GordonGekko
Footballguy
Direct Headline: Schumer’s Radical Abortion Bill
The Women’s Health Protection Act makes the new Democratic policy: Safe, legal and don’t tell your parents...
Protesters marched on the homes of conservative Supreme Court Justices over the weekend, an ugly attempt to scare them into saving Roe v. Wade. This week the drama moves to the Senate, where Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer plans a vote on a sweeping bill to override state laws and set a national abortion policy.....House Democrats passed the Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA) last year, but it stalled in the Senate. It’s expected to fail again this week. But that isn’t stopping Mr. Schumer, who is refusing to take up a bill by GOP Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, who have their own proposal to codify Roe v. Wade. “I have long supported a woman’s right to choose,” Ms. Murkowski said, “but my position is not without limits, and this partisan Women’s Health Protection Act simply goes too far.”...
Bill Clinton’s artful framing was that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare,” but that’s ancient history to today’s Democrats. The WHPA would guarantee abortion access “at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability,” about 23 weeks. Women seeking such services could not be asked to “disclose the patient’s reason.” Some states have tried to prohibit sex-selective abortion, the practice usually of terminating a girl merely because a boy is desired. The WHPA appears to protect that choice....After fetal viability, the WHPA would assure a right to an abortion whenever the physician’s “good-faith medical judgment” is that “the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.” What counts as “health”? This is sometimes defined to include mental, emotional or familial factors, a loophole that permits elective abortions, more or less, through all nine months of pregnancy.
The legislation also exempts itself from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which is why Ms. Collins says it would undercut “basic conscience protections” for religious healthcare providers. In its findings, the bill says abortion access “has been obstructed” by state “parental involvement laws (notification and consent).”...Is the Democratic policy in 2022 that abortion should be safe, legal and don’t tell your parents? “Ultimately I feel that young women at a certain age should have the rights to make these kind of decisions with their doctor,” Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly told National Review reporter John McCormack. “I’m not going to be the arbiter of an age and a timeline.” Nobody is asking him to be the arbiter. Yet he’s voting to nullify state laws....
A national abortion bill is also constitutionally suspect. If the Supreme Court overturns Roe, the federal government will lack any 14th Amendment justification to override state abortion laws. The WHPA could be left relying on Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce” among the states....But the Commerce Clause isn’t unlimited, and Congress can’t overrule the constitutional police powers of the 50 states. It can ban some activity that a state allows, such as marijuana cultivation in California (Gonzales v. Raich, 2005) when there is arguably an interstate market in the drug. But abortion is a medical procedure provided and regulated locally or by states.
Some states are likely to ban abortion if Roe falls. If Congress can then compel the legality of abortions that are banned by state law, there is no limiting principle to what traditional sphere of state power it can’t oversee under the Commerce Clause. Why not local zoning or prostitution laws?
By the way, in voting for a national abortion law, Democrats may be creating an open door for Republicans to do the same when they next hold power. This would be as constitutionally dubious as Mr. Schumer’s bill, but Democrats will have made it easier for the GOP to ignore the Constitution too....Similar logic probably applies to the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed in 2003. The Justices upheld that law against a different set of arguments. Yet as Justice Clarence Thomas noted in a concurrence: “Whether the Act constitutes a permissible exercise of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause is not before the Court.” If Roe falls, it’s hard to justify under the Commerce Clause.
As for Democratic calls to kill the Senate filibuster, do they really want abortion policy in 50 states to flip-flop depending on who wins the next Senate race in Georgia or Wisconsin? The wise move is to table the WHPA. Then Democrats can fight it out in the states, the constitutional way, for the abortion policy they want....
By The Editorial Board May 9, 2022 6:38 pm ET
https://www.wsj.com/articles/chuck-schumers-radical-abortion-bill-senate-democrats-roe-v-wade-womens-health-protection-act-11652133702
Direct Headline: Democratic Party has gone too extreme on abortion: Pro-life Democrats
One candidate wants to grow the nearly extinct pro-life Democratic caucus...Pro-life Democrats say the party has gone too extreme on abortion and worry the legislation leadership is pushing this week to expand abortion access nationwide will alienate voters in an already tough midterm election. ...Currently, there are only two consistently pro-life Democrats left in Congress – one in each chamber – as the national Democratic Party has taken the position that abortion is an essential health care....The bill Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., is bringing for a vote Wednesday is the Women's Health Protection Act. It's been criticized by pro-choice Republican Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, as "overly broad," including striking down state limits on abortion, even bans on gender-based abortion. ....
"It's a huge mistake...He thinks he's motivating his base, which maybe he is, but he already has that base. So who is he trying to reach? Because he's alienating people like me with doubling down on this extreme abortion policy goes further than Roe. It's like Roe on steroids. It basically eliminates all health and safety regulations across the nation."...Day worries the party is alienating some 20 million pro-life Democrats with its legislative agenda and official stance that "abortion is health care." She calls that messaging "ridiculous." Abortion, she said, "is the death penalty."...
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said the vote is needed to show Americans exactly "where their elected representatives in Congress stand."..."Every senator will have to explain whether they defend the right of every person to have control over their own bodies and their own futures...Or whether they will stand by as women’s constitutional rights are brazenly stripped away."
And with the midterms looming and a tough political environment for Democrats, Republican say that's what the vote is all about. ...."Sen. Schumer can be accused of a lot of things, but avoiding the theatrics of a show vote is not one of them...The fact that he plans for the Senate to consider a bill that he knows will fail – because it already has – says everything you need to know, because the only outcome he’s interested in is a political one."....
The bill Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., is bringing for a vote Wednesday is the Women's Health Protection Act. It's been criticized by pro-choice Republican Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, as "overly broad," including striking down state limits on abortion.... By not addressing Collins' and Murkowski's concerns, Schumer is likely foreclosing the possibility of a bipartisan vote to codify Roe v. Wade. The bill would not pass anyway, as Senate Republicans are expected to filibuster it, and 60 votes are needed to end a filibuster, which Democrats do not have.....But a vote in which all 50 Senate Republicans vote against protecting abortion rights may be the kind of thing Schumer can use to rile up the progressive base ahead of the midterms.
"When you judge by Twitter, you're not necessarily getting the reality. But judging by Twitter, Democrats have been activated and it's all about ange....Which side is angriest? Which motivates the base? And a midterm election is a battle of the bases."
....But, he added, issues like inflation and immigration are going to be more top-of-mind for most voters going into the election where many people simply are not affected by abortion in their everyday lives...."Inflation affects everybody day to day. We're all affected by it, we all think about it....Abortion for most people is kind of a theoretical concept, particularly if you're older. It's not something that you focus on."....Some Republicans, meanwhile, think Democrats are overplaying their hand on abortion. They cite poll numbers that show most Americans don't support unrestricted abortion even in later terms, as the Democrats' bill would allow.....
By Marisa Schultz/Tyler Olson May 10, 2022 6:56pm EDT
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democratic-party-too-extreme-abortion-pro-life-democrat
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/abortion-senate-vote-schumer-roe-dobbs-supreme-court
H.R.3755 - Women's Health Protection Act of 2021117th Congress (2021-2022)
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3755/text
Roll Call Vote 117th Congress - 2nd Session Vote Summary
Vote Number: 65 / Date: February 28, 2022, 05:45 PM / Required For Majority: 3/5
Vote Result: Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected
Measure Number: H.R. 3755 (Women's Health Protection Act of 2021 )
Measure Title: A bill to protect a person's ability to determine whether to continue or end a pregnancy, and to protect a health care provider's ability to provide abortion services.
Vote Counts: YEAs 46 / NAYs 48 / Not Voting 6
Not Voting - 6
Feinstein (D-CA)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Kennedy (R-LA)
Lujan (D-NM)
Paul (R-KY)
Warnock (D-GA)
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1172/vote_117_2_00065.htm
*******
This is a pretty complicated topic.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is going to put HR 3755 back up for vote today ( 5/11/22), even though it's failed before and he doesn't have the numbers to get it passed by the Senate, as a clear desperate political strategy to save the Mid Terms for Team Blue in what previously was seen as a clear Red Tornado encroaching.
The problems?
1) Allowing abortions "up until the moment of birth" will alienate many Pro Choice voters. Many people are Pro Choice but don't operate that viewpoint with a pure blank check. Many will see the removal of any demarcation point ( i.e. 15 Weeks or pick another timeline under scrutiny and heavy debate) as too aggressive and won't support it
The heavy question becomes when does "Pro Choice" transition to "Pro Abortion" for the Team Blue Party platform?
2) There are Pro Life Democrats out there. Many won't like where they feel the GOP is going with abortion rights, but that doesn't mean they are going to be happy with moving past what was the previously accepted long term status quo with Roe Vs Wade. If you drag people out of the middle, the fair assessment is the GOP probably is in a better position to lose some of these voters, while Team Blue is clearly under the gun from inflation, the Border Crisis, Afghanistan, widespread enabling of crime, etc, etc.
The heavy question is, from a political strategy perspective, can the Democrats afford to lose even more votes for the Mid Terms and the 2024 cycle. Will the votes they gain over Roe Vs Wade offset the losses they will take otherwise from such a blank check position with HR 3755?
3) HR 3755/WHPA does not limit Sex-Selective Abortions.
The heavy question becomes can Team Blue get past the toxic media optics narrative that abortions will be used to filter out the "wrong gender" preferred by the potential parent. Especially when there is a backdrop of many Democrats refusing to want to define "gender" at all. Lots of American's are going to be enraged at identity politics looking like a death sentence based on some mix of woke/vanity/narcissism.
4) If the Democrats ever get the numbers one day to make something like HR 3755, it is not without deep and troubling Constitutional questions.
The heavy question for Team Blue is are they one day willing to take staggering political losses only to be subverted by SCOTUS anyway?
5) What about "White Evangelical Voters"? While many lined up for Trump in 2016, some of those defected to Biden in 2020. 2024 could sadly ( I mean completely pathetic on all levels) return into a rematch of Trump Vs Biden for POTUS.
The heavy question for Democrats is how much down the ticket staggering losses might they be risking after countless videos emerge of nearly 9 month along "fetuses/infants/babies/you pick a name to define it" have their skulls crushed and are dragged out of a woman's body? Christian voters whom might be on the fence about abortion before will revolt in large numbers.
What Schumer is not seeing here for this clear grand standing political Hail Mary is that the Democratic Party is not a monolith. Pro Choice voters are not a monolith. Pro Life Democrats are not a monolith. White Evangelical Voters are not a monolith. If you lose more total votes than you gained over abortion, with pure attrition on practical political capital implied, this could all very well backfire on Team Blue and possibly for the long term into actual legacy votes for countless future election cycles.
My viewpoint is that it will backfire to the point where it will create more long term losses for the establishment Democrats.
I'll leave this here for others to discuss.
The Women’s Health Protection Act makes the new Democratic policy: Safe, legal and don’t tell your parents...
Protesters marched on the homes of conservative Supreme Court Justices over the weekend, an ugly attempt to scare them into saving Roe v. Wade. This week the drama moves to the Senate, where Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer plans a vote on a sweeping bill to override state laws and set a national abortion policy.....House Democrats passed the Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA) last year, but it stalled in the Senate. It’s expected to fail again this week. But that isn’t stopping Mr. Schumer, who is refusing to take up a bill by GOP Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, who have their own proposal to codify Roe v. Wade. “I have long supported a woman’s right to choose,” Ms. Murkowski said, “but my position is not without limits, and this partisan Women’s Health Protection Act simply goes too far.”...
Bill Clinton’s artful framing was that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare,” but that’s ancient history to today’s Democrats. The WHPA would guarantee abortion access “at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability,” about 23 weeks. Women seeking such services could not be asked to “disclose the patient’s reason.” Some states have tried to prohibit sex-selective abortion, the practice usually of terminating a girl merely because a boy is desired. The WHPA appears to protect that choice....After fetal viability, the WHPA would assure a right to an abortion whenever the physician’s “good-faith medical judgment” is that “the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.” What counts as “health”? This is sometimes defined to include mental, emotional or familial factors, a loophole that permits elective abortions, more or less, through all nine months of pregnancy.
The legislation also exempts itself from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which is why Ms. Collins says it would undercut “basic conscience protections” for religious healthcare providers. In its findings, the bill says abortion access “has been obstructed” by state “parental involvement laws (notification and consent).”...Is the Democratic policy in 2022 that abortion should be safe, legal and don’t tell your parents? “Ultimately I feel that young women at a certain age should have the rights to make these kind of decisions with their doctor,” Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly told National Review reporter John McCormack. “I’m not going to be the arbiter of an age and a timeline.” Nobody is asking him to be the arbiter. Yet he’s voting to nullify state laws....
A national abortion bill is also constitutionally suspect. If the Supreme Court overturns Roe, the federal government will lack any 14th Amendment justification to override state abortion laws. The WHPA could be left relying on Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce” among the states....But the Commerce Clause isn’t unlimited, and Congress can’t overrule the constitutional police powers of the 50 states. It can ban some activity that a state allows, such as marijuana cultivation in California (Gonzales v. Raich, 2005) when there is arguably an interstate market in the drug. But abortion is a medical procedure provided and regulated locally or by states.
Some states are likely to ban abortion if Roe falls. If Congress can then compel the legality of abortions that are banned by state law, there is no limiting principle to what traditional sphere of state power it can’t oversee under the Commerce Clause. Why not local zoning or prostitution laws?
By the way, in voting for a national abortion law, Democrats may be creating an open door for Republicans to do the same when they next hold power. This would be as constitutionally dubious as Mr. Schumer’s bill, but Democrats will have made it easier for the GOP to ignore the Constitution too....Similar logic probably applies to the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed in 2003. The Justices upheld that law against a different set of arguments. Yet as Justice Clarence Thomas noted in a concurrence: “Whether the Act constitutes a permissible exercise of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause is not before the Court.” If Roe falls, it’s hard to justify under the Commerce Clause.
As for Democratic calls to kill the Senate filibuster, do they really want abortion policy in 50 states to flip-flop depending on who wins the next Senate race in Georgia or Wisconsin? The wise move is to table the WHPA. Then Democrats can fight it out in the states, the constitutional way, for the abortion policy they want....
By The Editorial Board May 9, 2022 6:38 pm ET
https://www.wsj.com/articles/chuck-schumers-radical-abortion-bill-senate-democrats-roe-v-wade-womens-health-protection-act-11652133702
Direct Headline: Democratic Party has gone too extreme on abortion: Pro-life Democrats
One candidate wants to grow the nearly extinct pro-life Democratic caucus...Pro-life Democrats say the party has gone too extreme on abortion and worry the legislation leadership is pushing this week to expand abortion access nationwide will alienate voters in an already tough midterm election. ...Currently, there are only two consistently pro-life Democrats left in Congress – one in each chamber – as the national Democratic Party has taken the position that abortion is an essential health care....The bill Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., is bringing for a vote Wednesday is the Women's Health Protection Act. It's been criticized by pro-choice Republican Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, as "overly broad," including striking down state limits on abortion, even bans on gender-based abortion. ....
"It's a huge mistake...He thinks he's motivating his base, which maybe he is, but he already has that base. So who is he trying to reach? Because he's alienating people like me with doubling down on this extreme abortion policy goes further than Roe. It's like Roe on steroids. It basically eliminates all health and safety regulations across the nation."...Day worries the party is alienating some 20 million pro-life Democrats with its legislative agenda and official stance that "abortion is health care." She calls that messaging "ridiculous." Abortion, she said, "is the death penalty."...
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said the vote is needed to show Americans exactly "where their elected representatives in Congress stand."..."Every senator will have to explain whether they defend the right of every person to have control over their own bodies and their own futures...Or whether they will stand by as women’s constitutional rights are brazenly stripped away."
And with the midterms looming and a tough political environment for Democrats, Republican say that's what the vote is all about. ...."Sen. Schumer can be accused of a lot of things, but avoiding the theatrics of a show vote is not one of them...The fact that he plans for the Senate to consider a bill that he knows will fail – because it already has – says everything you need to know, because the only outcome he’s interested in is a political one."....
The bill Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., is bringing for a vote Wednesday is the Women's Health Protection Act. It's been criticized by pro-choice Republican Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, as "overly broad," including striking down state limits on abortion.... By not addressing Collins' and Murkowski's concerns, Schumer is likely foreclosing the possibility of a bipartisan vote to codify Roe v. Wade. The bill would not pass anyway, as Senate Republicans are expected to filibuster it, and 60 votes are needed to end a filibuster, which Democrats do not have.....But a vote in which all 50 Senate Republicans vote against protecting abortion rights may be the kind of thing Schumer can use to rile up the progressive base ahead of the midterms.
"When you judge by Twitter, you're not necessarily getting the reality. But judging by Twitter, Democrats have been activated and it's all about ange....Which side is angriest? Which motivates the base? And a midterm election is a battle of the bases."
....But, he added, issues like inflation and immigration are going to be more top-of-mind for most voters going into the election where many people simply are not affected by abortion in their everyday lives...."Inflation affects everybody day to day. We're all affected by it, we all think about it....Abortion for most people is kind of a theoretical concept, particularly if you're older. It's not something that you focus on."....Some Republicans, meanwhile, think Democrats are overplaying their hand on abortion. They cite poll numbers that show most Americans don't support unrestricted abortion even in later terms, as the Democrats' bill would allow.....
By Marisa Schultz/Tyler Olson May 10, 2022 6:56pm EDT
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democratic-party-too-extreme-abortion-pro-life-democrat
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/abortion-senate-vote-schumer-roe-dobbs-supreme-court
H.R.3755 - Women's Health Protection Act of 2021117th Congress (2021-2022)
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3755/text
Roll Call Vote 117th Congress - 2nd Session Vote Summary
Vote Number: 65 / Date: February 28, 2022, 05:45 PM / Required For Majority: 3/5
Vote Result: Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected
Measure Number: H.R. 3755 (Women's Health Protection Act of 2021 )
Measure Title: A bill to protect a person's ability to determine whether to continue or end a pregnancy, and to protect a health care provider's ability to provide abortion services.
Vote Counts: YEAs 46 / NAYs 48 / Not Voting 6
Not Voting - 6
Feinstein (D-CA)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Kennedy (R-LA)
Lujan (D-NM)
Paul (R-KY)
Warnock (D-GA)
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1172/vote_117_2_00065.htm
*******
This is a pretty complicated topic.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is going to put HR 3755 back up for vote today ( 5/11/22), even though it's failed before and he doesn't have the numbers to get it passed by the Senate, as a clear desperate political strategy to save the Mid Terms for Team Blue in what previously was seen as a clear Red Tornado encroaching.
The problems?
1) Allowing abortions "up until the moment of birth" will alienate many Pro Choice voters. Many people are Pro Choice but don't operate that viewpoint with a pure blank check. Many will see the removal of any demarcation point ( i.e. 15 Weeks or pick another timeline under scrutiny and heavy debate) as too aggressive and won't support it
The heavy question becomes when does "Pro Choice" transition to "Pro Abortion" for the Team Blue Party platform?
2) There are Pro Life Democrats out there. Many won't like where they feel the GOP is going with abortion rights, but that doesn't mean they are going to be happy with moving past what was the previously accepted long term status quo with Roe Vs Wade. If you drag people out of the middle, the fair assessment is the GOP probably is in a better position to lose some of these voters, while Team Blue is clearly under the gun from inflation, the Border Crisis, Afghanistan, widespread enabling of crime, etc, etc.
The heavy question is, from a political strategy perspective, can the Democrats afford to lose even more votes for the Mid Terms and the 2024 cycle. Will the votes they gain over Roe Vs Wade offset the losses they will take otherwise from such a blank check position with HR 3755?
3) HR 3755/WHPA does not limit Sex-Selective Abortions.
The heavy question becomes can Team Blue get past the toxic media optics narrative that abortions will be used to filter out the "wrong gender" preferred by the potential parent. Especially when there is a backdrop of many Democrats refusing to want to define "gender" at all. Lots of American's are going to be enraged at identity politics looking like a death sentence based on some mix of woke/vanity/narcissism.
4) If the Democrats ever get the numbers one day to make something like HR 3755, it is not without deep and troubling Constitutional questions.
The heavy question for Team Blue is are they one day willing to take staggering political losses only to be subverted by SCOTUS anyway?
5) What about "White Evangelical Voters"? While many lined up for Trump in 2016, some of those defected to Biden in 2020. 2024 could sadly ( I mean completely pathetic on all levels) return into a rematch of Trump Vs Biden for POTUS.
The heavy question for Democrats is how much down the ticket staggering losses might they be risking after countless videos emerge of nearly 9 month along "fetuses/infants/babies/you pick a name to define it" have their skulls crushed and are dragged out of a woman's body? Christian voters whom might be on the fence about abortion before will revolt in large numbers.
What Schumer is not seeing here for this clear grand standing political Hail Mary is that the Democratic Party is not a monolith. Pro Choice voters are not a monolith. Pro Life Democrats are not a monolith. White Evangelical Voters are not a monolith. If you lose more total votes than you gained over abortion, with pure attrition on practical political capital implied, this could all very well backfire on Team Blue and possibly for the long term into actual legacy votes for countless future election cycles.
My viewpoint is that it will backfire to the point where it will create more long term losses for the establishment Democrats.
I'll leave this here for others to discuss.
