]  With apologies for the more-than-24-hour response time - an eternity for a blog, I know - I want to resurrect Eric's statement:  "Members of the Republican coalition are not so much concerned about Roe as about reducing the number of abortions."  Implausible, I think, on its face.  But for any for whom it may be true, let me explain to them the error of their ways, with an example from here in Indiana.

Anti-choice legislators introduced two bills in the Indiana legislature a couple of sessions ago:  one an outright criminal ban on abortion and another a "TRAP" law.  "TRAP" or "targeted regulation of abortion providers" laws are designed to sound non-threatening and trick people into thinking they are about legitimate health concerns.  But they actually seek to shut down facilities that perform abortions:  by singling them out for medically unnecessary, extremely expensive regulations, such as building specifications that mandate hallway widths and room sizes that mirror hospitals.

The Indiana TRAP law would have closed every abortion clinic in the state, and kept them closed unless and until they could afford expensive renovations or relocations (leaving hospitals the only lawful possibility).  The criminal ban went nowhere, but the legislature came extremely close to enacting the TRAP law and shutting down every one of Indiana's seven abortion clinics for plainly no legitimate purpose.  Including our Planned Parenthood clinic here in Bloomington.

A few stubborn facts:  Last year Planned Parenthood of Indiana dispensed nearly half a million units of contraceptives, doing more than any other organization to reduce the abortion rate in Indiana.  I repeat, the TRAP law would have debilitated for no legitimate purpose the organization doing more than any other to reduce unwanted pregnancies in Indiana.  Most of its patients have limited other options, for they live at or below the poverty level.  Nationally, 81 percent of Planned Parenthood's patients receive services to prevent unintended pregnancy.  Many others receive screening for cancer, HIV and sexually transmitted diseases.  And three percent of its services go to women to make real Roe's increasingly hollow promise, that whether to have an abortion is a decision for the woman and not for politicians to impose on her.

The way to reduce the number of abortions is no secret.  It's by making available contraception and comprehensive sexuality education.  And more than that, by enacting policies that support healthy pregnancies and healthy families.  How about universal health care, or at least an expansion of the CHIP program for kids?  Where is that Republican coalition?