Honestly, why hasn't this "simple matter" not been passed since Roe vs. Wade.  Throughout the 80's the democrats held both houses of congress.  They hold both houses now.  Why hasn't this simple law been proposed and passed?

Or was this diary snark?  It's hard to tell on MyDD nowadays.

If Republicans overturn Roe v. Wade, it will truly end their party's chances to win majorities and the presidency for decades to come.

I think the more pertinent issue is the further erosion of the right to a safe abortion, and here is where we have to worry about Republicans and their bots in the courts.

There are many more consequences to another 4 years of of a Republican presidency than just Roe v. Wade, all of which violate Democratic ideals and principles.

But, don't let something like that stop you from crossing over.

/sarcasm

Where do you see the 67 senate votes neeeded for an override?  We have a 51-49 majority right now.  Two Democratic Senators, Harry Reid and Bob Casey, Jr., are prolife.  That gets us down to 49.  So now we need 18 Republican votes.  Off the top of my head, I can only think of a handful of pro-choice Republicans in the Senate:

Kay Bailey Hutchinson (TX)
Susan Collins (ME)
Olympia Snowe (ME)
Gordon Smith (OR)
Arlen Specter(PA)

Even if we end up picking up seven or eight seats, we will still come up short.

The Democratic Congress has been a disappointment for years, but maybe a huge majority this time would do it.

The problem -- it looks like Obama will be the nominee and he may not win the GE.  There are two bad days of polls in the McCain-Obama matchup.   In FL, according to Quinnipiac, Obama loses to McCain by 4 (Clinton is up by 7).  In Ohio, the margins are exactly the same.  In PA, she's up by 13, Obama by just 6 over McCain.  Yesterday, Obama was ahead in Colorado, but in Missouri Clinton wins by 2 but Obama loses by three.  (Rasmussen)  Rasmussen also had Clinton winning FL, but Obama losing it.  The worst is NC, where Survey USA has Clinton winning by 6 but Obama losing by 8.  In Virginia, which was supposed to be close for Obama, the VCU poll has McCain beating Obama by 8 (and Clinton by 9).

So the Dems may have huge majorities in both houses, but not enough to overcome a probable McCain veto of a liberal abortion bill.

I noticed some sarcasm from a poster who said -- but don't let this stop you from crossing over.  It is not rabid Dems I'm worried about.  It's hundreds of thousands of moderate Republicans (who are really angry about the Bush years) and moderate to conservative Democrats.  They're not on these sites.

If Obama loses because of Democratic defections, those defections will, by in large, be from women and pro-choicers, who will bear the brunt of the damage done by the McCain Administration.

They have more to lose than I do.

Plus, I think the odds of that happening are slim. I was around a bunch of Clinton supporters last night who spent months talking about how they won't vote for him.

Guess what...they're voting for him.

Other Republican administrations and congresses have had no interest in overthrowing Roe or instituting heinous restrictions on reproductive rights because that's biting the hand that feeds them... if they don't pander to evangelicals on the evil of babykilling, they don't get elected.

The difference is that McCain couldn't give a shit about electing Republicans... "maverick," remember?  An ill-stated mention of not overturning Roe v. Wade in 1999 in preperation for running for President in 2000 aside, McCain is an idealogue on this issue and will do it just because that's what he believes.  He believes strongly in saving babies and making war with brown people.  And that's what he'll do if elected.

The Supreme Court issue isn't just about abortion, of course.  Privacy, civil rights, and government accountability are all at stake, too.

I agree that it is larger than Roe.  But the question of who names the successor to Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat is almost enough to be the deciding factor on its own.  Justice Ginsburg, a great hero of mine, has been rightly called the Thurgood Marshall of the women's movement.  John McCain does not hold the things she has stood and fought for as priorities, with regard to reproductive rights and a host of other civil rights issues.  I believe that Barack Obama does, and would be in a position to name a worthy successor and not another version of Roberts and Alito.  John Paul Stevens, a giant on the bench, is also at the end of his career.  How do you like a Supreme Court dominated by Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and two other justices committed to the same constituencies and issues?

will not be made illegal.  If it didn't happen under a conservative Bush admin. with a full repug congress it certainly will NOT happen under a less conservative Mccain Pres and a full DEM congress...

besides - if it was made illegal then we'd have to pay billions to build new prisons to house all the women and doctors in these jails.

If it was so easy, it would have been passed long ago.  Moreover, a law can always be repealed.  Finally, the Supreme Court has been working for over a decade to limit the reach of the Commerce Clause, so your initial premise doesn't even necessarily bear out.

I would like to see the democratic nominee win but just keep things in perspective. The ill effects of scotus would be on labor and other contract issues to the detriment of the "working class", on the real availability of safe abortions-not so much