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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.