Roe is gone; the question is what rights you can secure in federal and state legislation. Democrats don't seem ready to answer it. Plus: a monkeypox update.
I read a Politico article last week that discussed the idea of smaller pro-choice bills being introduced that said the idea wasn't gaining traction because "most Senate Republicans favor exceptions for abortion when it comes to rape, incest or life of the mother — potentially complicating any Democratic attempt to use that issue as a wedge." And I'm sitting there gesticulating wildly at the computer screen thinking, if most Senate Republicans support the bill, the bill passes! You'd have actual federal protections that don't currently exist and will or will soon expand abortion rights in states that pass complete bans. Something better than a symbolic vote and it's dismissed.
I've been involved in pro-life projects for years and much of the effort is to give women non-abortion support and options. Despite the Democratic rhetoric, the pro-life movement included women who actually cared about women in difficult situations. Entoptic pregnancies are not viable and they should be immediately aborted. You want a pregnancy to end with a healthy mother and healthy child. You should reasonably take efforts to have both, but if that is not medically feasible it shouldn't be illegal to save the mother while making reasonable efforts to also save the child. If the child is not viable, it makes no sense to carry to term and risk complications to the mother.
You can easily pass reasonable health of the mother legislation with Republicans. You'll get some push back on mental health and emotional distress considerations in an otherwise healthy pregnancy, but I think a majority of republicans will be fine with that. I think you'll get much more pushback on rape (you can't get legal affirmation of rape in time... if you're claiming rape to abort, someone should be in jail).
Even if an absolute prohibition wouldn’t even pass the rational basis test, why not just pass a fed law saying it? It’s a winning talking point for dems and it would make people like AOC and Hil-dog shut up on their “women will die” line
If you really don’t want to hold votes for highly popular abortion legislative bills (like, say, requiring a rape and incest exception in any state abortion rule) because it angers The Groups, well, okay, even though I disagree with that I suppose I can understand it.
What I don’t understand is why you would hold a vote for a bill that you know isn’t going to clear 50 in the senate (and if you didn’t know, that’s just rank incompetence). That’s worse than doing nothing. A lot of progressives talk about how they want to kill the filibuster so we can get things done, and a vote that only hits 48 undermines that while broadcasting weakness to the pro-life side. WTF.
The parsimonious explanation for this post-Roe behavior is that both The Groups and Democratic Congresspeople are concerned about fundraising first and foremost.
National-level Democrats have a nasty habit of disappointing their own voters.
When given a choice, they will always 1) maintain the wedge issue, 2) fundraise off of it, and 3) demagogue to the Twitter crowd. It's All, or it's nothing.
This stuff drives me crazy. Start out by holding a vote on giving rape and incest victims under the age of 12 the right to an abortion. Either you get it passed or you force Republicans to defend a hugely unpopular position whenever they're next up for re-election. If it passes, keep holding more votes until you lose and have something damaging to use in the next election. How is that worse than the status quo?
What are the odds that any federal action on abortion will be struck down? If the court returned this issue to the states, doesn't that mean that the federal government's legislative attempts to allow or ban abortion will simply be struck down?
Securing free travel across the states? That's a Federal right. Guaranteeing the shipment of abortion drugs across state lines? That's the most banal use of "regulate interstate commerce" imaginable.
Sure, but neither of those really do anything. A state could still ban the actual use of those drugs and limit abortions in their own state. I just don't think the federal government will be able to codify abortion (pro or anti) in any way with the current Supreme Court.
I’d say it’s unlikely. The SCOTUS decision only said that abortion is not a constitutional right. It can still be a right by statute (whether federal or state)
But the federal gov would have to root that in some constitutional authority like the inter-state commerce clause. If there's no constitutional right to an abortion, then it's fairly unlikely that the federal government can do anything either way. That would mean it's left to the states.
True, you def have a good point, but the commerce clause is usually read so broad that I think it still has a chance of surviving. Maybe I’m just naive
I read a Politico article last week that discussed the idea of smaller pro-choice bills being introduced that said the idea wasn't gaining traction because "most Senate Republicans favor exceptions for abortion when it comes to rape, incest or life of the mother — potentially complicating any Democratic attempt to use that issue as a wedge." And I'm sitting there gesticulating wildly at the computer screen thinking, if most Senate Republicans support the bill, the bill passes! You'd have actual federal protections that don't currently exist and will or will soon expand abortion rights in states that pass complete bans. Something better than a symbolic vote and it's dismissed.
Dems: women will literally die because Roe was overturned
also Dems: we can’t introduce this life-of-mother abortion protection because Rebpubs may favor and the bill might actually pass
I've been involved in pro-life projects for years and much of the effort is to give women non-abortion support and options. Despite the Democratic rhetoric, the pro-life movement included women who actually cared about women in difficult situations. Entoptic pregnancies are not viable and they should be immediately aborted. You want a pregnancy to end with a healthy mother and healthy child. You should reasonably take efforts to have both, but if that is not medically feasible it shouldn't be illegal to save the mother while making reasonable efforts to also save the child. If the child is not viable, it makes no sense to carry to term and risk complications to the mother.
You can easily pass reasonable health of the mother legislation with Republicans. You'll get some push back on mental health and emotional distress considerations in an otherwise healthy pregnancy, but I think a majority of republicans will be fine with that. I think you'll get much more pushback on rape (you can't get legal affirmation of rape in time... if you're claiming rape to abort, someone should be in jail).
Because keeping the wedge for political posturing is more valuable than actually winning.
See also the way Nancy Pelosi managed the January 6 impeachment, which should have been a slam dunk.
This leads one to wonder if Democrats understand what "wedge" means.
Sounds like they understand it perfectly. You keep an issue around to stick in your opponent's eye instead of getting a win.
Is there anywhere that doesn't protect the life of the mother? I'm unaware of any state where that is not included.
Even if an absolute prohibition wouldn’t even pass the rational basis test, why not just pass a fed law saying it? It’s a winning talking point for dems and it would make people like AOC and Hil-dog shut up on their “women will die” line
If you really don’t want to hold votes for highly popular abortion legislative bills (like, say, requiring a rape and incest exception in any state abortion rule) because it angers The Groups, well, okay, even though I disagree with that I suppose I can understand it.
What I don’t understand is why you would hold a vote for a bill that you know isn’t going to clear 50 in the senate (and if you didn’t know, that’s just rank incompetence). That’s worse than doing nothing. A lot of progressives talk about how they want to kill the filibuster so we can get things done, and a vote that only hits 48 undermines that while broadcasting weakness to the pro-life side. WTF.
The parsimonious explanation for this post-Roe behavior is that both The Groups and Democratic Congresspeople are concerned about fundraising first and foremost.
National-level Democrats have a nasty habit of disappointing their own voters.
When given a choice, they will always 1) maintain the wedge issue, 2) fundraise off of it, and 3) demagogue to the Twitter crowd. It's All, or it's nothing.
This is why we can't have nice things.
> When given a choice, they will always 1) maintain the wedge issue, 2) fundraise off of it
I'm not a Republican but Republican voters I talk to feel the same way.
Local political groups are left spinning their wheels.
This stuff drives me crazy. Start out by holding a vote on giving rape and incest victims under the age of 12 the right to an abortion. Either you get it passed or you force Republicans to defend a hugely unpopular position whenever they're next up for re-election. If it passes, keep holding more votes until you lose and have something damaging to use in the next election. How is that worse than the status quo?
On the topic of using DEI as a cover for government incompetence… https://reason.com/2022/07/02/urgency-is-a-white-supremacy-value-oregon-health-authority/
As someone who wants to like big government and progressive policy, flagrant government incompetence is especially grating.
(It’s reason.com, but afaict it’s all factually accurate)
What are the odds that any federal action on abortion will be struck down? If the court returned this issue to the states, doesn't that mean that the federal government's legislative attempts to allow or ban abortion will simply be struck down?
It depends on how its written.
Securing free travel across the states? That's a Federal right. Guaranteeing the shipment of abortion drugs across state lines? That's the most banal use of "regulate interstate commerce" imaginable.
Sure, but neither of those really do anything. A state could still ban the actual use of those drugs and limit abortions in their own state. I just don't think the federal government will be able to codify abortion (pro or anti) in any way with the current Supreme Court.
Yes, Congress generally doesn't have the powers to either or authorize abortion in the states. It's mostly stuff around the edges.
I’d say it’s unlikely. The SCOTUS decision only said that abortion is not a constitutional right. It can still be a right by statute (whether federal or state)
But the federal gov would have to root that in some constitutional authority like the inter-state commerce clause. If there's no constitutional right to an abortion, then it's fairly unlikely that the federal government can do anything either way. That would mean it's left to the states.
True, you def have a good point, but the commerce clause is usually read so broad that I think it still has a chance of surviving. Maybe I’m just naive
A further comment on the middle ground.
I think when it is said public opinion is on the side of abortion that takes on a context of abortion as the pro-abortion folks define it.
That's not the way I see it framed up.
What I see in the public opinion polls, from both sides, is that many folks in the middle are for "some" abortion.
But the choice often seems to come down to yes or no, vs the nuance of both lives are important.
Now I understand that pro-abortion folks can never admit the baby is fully human and deserving of a choice.
But it seems to me that until the bridge is built you are forcing the moderates to choose yes or no, which is not really where we are.
This is why "bargaining" is such a useful concept. There are huge groups of people in the middle waiting to be appealed to.