I think that the potential negative long-term societal impacts, for everyone, are worth equal consideration as extremely distressing edge cases of other policies.
We can't afford to ignore a slowly-worsening trend that hurts everyone because of issues that are rare but acutely bad.
Meh it's just the typical argument Democrats always do to rile up the base. If it was going to be overturned it would have happened when Republicans had the Presidency, Congress, Senate AND Supreme Court in the early 2000s. It wasn't even brought up.
On the same token, Democrats are not going to ban guns or Religion, which is the Republican "base rattler".
I agree with Angersock that people let these types of issues get in the way of fixing the real big problems.
Do you realize that a lot of things like this are introduced as riders to other bills rather than put into bills of their own? For example, there have been 67 pieces of legislation in the current congresss alone that sought to change the rules on abortion, often as a peripheral to the bill's primary purpose: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/subjects/abortion/5897
Well, you might say, people shouldn't legislate that way. But they do. And even if you don't follow every bill, it should be obvious to even a casual political observer that the 112th Congress has been especially contentious in this regard.
So my wife is 9 months pregnant. Watching her extreme discomfort, it makes my head explode when people call abortion an "edge case" on one hand while making a huge deal out of the PATRIOT Act, etc.
I'm pretty sure my wife would rather be water boarded than be forced to go through pregnancy and birth involuntarily. I'm not even joking.
We can't afford to ignore a slowly-worsening trend that hurts everyone because of issues that are rare but acutely bad.