For 49 years after the U.S. Supreme Court recognized abortion rights for women in Roe v. Wade, Republicans have waved the segregationists’ flag of “states’ rights!” – let each state decide for itself on abortion.
Here’s the thing: a fundamental federal constitutional right is not subject to nullification by any state – that was until Dobbs, in which an activist radical Republican U.S. Supreme Court, for the first time in U.S. history, reversed a fundamental federal constitutional right it had recognized for half of the population (women). Justice Clarence Thomas made clear in Dobbs that other fundamental federal constitutional rights, e.g., same-sex marriage, are now in his sights.
The Dobbs decision resulted in two Americas – one where abortion rights are protected, and one where abortion is banned, even in cases of incest and rape (and even to save the life of the mother in some states).
The forced birth fetus fetish religious zealots are not satisfied with only half the states, they want to impose a federal ban on abortion under federal law – screw their own “states’ rights!” rhetoric of the past 49 years. They want to codify the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs reversing a fundamental federal constitutional right for half of the population (women). Welcome to the theocratic Republic of Gilead.
Numerous Republican candidates have been trying to hide their extremist views on abortion by scrubbing their campaign websites – we see you Blake Masters! – or pretending to soften their positions because the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs is extremely unpopular with the public, especially among women who have seen their fundamental federal constitutional right to abortion reversed by an activist radical Republican Supreme Court.
Democrats have promised to codify Roe v. Wade, restoring a fundamental federal constitutional right that women had enjoyed for 49 years until an activist radical Republican Supreme Court reversed a fundamental federal constitutional right for the first time in U.S. history.
Enter Trump fluffer Little Lindsey Graham (R-SC).
Philip Bump writes at the Washington Post, Lindsey Graham’s abortion-ban proposal is not helping his party:
When the Supreme Court in June released its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, overturning Roe v. Wade and allowing new bans on access to abortion, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) echoed the party line.
“Today’s decision by the Supreme Court is a long overdue constitutional correction allowing for elected officials in the states to decide issues of life,” he wrote on Twitter. “Roe was Constitutionally unsound from its inception as the flawed legal theory behind the decision gives unlimited power to five unelected Supreme Court justices.” [He said with no self-awareness or sense of irony.]
Instead, the argument went, abortion could now be decided by leaders chosen by the people — state-level politicians, each making decisions about access to abortion in line with what their residents sought.
Well, with one exception. According to legislation Graham introduced Tuesday, there should also be a baseline prohibition on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy nationally. So let the states decide — as long, it seems, as the decision is nothing more lax than a 15-week ban.
“It is left up to elected officials in America to define the issue,” he said in announcing the legislation — adding a caveat that he’d excluded in June: that “states have the ability to do [so] at the state level and we have the ability in Washington to speak on this issue if we choose.” He was choosing.
Listen to this religious zealot explain his inconsistency.
Trump fluffer Little Lindsey Graham is, and has always been, a partisan hack. He is a man without any principles other than his own reelection and his pursuit of GQP authoritarian power.
But why now? For abortion opponents, any national restriction on abortion is certainly welcome. Beyond that, though, the politics are hard to parse.
In announcing the proposal, Graham tied it explicitly to the midterm elections.
“If we take back the House and the Senate, I can assure you we’ll have a vote on our bill,” he said. “If the Democrats are in charge, I don’t know if we’ll ever have a vote on our bill.”
To the women of America and the men who love them, this is your choice in this election: restoring a fundamental federal constitutional right that women had enjoyed for 49 years, or ushering in the theocratic Republic of Gilead.
Perhaps the idea, then, was to goose enthusiasm among Republicans for instituting a national restriction. Or perhaps Graham thinks that such a proposal would effectively remove the issue from the playing field — along the lines of what Republican consultant Patrick Ruffini suggested this week. Had the GOP response to Dobbs been a blanket 15-week ban, he offered, it would have been harder for Democrats to suggest that Republicans wanted to go further. In introducing his bill, Graham seemed to suggest that he was trying to establish such a baseline.
He also framed it as “[putting] the United States in line with other modern societies,” since many European nations also restrict abortion after 15 weeks. But as supporters of abortion access quickly noted, those countries generally also provide more robust contraceptive options and support for pregnant mothers.
The primary hindrance to Graham’s effort to clarify the GOP position is that it’s not the GOP position. Again, his proposal explicitly “[l]eaves in place state laws that are more protective of unborn life” — meaning that states could still ban abortion outright. What’s more, other Republicans were immediately skeptical of the idea, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
“I think most of the members of my conference prefer that this be dealt with at the state level,” McConnell said when asked Tuesday. As Graham indicated he did, once upon a time.
Few people in the country are more concerned about getting Republicans elected in November than McConnell. That he rejected Graham’s proposal, then, is telling from a political standpoint: If McConnell thought this would aid his effort to retake the majority, he’d have endorsed it without hesitation.
Polling from the Wall Street Journal published earlier this month offers a hint as to why McConnell didn’t do so: Support for a ban after 15 weeks fell in the wake of Dobbs. In March, Journal polling showed support and opposition about evenly split. In a poll conducted at the end of August, views were almost 2 to 1 against. There was a change in wording that likely accounts for some of the difference — the poll in August excluded rape and incest as exceptions, which Graham’s bill doesn’t — but the decline is still remarkable.
Again, maybe Graham thinks that his proposal can turn abortion into a turnout driver for the right. His side, though, already won. His insistence that “if the Democrats are in charge, I don’t know if we’ll ever have a vote on our bill” is almost certainly already being excerpted for ads in key Senate battleground states. Who’s going to be more motivated by Graham’s bill: an antiabortion Republican who is promised a scaling-back (but not a ban) of abortion access in blue states, or a Democrat in favor of access to abortion who is worried about federal limits being imposed?
“I think the place to begin is where Graham is beginning,” MarjorieDannenfelser, the president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, told The Washington Post in an interview before the bill’s introduction. If the antiabortion right sees Graham’s national bill as “the beginning,” rest assured that those who oppose new restrictions do, too.
After all, this was the fear from the outset. Upending Roe meant opening the door to a national ban — which is exactly why Republicans very quickly circled around the idea that Dobbs simply empowered states. Now Graham, seemingly hoping to define a middle-ground position for his party, has embraced an unpopular national restriction that can only get tighter, not looser. And with two months to go before an election in which Dobbs spurred an apparent increase in Democratic enthusiasm.
No wonder McConnell’s not thrilled.
The only thing that could make me happier is this Trump fluffer Little Lindsey Graham getting indicted in Fulton County Georgia for conspiracy to solicit election interference.
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Jennifer Rubin writes, “Graham delivered a gift to Democrats: Proof of GOP’s abortion extremism”, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/09/14/graham-abortion-ban-gift-to-democrats/
At a moment when Republican candidates are furiously scrubbing evidence of their extreme anti-abortion views from their websites, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) has underscored the determination of Republicans to enact a regime of forced birth throughout the United States.
Graham introduced a bill on Tuesday — just eight weeks before Election Day — that would impose a nationwide abortion ban after 15 weeks of pregnancy (barely into the second trimester). While he provides an exception in cases where the pregnancy would kill the woman, he provides no other exceptions to protect the health of women. Given the overwhelming popularity of the pro-choice position — even in red states such as Kansas — the proposal is a gift to Democrats.
The Post reports: “The timing of Graham’s announcement is curious — two months before the midterm elections, after abortion has already shown to be a galvanizing issue for some Democratic voters.” In introducing the bill, Graham jerked attention away from the inflation numbers released on Tuesday. Why would he do this? After all, The Post reports, “Republicans have been forced to reckon with a growing trove of data suggesting that abortion could be a decisive issue in the midterms, motivating Democratic and independent voters far more than was widely expected.”
Perhaps Graham is more concerned with ingratiating himself with the far right than with helping his party regain the majority. Whatever the reason, he has certainly lent a hand to Democrats who’ve been focusing on slippery Republicans trying to deny ownership of their past radical views.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) tried to minimize the damage. “I think most of the members of my conference prefer that this be dealt with at the state level,” he weakly told reporters. Now, the Republican leader faces a dilemma: He cannot deny Republicans’ intentions without infuriating the right-wing base, and he cannot encourage Graham without driving Democrats to vote.
Democrats, eager to highlight Republicans’ dreadfully unpopular position, could hardly believe their political good fortune. Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) went to the Senate floor to argue that Graham’s effort to introduce “a radical bill to institute a nationwide restriction on abortions.” Schumer continued, “Proposals like the one today send a clear message from MAGA Republicans to women across the country: your body, our choice.” He was only too happy to point out that “Republicans are twisting themselves into pretzels trying to explain why they want nationwide abortion bans when they said they’d leave it up to the states.” Schumer is right that “this has never been about states’ rights.”
The White House put out a statement as well. Graham’s bill “is wildly out of step with what Americans believe,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre argued. “The President and Vice President are fighting for progress, while Republicans are fighting to take us back.” The message was clear: Vote for Democrats or allow Republicans to put “personal health care decisions in the hands of politicians instead of women and their doctors, threatening women’s health and lives.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), in a statement, decried the bill as “the latest, clearest signal of extreme MAGA Republicans’ intent to criminalize women’s health freedom in all 50 states and arrest doctors for providing basic care.” She was equally clear: Unless voters want measures “criminalizing abortion nationwide, rejecting women’s right to travel for health care and even eliminating the right to birth control,” they should vote for Democrats.
Graham has provided a real service to the electorate. No voter need be confused about the two parties’ position on women’s autonomy, health care and constitutional rights. When Republicans tout a national abortion ban — or denounce the FBI or downplay Jan. 6 or oppose a slew of popular bills — they are telling us precisely what they stand for. Voters should listen.
Paul Waldman writes, “Lindsey Graham’s proposed abortion ban clarifies the midterm stakes”, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/09/13/lindsey-graham-abortion-ban-national-debate/
Just last month, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham said that “states should decide the issue of abortion.” That has been a common argument Republicans make to convince people that the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade was not such a big deal. The people’s representatives will decide, and the law will reflect the popular will, even if it’s different in Montana than in Massachusetts.
But the South Carolina Republican seems to have changed his mind, because on Tuesday, he unveiled a bill that would bar all abortions nationwide after 15 weeks of pregnancy. “We should have a law at the federal level,” Graham said, adding: “If we take back the House and the Senate, I can assure you we’ll have a vote on our bill.”
Give Graham credit: He’s making it much harder for Republicans to deny what their party actually wants, which is to eliminate abortion rights for all Americans, not just those in red states.
But this is only a 15-week ban, he would surely protest, and the vast majority of abortions take place before 15 weeks! That’s true. And if you were concerned only about the details, you might see this as a shrewd, poll-tested sweet spot on abortion policy. Or, as a GOP consultant’s recent presentation to Republican Senate candidates put it, “MUST FIGHT THIS TO A DRAW.”
But no one thinks Republicans actually want to ban abortion only after 15 weeks. One antiabortion activist who accompanied Graham at his Tuesday news conference called the bill “the bare minimum,” reiterating that the goal of their movement is to make abortion “unthinkable.” Another called it, “frankly, a very low bar.”
So it would be foolish to get baited into an argument about the details of this bill when Republicans have been so clear for so long about what their real goal is.
Furthermore, this bill won’t become law anytime soon. What’s important about it is the marker it sets to establish the principle that Republicans believe Congress should set strict limits on abortion for the whole country.
Every Republican knows the Supreme Court’s decision was highly unpopular. It transformed the midterm elections, helping to turn what was shaping up as a sweeping GOP triumph into a tight battle. It has driven a wave of women to register to vote, and more voters now say they want to elect Democrats to the House than Republicans. Even in some of the deepest-red states, Republican legislators are hesitating to pass the most draconian abortion bans.
The politically sensible thing for Republicans to do might be to keep downplaying the issue, repeating their denials that they’re interested in a national abortion ban. Thanks to Graham, that will now be much more difficult to do.
[U]ntil now, while Republicans didn’t necessarily oppose a national abortion ban, the goal has usually been dismissed as politically impractical (a constitutional amendment was needed) or a topic for some future day. Let’s get the Supreme Court to overturn Roe, then we can pass bans in red states and we’ll see about a national ban somewhere down the road.
Yet after Dobbs, even as they see the political damage they’re suffering, their own base is impatient. They waited nearly 50 years to see Roe overturned, and they’re in no mood for caution. Given that pressure, some Republicans surely think Graham’s abortion bill is a clever way to finesse the issue. But it’s not. Seen clearly, it shows exactly what they’re after.
No one can pretend this election isn’t a referendum on whether reproductive rights will continue to exist — not just where Republicans are in charge but anywhere in America. Lindsey Graham just made sure of that.
If Schumer doesn’t hold a formal vote on Little Lindsey’s bill before the midterms, forcing the Repugs to go on the record, then he’s guilty of political malpractice and needs to be removed from his leadership position. A certain Senator Professor/Fighter would be a wonderful replacement.
Well, Schumer’s snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. In his quest to coddle the Repugs he has acquiesced to the eternally concerned Susan Collins to wait after the election to schedule a vote on the very popular marriage equality bill. Susie claims to need more time to study a simple straightforward bill. Chucky really needs to be booted from his leadership position ASAP as he keeps putting the bi-partisanship fairy over his responsibilities as a leader and a Democrat.