Well, actually more than that. She would favor amending the federal constitution to ban all abortions, with the exception of the life of the mother. At least that was her position in 1989. That doesn’t mean that she’d vote for repeal of Roe, but it does help clarify things. For me, at least, a willingness to tamper with the Constitution itself to implement social policy is the opposite of any meaningful conservative philosophy. But, hey, that barn is already horse-free. Weirdly, I don’t think it will shore her up among the conservative establishment, who oppose her for her mediocrity, primarily. But it might generate enthusiasm from the religious base, and thereby galvanize the left, which, in turn, may solidify the right. I’m still a wait-and-see-er. The hearings are necessary. But it’s fascinating to see so many fissures on all sides developing.