Now That The Dog Has Caught The Car, Those Who Took Reproductive Rights For Granted Will Be Motivated Voters In 2022 Midterms (Updated)

Alex Seitz-Wald and Sahil Kapur from NBC News suggest that the Texas law could flip script on abortion politics, with Democrats eyeing gains:

Virginia was once at the forefront of anti-abortion efforts, going to the Supreme Court to defend its right to prosecute a newspaper publisher for running an ad promoting abortion.

Advertisement

But today, Democrats are betting that voters in the modern-day Old Dominion will keep them in the governor’s office to defend abortion rights after the Supreme Court tipped its hand on the hot-button issue Wednesday.

From Virginia to California, Democrats are trying to motivate voters as the expanded conservative majority on the court inches closer to limiting or overturning the right to terminate a pregnancy for the first time in nearly half a century. It is a glimpse into America’s shifting politics on abortion, which have typically energized conservatives more.

Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat and the former governor of Virginia who is running for a second term, was already airing TV ads about abortion before the court allowed Texas’ strict new law, which bans abortion after six weeks, to go into effect Wednesday. (Virginia bars governors from serving consecutive terms.)

And now, he says the imminent threat to Roe v. Wade will help motivate Democrats to show up in November and return him to office to ensure that abortions remain legal.

“People have been talking about the end of abortion for years and years. Now it’s actually happening,” McAuliffe said. “That will get people to come out in droves. It will really motivate folks.”

The dog finally caught the car. Those who took women’s reproductive rights for granted – “nah, they would never actually overturn Roe v. Wade” – now know better and should be fearful of what other constitutional rights this Trump radical right-wing court is prepared to reverse.

The mythical moderate from Maine, Wendy Whiner, er, Susan Collins, has repeatedly assured women she would never vote to confirm a supreme court justice who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Collins has been in the Senate since 1997: she voted to confirm Alito (2006), Gorsuch (2017), Kavanaugh (2018), and Barrett (2020) – four of the five Justices who voted to nullify Roe v. Wade. She should submit her resignation from office today. She has been unmasked as a liar or a fool (she is both).

Democrats in Washington, who face stiff headwinds in defending their majorities in Congress in next year’s midterm elections, see a new opportunity to motivate voters who may have taken abortion rights for granted.

And Republicans are dealing with an unsettling new political landscape after having promised to outlaw abortions for decades to motivate their base.

Now that they got what they said that they wanted, what’s their motivation? More seditious insurrection?

Joshua Wilson, a political science professor at the University of Denver, said Republicans have had a “safe space” for years, because their vow to outlaw abortion was seen as an empty promise by both the left and the right as a result of the support for legal abortion during the previous Supreme Court regime.

Now, that safe space is gone.

Just like Republicans always cast themselves as “super patriots” and for “law and order,” wrapping themselves in the flag, then they engaged in a violent seditious insurrection against the U.S. government in a failed coup d’etat on January 6, injuring over 140 Capitol Police officers whom they brutally attacked that day as they sought to hang Vice President Mike Pence and kill members of Congress, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (in the line of succession). This lawless mob in no way are patriots, and they did not “back the blue” who stood in the way of their violent seditious insurrection. It was all just a lie.

Now that they have been unmasked,  that mythology is gone as well.

“Under Trump, the Supreme Court context changed dramatically. So suddenly you’re in this context where the court might roll back abortion rights,” Wilson said. “That makes the politics more dangerous for Republicans.”

The sprawling growth of Virginia’s northern suburbs has turned the state into reliable Democratic turf. The departing governor, Democrat Ralph Northam, signed a law last year making Virginia the first state in the South to proactively defend abortion rights in case Roe is overturned.

McAuliffe’s Republican opponent, businessman Glenn Youngkin, was secretly recorded telling a person who had asked him to “take it to the abortionists” that his hands are tied by the politics.

Youngkin appeared to acknowledge that he would lose support in Virginia if he promised to attack abortion rights.

“I’m going to be really honest with you. The short answer is in this campaign, I can’t,” Youngkin said in the video, which was first aired on MSNBC. “When I’m governor and I have a majority in the House, we can start going on offense. But as a campaign topic, sadly, that in fact won’t win my independent votes that I have to get.”

Youngkin has mostly steered clear of abortion unless he is asked, when he has said he opposes abortion rights but believes there should be exceptions for rape and incest and when the life of the woman is at risk — exceptions not in Texas’ new law.

“I’m pro-life,” Youngkin told reporters Wednesday, “but I’m most focused on making sure Terry McAuliffe’s extreme agenda … is not part of Virginia’s future.”

Says the MAGA/QAnon Trump personalty cult acolyte. That is the definition of radical and extreme.

Youngkin released a digital ad in response to McAuliffe’s TV spots, saying that McAuliffe is “too extreme” because he supports “taxpayer funded abortions” and that he wouldn’t veto an abortion rights bill that would have allowed late-term abortions. But otherwise, Youngkin hasn’t discussed abortion on social media since he won the GOP primary.

In California, Republican Larry Elder — who has spent decades as a right-wing hate talk radio host known for gleefully pushing every hot button in politics — is keeping his distance from abortion politics as he campaigns to replace Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom in next month’s recall election.

Add this to his list. Larry Elder under fire for comments on women, allegations from former fiancée.

The recall election in the country’s most famous bastion of liberalism is a test case of Democrats’ ability to juice their base turnout when former President Donald Trump isn’t on the ballot, and issues like abortion or Covid restrictions are their formula to try to do so.

Asked about abortion by NBC News at a news conference Wednesday, Elder said that while he opposes it, the issue isn’t a “priority,” saying the Democratic supermajority in the Legislature would never pass abortion restrictions no matter who is governor.

“Before Roe v. Wade in California, abortion was pretty much available on demand. And in the event that Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortion will still be available pretty much on demand here in California,” Elder said. “The reason I’m running has nothing to do with Roe v. Wade.

Only wealthy women who can afford it have “abortion on demand.” For everyone else, it is difficult to obtain and is a financial hardship. This clown talks like an out-of-touch wealthy elitist.

‘Shake up the midterms’

In Congress, Democratic lawmakers were once divided, with more rural members opposing abortion rights. But now, the party is largely unified, the product of defeats in rural areas and the loss of the support of white voters who didn’t go to college — voters who mostly still oppose abortion.

Democrats’ new majority is due to well-educated voters who tend to hold more socially liberal views.

A recent NBC News poll found that 54 percent of Americans want abortion to be mostly legal, while 42 percent want it to be mostly illegal. And the regional disparities are stark: Urban voters want abortion to be legal by a nearly 2-to-1 ratio, and rural voters want it to be illegal by a 2-to-1 ratio.

In the suburbs, where control of Congress is likely to be decided, 54 percent of voters say abortion should be legal, compared to 42 percent who say it should be illegal, the poll found. College-educated white voters favor abortion rights by 60 percent to 37 percent.

“The Democrats need things to shake up the midterms in order to buck a lot of historical trends working against them. This could certainly be that,” said former House campaign operative Tyler Law, a Democratic consultant, who posited that abortion rights could “halt gains Republicans hope to make in higher-educated, suburban areas.”

Democrats’ Senate campaign arm said the Supreme Court’s tacit approval of Texas’ law is “a powerful reminder of the stakes in next year’s election — and why we must defend a Democratic Senate majority with the power to confirm or reject Supreme Court justices.”

The chair of the House Democratic campaign committee, Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York, vowed to fight “from now until Election Day to make sure that the House Republicans who are coming for women’s reproductive rights lose their seats in 2022.”

Democrats hear Texas abortion restrictions as a rallying cry for the left. Meanwhile, the GOP’s House and Senate campaign committees didn’t weigh in on the Texas law or the court’s quiet greenlighting of it Wednesday.

Republican strategist Matt Gorman, who was communications director for the party’s House campaign arm in 2018, said it’s “too early to tell” what the issue means for 2022 races.

“There’s a chance it fades and is a peripheral issue. There’s a chance it animates women and liberals,” he said. “The key is that Republicans will be asked their stance and whether they agree or disagree. They need to be ready.”

He’s just hoping it goes away. Women and the men who love them will not forget, they will remember when they cast their ballot.

And Republicans are looking to recapture the suburbs after having watched them drift away during Trump’s presidency.

“The state politics matter greatly for the future of abortion rights,” said Wilson, the political scientist. “Because if the Supreme Court begins to erode or dismantle abortion protections in a meaningful way, then that just puts more pressure on to the states to act.”

I can assure you that Cathi Herrod at the Center for Arizona Policy, Arizona’s unofficial 31st Senator, is already working with her lickspittle lackeys in the Republican-controlled Arizona legislature to introduce a Texas vigilante abortion bounty bill here in Arizona in January. Don’t say I didn’t warn you. Be prepared.

UPDATE: A reality check for these NBC political analysts from Elie Mystal of The Nation:





Advertisement

Discover more from Blog for Arizona

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

2 thoughts on “Now That The Dog Has Caught The Car, Those Who Took Reproductive Rights For Granted Will Be Motivated Voters In 2022 Midterms (Updated)”

  1. Restrictive covenants, “state action” enforcement, and the Texas antiabortion law. [WHY isn’t anybody talking about this in the news???]

    Considering the Texas antiabortion law: If it is unconstitutional then there can be NO “state action” to enforce it. That was the way that the Sup Ct. invalidated all those restrictive covenants in home titles. If a Texas state judge acted to enforce those covenants (and/or this Texas law) then you had (and/or have) “state action” and then the Attorney General of the United States could sue the Texas judge or the Texas state judicial supervisory authorities (probably the Texas State Supreme Court) for allowing enforcement of an unconstitutional law via Roe v. Wade.

    I did a quick search and only found only two recent articles that related private antiabortion enforcement law and “state action”. There’s a lot of inside baseball in this piece. But the author seems to believe that using the Shelley v. Kraemer model will NOT work to count judicial enforcement of any of the private law suits under the new Texas anti abortion law as government action to enforce the Texas law.

    “When Does Government Act Through Private Actors? Texas Private Attorney General Enforcement Against Abortion Providers”, Dorf On Law, Wednesday, July 21, 2021

    http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2021/07/when-does-government-act-through.html

    There is another article about the legal implications of the Texas law. While it does NOT mention ‘Shelley’, or “state action”, it does mention how the Supreme Court in 1948 struck down “racially restrictive covenants in real estate contracts” by holding that state courts are “government actors”.

    “In a wide-ranging 49-page complaint, an array of abortion providers and abortion rights groups in Texas have sued Texas state court judges, Texas state court clerks and an array of state health officials in challenging the new law. As the lawsuit notes, even if, under the law, state enforcement proceedings can be initiated only by citizens, those proceedings can’t actually accomplish anything without the participation of judges, clerks and health officials. Thus, although these potential defendants aren’t tasked with enforcing the law and bear no responsibility for its enactment, the law can’t be enforced without them.

    “There is precedent for this approach [above]. In 1948, for instance, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the use of racially restrictive covenants in real estate contracts by holding that even though the contracts were agreements between private parties, they couldn’t be enforced without the cooperation of state court judges, which would violate the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection for all under the law. The same is true here: The citizens who would enforce the law are not government actors, but the courts that would hear their suits are. It’s certainly an unusual way to challenge a state law, but it’s one that, in our view, is entirely appropriate.”

    ‘Texas Tries to Upend the Legal System With Its Abortion Law’, by By Laurence H. Tribe and Stephen I. Vladeck, July 19, 2021

    “Mr. Tribe is an emeritus professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School; Mr. Vladeck is a professor at the University of Texas School of Law in Austin.”

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/19/opinion/texas-abortion-law-reward.html

  2. You heard it here first, folks. Arizona’s Taliban leader “says Texas ban a ‘road map’ for legislation here”, https://tucson.com/news/local/arizona-anti-abortion-leader-says-texas-ban-a-road-map-for-legislation-here/article_f3e250fc-0c14-11ec-b175-ab2eee01e17a.html#tracking-source=home-top-story-1

    The head of the state’s main anti-abortion organization said Thursday she is looking to use the newly enacted Texas ban on the terminating of a pregnancy after fetal heartbeat has been detected as a template for legislation here.

    Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, said the late-night decision Wednesday by the U.S. Supreme Court to allow the Texas law to take effect appears to provide a “road map’’ for enacting abortion restrictions in this state that, until now, have been struck down by federal courts.

    Herrod is taking a closer look at what she calls a “novel approach’’ to restricting abortion.

    “The Texas heartbeat law is a road map to what other states can do,’’ she told Capitol Media Services. “The Texas heartbeat law is worthy of serious consideration by the Arizona Legislature.’’

    She acknowledged that, strictly speaking, the Supreme Court action was not a final ruling on the constitutionality of the measure. But the fact remains that the justices have allowed the law to take effect.

    Herrod isn’t the only one paying attention to the ruling and what it could mean in Arizona.

    So is Sen. Nancy Barto, R-Phoenix.

    She is the sponsor of a new Arizona law which makes it a crime, enforceable by the state, to abort a fetus due to “genetic abnormalities.” That law is set to take effect at the end of this month, though there is a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality.

    Barto said she wants to see how this particular approach to banning abortions at six weeks is considered by the courts on its merits. But the senator indicated she is hopeful.

    “So far, it’s saving lives,’’ Barto said of the Texas statute. “And that should encourage everyone who cares about protecting life in the womb.’’

    There was no immediate response to the Supreme Court ruling from Gov. Doug Ducey who has signed every abortion restriction that has reached his desk…

    …and will do so again.

Comments are closed.