What you describe would literally require a perfect storm: 1) a Republican President, 2) a Republican Congress that would be able to overcome any potential filibuster especially since this would require a dramatic shift in the balance of the Court, 3) Supreme Court Justices willing actually willing to overturn or at least significantly modify Roe v. Wade (consider even John Roberts has said the decision to be "settled law"), 4)Pro-choice justices being willing to retire considering the circumstances, and 5) actual enforcement of any pro-life legislation (and such legislation would have to be ones that could and would significantly reduce the number of abortions not just invasive mandatory ultra-sound laws).
I daresay it is more realistic and plausible that the number of abortions would be reduced through the various socioeconomic policies of Democratic administrations (ie heavy social spending, increased guarantees to parental leave, expanded access to daycare, wider access to birth control) then hoping for such a Republican perfect storm. Considering it did not happen during the Reagan-Bush Sr. years or the administration of Bush Jr. when the Religious Right was far more robust than it is to-day the chances of it happening in any future Republican administrations are virtually nonexistant.
I agree that such a circumstance is unlikely, but as a staunchly pro-life person, I do consider abortion to be a form of murder. Even if I considered unborn children as 1/2 a life, that would still be approximately 500,000 murders per year. Even at 1/10 of a life, that's 50,000 per year. Simply the calculations alone make the issue extremely important. As such, even a small expected value of say 10% would accrue 50,000 lives saved per year. So while a "perfect storm" is unlikely, it's absolutely essential in order to save countless lives.
As such, it would seem antithetical to my values to support politicians who would deny any chance at a "perfect storm" occurring. If the GOP does take the Senate decisively this year and somehow manages to win in 2016 (please Hillary don't run), then there's a decent chance that some pro-life justices will sneak through. The best hope is that Roe v. Wade isn't necessarily overturned but rather rendered obsolete. If the Supreme Court allows North Dakota's human life amendment, then personhood amendments could replace it. That requires a minimum of 2 appointees as conservative as Thomas/Scalia/Alito. Unlikely, but that could really put a dent in abortion. More likely is chipping abortion down such that state restrictions after 3 months are OK. This would take out the most barbaric forms of the practice in which the baby is already fully developed.
With regard to socioeconomic policies of Democratic administrations, it is a hopeful thought. However, my problem is twofold:
1) From a standpoint of reducing abortion, the most liberal states (which often have more generous welfare) have more abortions per capita than conservative ones.
http://kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/abortion-rate/Conservative policies seem to be more effective at reducing abortions at least at the state level than welfare.
2) The other problem is more personal. Even if there may be fewer abortions voting for a Democrat, I still have to, in my conscience, justify voting for someone who thinks that the practice is legally acceptable. I am supporting someone who is pro-baby killer (in my view). Even if that makes logical sense, I just couldn't do it on a moral level.
Good food for thought, Mung Beans. Certainly something to chew over......
EDIT: Also, while you can be a pro-coal, pro-life Democrat, the pro-life part gets sacrificed. A few like Mike McIntyre are consistently pro-life, but the NRLC didn't endorse Joe Donnelly, who called himself "pro-life." Voting for a justice who is on the "liberal" side is a vote for unqualified continuation of abortion. I have a really hard time supporting Senators who backed Sotomayor or Kagan, both Democrat and Republican. Since all Dems supported both of those justices, it makes me think they don't take being pro-life seriously.
