See the article excerpted below for a lesson in ulterior political motives surrounding a partial birth abortion bill.

A Federal Court struck down the law as unconstitutional on its face. The drafters of the law certainly knew that the bill flew in the nose against Supreme Court precedent (precedent that was friendly to the anti-abortion movement).

But the article shows how the advocates for the bill WIN no matter how the court would have ruled.

The way politics works in the media age, we have to wonder which motivation was paramount to the drafters of the unconstitutional bill: Was it more important to have the law upheld, or struck down?

If upheld, the law would have created happiness among the Right. Happiness does not motivate people to write protest letters and go to the polls.

If struck down, the right wing spinwits could bitch and moan for weeks about our immoral court system and how liberals are creating a culture of death. Now THAT’S the stuff of MOTIVATION!!! Energize your base to write letters and protest and, most importantly, GIVE MONEY AND GO VOTE!!!

I don’t write much about the abortion debate from the standpoint of whether it’s right or wrong, because I support ending the debate through a national popular vote in which we choose as a people how to resolve the issue. And our choice becomes a Constitutional Amendment, which should quiet the debate and nearly settle the issue for a long time to come.

But I DO write about the politics of the abortion debate.

And the politicos use the abortion tool just like they use any other issue-tool, to motivate their base to vote and give money.

In fact, at my most cynical, I think that the politicians have no desire to end the abortion debate, because it’s just too damn good for “business” (the business of politics, that is).

AlterNet: The Conservative Circuit-Court Conspiracy
This begs the question why conservatives would craft bills that directly challenge case law established by a Supreme Court tilted in their favor? If they truly found the procedure in question so reprehensible — they often claim that it blurs the line between abortion and infanticide — why would they pass up the opportunity to ban it once and for all?

I believe they do it intentionally, writing bills with what amounts to judicial “poison pills.” Call it legislative activism — crafting laws that directly challenge legal precedent and, in so doing, create win-win scenarios for the right: in the unlikely event the bans are upheld, they would severely erode a woman’s right to choose her own reproductive healthcare. If they’re overturned, it would fire up the Republicans’ socially-conservative base and support the view that ’secularists’ — in the words of David Limbaugh, author and legal scholar (and Rush’s brother) — “are waging a war against Christianity and the freedom of Christians to be involved in public life.”

I come to this conclusion by answering an admittedly cynical question: Is it better for Republican leaders to ban less than one percent of the abortions performed in the United States, or would they prefer to stir up the passions of their base in time to walk precincts and man phone-banks for the 2006 mid-term elections? And while we’re at it, how valuable will the letters, calls and protests of 20,000,000 pissed-off evangelicals be during an upcoming Supreme Court fight?