ABORTION BILLS ARE BUSTING OUT ALL OVER: With legislation in South Dakota, and, according to this report, Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, Georgia, Tennessee, Mississippi, South Carolina and Kentucky, the issue is heating up. I can’t decide if that’s good or bad.

Bad: I’m against these bills. I don’t think abortion ought to be illegal. I think that outlawing abortion (not “late term” or “partial-birth” abortion, which is a relatively minor issue except for its symbolism, and which could be regulated under Roe anyway, but abortion in general) is a bad idea. While it’s possible that such laws would reduce the number of abortions, I suspect that there would be substantial black markets, noncompliance, civil disobedience, and other side effects — something not as far-reaching, perhaps, but in many ways like the destructive consequences of banning guns. One advantage — you can go to another state to have an abortion, but you can’t legally go to another state to buy a gun. That may cut down on the black-market angle, unless a lot of states enact bans, which I doubt. As the South Dakota story above notes, that’s nearly the situation in some states already, on a de facto basis.

Good: On the other hand, I think the abortion issue is “stuck,” and would probably have reached a better, or at least less painful, resolution via legislative processes if Roe v. Wade hadn’t shunted the issue aside. That resolution would probably look more like what we see in Europe — abortion available, but less freely than in the U.S. — and the political pathology associated with abortion polarization would have been avoided. I also suspect that the absolutist slogans on both sides today come from the “stuckness” created by Roe. That sort of thing is easy when the sloganeers know there’s no real chance of their slogans being enacted into law in a fashion that would require them to take responsibility. The democratic process might well discharge the tensions built up over the past three-plus decades.

Horserace point: I’m pretty sure that this development will actually be bad for the Republicans. When the topic is defense, the Democrats lose. When it’s sex, the Republicans lose. And the abortion debate will, I think, turn into a sex debate before it’s over. (I suspect that Missouri Governor Matt Blunt agrees — but pro-choicers may not benefit from a major public debate either).

Advice for the GOP: Try to convince the media that you want to see American abortion law look “more European.”

Advice for the Democrats: Don’t act like you’re ashamed of abortion. Don’t talk about a “woman’s right to choose” without saying what she’s choosing. You can’t win on a policy you’re ashamed of.

Of course, maybe I’m just “pro-death” like Scott Adams, which would probably make taking my advice a terrible mistake. I mean, more than usual. . . .

UPDATE: Stephen Waters writes: “The real issue isn’t abortion, but how do you take care of unwanted children.” This is actually one place where I’ll give the pro-lifers credit. Back when I did pro-choice stuff in college, I challenged them to support, rather than condemn, unwed mothers, and I think they’re actually much better about that. Indeed, I know of several teen moms (one who used to live right across the street from me) who were treated quite supportively by very conservative religious folks who saw that as part of their pro-life duty.

Of course, one reason they honor the choice to have a child rather than an abortion may be because it is a choice.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Here’s somebody recommending the German model.