The ‘Mayor’ of Washington, D.C. wants to take his anti-abortion crusade nationwide

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

This guy, again . . . last month I posted about Rep. Trent Franks still fancies himself 'Mayor' of Washington, D.C.:

When Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) is not channeling Joe McCarthy with his
Islamophobia conspiracy theories about how the Council on American
Islamic Relations tried to plant "spies" in the national security
apparatus, House Republicans accuse Muslim group of trying to plant spies, or claiming that African-Americans were better off under slavery than they are today (why? Because "abortion!"), or declaring that President Obama is one of the most dangerous enemies facing America today and "an enemy of humanity", or threatening to impeach President Obama
over his refusal to defend the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act,
this Christian Right anti-gay, anti-abortion zealot fancies himself the
"Mayor" of Washington, D.C., proposing to outlaw the constitutional
right to a safe abortion in the District.

Apparently "Mayor" of Washington, D.C. is no longer good enough for Franks. Not content with attempting to impose his anti-abortion crusade upon the women who live in the nation’s capital, Rep. Trent Franks  now intends to take his anti-abortion crusade nationwide with a bill to criminalize abortions after 20 weeks. Arizona Congressman Wants To Expand His DC Abortion Ban To Restrict Reproductive Rights Nationwide:

Franks, who invoked the illegal abortion provider Kermit Gosnell to justify his decision to re-introduce a 20-week abortion ban in DC, now says that Gosnell’s crimes have compelled him to amend his bill so it applies to women across the country.

The Arizona congressmember announced his decision to expand his bill on Friday.

Steve Benen points out that that Franks does not necessarily have the support of his colleagues. House GOP eyes major new anti-abortion measure:

Franks now wants to pursue this as a national policy, imposed on all
states, constitutional concerns be damned. And while random members of
Congress routinely introduce all kinds of bills that will never pass,
this one seems to have put House GOP leaders in an awkward position.

If the bill gets a markup and a vote on the House floor, it would
surely satisfy conservative members of the rank and file who want the
chamber to take a firm stance on the Gosnell conviction and against
abortion practices generally.

By this time in the 112th Congress, House Republicans had already
made an unequivocal statement that they stand against the practice with
the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which passed on a 251-175
vote.

The House's silence on the issue is notable because of the
high-profile nature of the Gosnell trial and also given last week's vote
to repeal Obamacare. GOP leaders argued that the vote was scheduled for
the benefit of freshmen who had campaigned on overturning the 2010
health care law and wanted to go on the record against it. In theory,
the same argument could apply to abortion.

This is the natural extension of the post-policy thesis
we've been talking about lately — these House Republicans know Franks'
bill won't pass, won't become law, and probably couldn't withstand court
scrutiny anyway, but want a floor vote because they see value in making
a "statement." They could try governing and legislating for a change,
but that's less important than sending "signals" to the party's
far-right activist base.

Of course, there's also the small matter
of the Republicans' rebranding initiative, and Franks' bill wouldn't do
that effort any favors, either. For the American mainstream, there's
quite a bit Congress should be working on right now, and legally dubious
anti-abortion measures that can't pass isn't high on the list.

Indeed,
as GOP leaders may recall, the preoccupation with the culture war among
House Republicans cost the party dearly in 2012, and made the gender
gap even worse.

There's also the inconvenient issue of dividing a House GOP caucus that's already splintering.

Republican leaders might want to spare some members the unsavory
prospect of taking a vote — and having a lengthy debate on a
controversial policy position that has no chance of getting signed into
law in this Congress. As members of the party that by and large opposes
abortion rights, some moderate GOP lawmakers could be torn between not
wanting to alienate influential outside groups that "score" votes on
abortion-related bills and their constituents who might see such bills
as overreaching.

This could especially be true for Franks' bill, which would seek to
institute in all jurisdictions a ban that has already been instituted in
nine states.

What will Boehner and Cantor do about all of this?

The "Worst. Speaker. Ever." has no control over his caucus. The lunatics are running the asylum, so it is almost certain that this bill will come up for a vote in the House.