All the leading Democratic candidates, two of whom serve in the Senate, have condemned the Court’s decision. They’re in a position to do something about it, as Congress did in the aftermath of Wards Cove (the Civil Rights Act of 1991), Stenberg (the PBA Act of 2003), Employment Division v. Smith (RFRA), and Boerne (RLUIPA).
Couldn’t Senator Clinton or Senator Obama propose a "new and improved" PBA Act, including the health exception, for example? That would be "real leadership" in the face of a decision that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called "alarming." Could it be that the good Senators actually fear that such a law wouldn’t pass, even in a Congress controlled by Democrats--ackonowledging, in other words, that the only way they can accomplish their aims is judicially, not "democratically"? Or that proposing such a measure--which would at least concede the horrific wrongness of PBA in some instances, even if the health exemption opens a loophole big enough to drive a tank though--would displease the hard pro-choice Left in the Democratic Party? Or is it that they really don’t want abortion to be an issue in 2008?
Ducking this opportunity to set right something that they call a grievous wrong doesn’t speak well of their leadership, does it?
Update: In the comments, Brett Marston notes that Senator Clinton has in fact stepped up to the plate as a co-sponsor of the Freedom of Choice Act. So we’ve got the "legal" covered, and probably the "safe," but what about the "rare" (assuming that the safety exemption effectively swallows any effort actually to regulate or prohibit abortion or any technique of abortion)?
Update #2: Here’s the Senate roll call on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003; note that very few "red state" Democrats voted against the bill; the picture is a little more complicated in the House, where it also passed handily. Is there anyone willing to say that the politics of this measure has changed in the ensuing four years?