३ जुलै, २०२२
"On Capitol Hill, House Democratic leaders are discussing ways to force Republicans into uncomfortable positions on abortion..."
"Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) sent a letter to colleagues Monday noting that leadership had been discussing potential votes related to abortion... House leaders have asked committee chairs to flag legislation that they could consider voting on to hold Republicans accountable on numerous protections, according to two House Democratic aides who spoke on the condition of anonymity to outline private deliberations. A House GOP aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss their member’s thinking, acknowledged that such votes could put them in a tough spot with their base.
Some senior Democratic aides in the Senate have voiced wariness of deploying a similar strategy in their chamber, worrying that holding such kinds of votes might allow Republican senators who voted to confirm Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe to claim they acted to uphold women’s reproductive rights.
Those dynamics arose in the Democratic caucus meeting where a group of women senators discussed strategy ahead of the court ruling — tamping down the possibility that there might be a string of 'show votes' to demonstrate Republican opposition to abortion rights and potentially other freedoms.
Instead, the three Democrats familiar with the meeting said, a likelier strategy is to attempt over the summer to pass bills on the floor by unanimous consent — a maneuver that would publicly demonstrate GOP opposition to popular measures but would not require all senators to cast votes on them."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
६४ टिप्पण्या:
Reads like Democrat leaders in congress are more concerned with the impact on Republicans than on women.
Democrats pounce, seize, weaponize!
That's one convoluted article. I have no doubt that Democrats want Republicans to look bad, but I think most voters know which party supports abortion and Roe vs supports Dobbs. In the meantime, our President is seeking out ways to lower oil prices that don't involve increasing domestic supply. He tried to make a deal with Saudi Arabia and instead they started talks with China in joining the BRICS. Biden's tried Venezuela, since he doesn't understand what Chavez/Maduro did to that country, because he believes what they did will work for America too. So sure Nancy/WaPo, try and figure out ways to make Republicans look bad on Dobbs.
Why don't Democrats, at state level, come forward with legislative proposals that could be enacted? Why go for theatrics which won't actually deliver anything?
Yikes. More concerned about putting hurt the other side than just fixing the problem. How about just simply making a reasonable law and have both side vote on it. I think allowing abortion in the first trimester has wide support in every state. Ignore the extremes on both side and just pass a damn law.
Seems silly to me. Any Republican in their right mind would simply ignore all legislative efforts and position themselves as letting their constituents decide at the state level, where it belongs. I recall GHW Bush's consternation over single issue abortion voters.
Liberals overplayed their hand, which allowed the case to get to the Supreme Court to begin with. They could have settled for exact same rules as most of "enlightened" Europe and it would have never come to this. I think this was allowed to happen in order to create a wedge issue for dems, with states reverting back to bans on the books for almost 100 years ago. When the public finally realizes that SCOTUS didn't ban abortion, the dems will find less than zero gain on the issue.
Ha ha ha ha How do you define ‘Performative’ : a maneuver that would publicly demonstrate GOP opposition to popular measures but would not require all senators to cast votes on them.
They could you know, say pass a law or something, but they would rather have votes highlighting Republican opposition. So Ms Althouse have the fundraising letters and emails arrived yet.
I was worried about how abortion would impact the GOP November prospects - then I went to the grocery store.
This is the most important issue facing the country -- say about 5% of voters.
If WaPo's reporting on this, it means that cooler heads among the Democrats don't think it will work and don't want to run the risk of possibly alienating men who lean left, but aren't totally committed to abortion.
THEY should be embarrassed that they want to kill babies so badly that they attack people who want each state to make that decision like they should.
“Why don't Democrats, at state level, come forward with legislative proposals that could be enacted? Why go for theatrics which won't actually deliver anything?”
They don’t want anything delivered. Especially babies.
And the Rs say it’s not a federal question but rather is up to each state to decide
Bring. It. On.
Some senior Democratic aides in the Senate have voiced wariness of deploying a similar strategy in their chamber, worrying that holding such kinds of votes might allow Republican senators who voted to confirm Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe to claim they acted to uphold women’s reproductive rights.
If democrats can't decide on how bad to make republicans look, in time for the midterm elections, how focused are they on helping the post-roe women caught pregnant and approaching their term limits to abort? Are these women even in the democrats' minds? Or are they just using them?
Or the Democrats could try to come up with ideas that deal with the range of the most pressing concerns that Americans have, of which abortion is not one. Ideas that might sway people to vote for Democrats because of what they stand for and what they think.
You know, run on ideas instead of accusations of paternalistic white supremacy. Something uplifting instead of accusatory. Speaking as if you liked the people who's vote you are trying to get instead of scowling at them and treating them as morally and intellectually inferior.
Maybe that would work.
There are very few mentions anywhere of the proposed Collins/Murkowski bill, outlined here. https://www.collins.senate.gov/newsroom/senators-collins-and-murkowski-introduce-bill-to-codify-supreme-court-decisions-on-reproductive-rights_roe-v-wade-and-planned-parenthood-v-casey?fbclid=IwAR311PxexhTW2gsdCMcVfg5Doq1Vkkxh7nhV04x2NthNM0BOlnobtVg9bUE This bill basically codifies Roe Vs. Wade, but does not go far enough for pro abortion activists.
I believe most Republicans would vote to approve abortions in the case of rape, incest, to protect the life of the mother, or when the fetus is non viable due to fatal anomalies.
But nothing like this will be proposed, because both parties totally love this conflict and use it to raise funds.
Congress could probably pass the Mississippi abortion law within a week if the Democrats in the Senate would support it. So why haven't they offerred it up for a vote?
Why go for theatrics which won't actually deliver anything?
Fundraising
I honestly don't know but my impression is that after the leak, no state legislature tried to put together a post-Dobbs law. Even though they knew one would be needed. If true, that's sad.
As long as Roe and Casey were on the books, Republicans could safely be pro-life from the moment of conception and Democrats pro-choice through 9-months.
The Democrats are in a bind, they want Republicans to look bad, but can't bring themselves to introduce any bills which aren't extreme. Republicans are in a great position: They can't introduce anything since they're in the minority and having Congress do nothing is actually the best outcome--both for them and for the country. The states will make their rules and it won't be a national issue anymore.
Democrats in government are only concerned with the short term political value of the bills they pass. They are completely unconcerned with creating lasting value. They always are working on trick fing their way to success.
force Republicans into uncomfortable positions on abortion..."
What, Like The Back Of A Volkswagen?
Seriously, let's get republicans (And democrats!) on the record.
Should Abortion be Legal?
Ever?
6 weeks?
1st trimester?
15 weeks?
6 months? (2nd trimester?)
Never?
Let's FIND OUT what our leaders THINK!!!
(Here's what polls say WE think):
numbers from the latest Economist/YouGov poll, it included a number of questions on abortion and was conducted entirely after the Supreme Court’s recent Dobbs decision was announced.
On the subject of abortion, at what point in a pregnancy do you think abortions should be banned?
Abortion should never be banned 28%
Banned after six months (the second trimester) 7%
Banned after 15 weeks 12%
Banned after three months (the first trimester) 16%
Banned after six weeks (when a fetal heartbeat can be detected) 18%
Banned after conception (always banned) 20%
I guess the Democrat members of the House figure they are from safe enough districts that they can let their own extremist flags fly.
It doesn’t work so well in the Senate where there are vulnerable senators from purple states.
Maybe Republicans should take the initiative and proffer a bill based on the law from France or Germany or something.
@tolkein, Those are two excellent self-answering questions.
Oh good.
I was hoping Congress would jump into political maneuvering rather than focus on actually passing some good laws.
Democrats are good liars so I assume they will think of something.
Another strategy for the Democrats would be to use the state legislatures to make abortion laws.
Overturning Roe, Roe, Roe your baby returns the issue of slavery... diversity [dogma]... human rites (e.g. witch trials, warlock judgments, baby cannibalism and sequestration) to the states.
That said, there is no mystery in sex and conception. A woman's (i.e. female by Nature) and man's (i.e. male by Nature) first choice is to have sex or abstain. Their second choice is prevention of conception (in depth). Their third choice is adoption (i.e. shared/shifted responsibility). Their fourth choice is compassion (i.e. shared/personal responsibility). And they, a couple together, woman and man individually, have an equal right to self-defense through reconciliation.
Roe's regrets. Ruth's remorse. Demos-cracy (i.e. "burden" h/t Obama) is aborted at the twilight fringe in darkness. h/t WaPo
Next force a vote on drag queen story hour in every school.
Presumably Republicans will be highlighting all of the senators who voted for Schumer's bill, which would have authorized abortion up until birth. Is that an "uncomfortable position"?
Brinkmanship and let us see who will leap into / bridge across the abyss chasm whatever for November and beyond
D aim is to keep part of their base on the plantation and part of base in stirrups in the examinaton room
Although I know of a few women who won't see through this ploy - they vote pro-abortion as one issue voters - I have faith that as the smoke clears most intelligent women are going to see that the way to secure abortion in their state, as they could have done for 50 years - is to deal with it in the state. Though abortion is an important issue poll after poll indicates that it lags far behind the economy in importance . The Dems seem to ignore that for every pro-abortion voter there is more than likely at least one pro-life voter and likely, too, there is one that supports "choice" but not in the extreme way the national Dems seem to. The national Dems are, I think, just as likely to alienate a significant number of voters with some ridiculous demands as they are to gain support.
I'm not saying that Kamala Harris is a fount of stupidity--but she rarely disappoints in that regard.
She's apparently said that the repeal of Roe in the Dobbs case is just another example of government "exercising control over our bodies". Clueless Kackler can't seem to remember the lockdowns, mask requirements and vaccine mandates. She didn't complain about those.
So the plan is to drive every pro-life voter out of their party and annoy the people who would like some actual legislation that could pass. Works for me, but then I'm a Republican. I'd suggest if they have any seriousness they look at Susan Collins bill.
I don't think that this Dem strategy of pushing "kill, kill, kill" will go over as well as they think.
Besides abortion has been number one in their election playbook for at least 30 years.
The advocates of the wicked solution are parading straw men dressed as straw clowns, affirming that women and men possess neither dignity nor agency, that human life is a negotiable commodity, and raising edge cases to force the rule.
“D aim is to keep part of their base on the plantation and part of base in stirrups in the examinaton room“
Well, that’s what I was thinking, though perhaps in less elegant terms.
Democrat politicians care about abortion in the same way they care about Black people. Passionately, when it comes to hoovering votes. Not at all in reality, ‘cause any kind of permanent resolution would severely hamper said hoovering.
Another strategy for the Democrats would be to use the state legislatures to make abortion laws.
Yes, return the Democrat majority, and a Republican minority, to an uncomfortable legacy of regulating slavery, diversity [dogma], and performance of human rites back to the States. That said, six weeks to baby meets granny, in state, if not in process. A compelling cause for civilized society to discourage elective abortion (i.e. homicide) for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes. They should rather keep women affordable, available, and taxable through other means that include men in an equal and complementary role.
Demos-cracy is aborted in darkness at the twilight fringe.
Are there really that many vulnerable Republicans who had explicitly pledged to support Roe?
I would suspect that there are a whole lot of them who have uttered mealy-mouthed platitudes about "women's right to choose", the "rule of law" and "stare decisis," balanced with concerns about "when life begins", but the idea of attacking Republicans politically based on voting to confirm a Republican president's nominees seems kind of weak.
Don't worry, there's still a good chance that Republicans will seize the day and convert a few key Purple states over to Blue in the 2022 elections, with their post-Roe, post-Dodd imbecility. Watch it happen, unfortunately.
If you want to govern, you have to accept that you're governing everybody. If you want to win in order to govern, you have to become resolute at collecting votes, and that means being determined enough to make sure you get enough votes, at the expense of getting what you wish you could have. Right now Republican state senators and representatives in many states are spending all of their energy re-animating old laws prohibiting abortion and discouraging even speaking about it. Brilliant, guys. Brilliant. Way to lead - or rather, squander one.
Democrats did not previously make such political mistakes which have accumulated under the Inflexible progressives. During a period when inflation and the economy are the top issue for anyone living on a budget, Congressional Democrats have done nothing to stop Biden’s insane energy policies. The American people increasingly understand the Court’s decision on Roe as sending the abortion issue to the states. ANY federal law on abortion, for or against, will be perceived as minorities pushing their policies on states that do not agree. Abortion is a losing political issue nationally for all but those who already agree with their states’ laws. But national officeholders don’t make state laws so a push on abortion is doubly stupid politically. Republicans should be grateful that Democrats are not focused on issues that will help more Democrats get elected.
“The Democrats are in a bind, they want Republicans to look bad, but can't bring themselves to introduce any bills which aren't extreme. Republicans are in a great position: They can't introduce anything since they're in the minority and having Congress do nothing is actually the best outcome--both for them and for the country. “
The Dems are stuck in a very unpopular position - essentially 3rd and 4th trimester elective abortion of perfectly healthy fetuses and babies. They want Republicans to take the heat by introducing unpopular legislation that bans all abortion. It isn’t going to happen, and if it did, it would never make it to the floor for a vote. The Republicans have already won this round. They can ban abortion where their constituents have enough votes to do it, and limit it in other states, leaving the Democrats allowing their own future constituents be aborted in the states that they control. What they want is to be able to attack Republican challengers this November as. Willing to ban all abortion at the federal level. But the Republicans are mostly smart enough to desist, and point out that the question is now settled - it is now, after 50 years, a state issue again.
The place Democrats should be worried about Republicans is with gun control. 43 states are either Constitutional Carry, and/or Shall Issue. Most of these states have reciprocity with other states. On the flip side, states like NY, CA, etc have, if anything, become more draconian. We (CCW permit holders) don’t really care that these states don’t let their citizens carry, but rather that we can’t be armed when traveling across their states. The natural consequence of this is federal legislation forcing national reciprocity of carry permits. I expect this legislation this Session that the legislation will be introduced, possibly passed by the next Congress And vetoed, and pas Sec and signed by the next Republican President.
What is interesting is that both abortion and gun control are almost opposite here, In therms of the dynamics of Congressional action combined with the Right to Travel.
Very confusing. Is it true that women could be in legal jeopardy if they get an abortion in a different state where it's legal? I thought that would obviously be unconstitutional.
The irony of mourning the passing of women's rites... right on Capitol hill where they celebrate a "hero" with superior skill, superior force, and superior position, elected to abort an unarmed woman, in a prone position, a "burden", attempting to escape the riot of an invitation extended, a rug summarily pulled, an assault, and probable Whitmer event.
legal jeopardy if they get an abortion in a different state where it's legal
The Constitution temporarily protected interstate slavery, diversity [dogma], redistributive change, but never sanctioned defense of homicide (e.g. human rites).
I wonder if the left will wake up and realize abortion ain't the hot issue they think it is.
I doubt it.
It is July. What legislative agenda is going to be up before November other than the budget?
"We're going to make you vote against murdering kids." - Nancy Pelosi
"Your terms are acceptable." - GOP
Show votes to go along with the show trial. As they say, politics is Hollywood for ugly people.
This strategy seems a little easier for the House Democrats since they used ObamaCare to banish all their pro-life members.
However, this time it may banish all their pro-life voters.
Another strategy for the Democrats would be to use the state legislatures to make abortion laws.
Obama destroyed the state level Democrat party. Now Biden is going around shooting the wounded by hysteria about Dobbs and gun control. Soros has done what he can with minor offices that can affect elections but legislation is largely out of reach. And will be farther out of reach by January.
legal jeopardy if they get an abortion in a different state where it's legal
Not legal jeopardy. The fact is that elective abortion happens, can happen, in darkness, but civilized society has seen fit to discourage its practice. The human rights movement does not seek retributive change, but rather to end human rites performed for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes, interests, to recognize the the equal and complementary dignity and agency of women and men, and to conserve the intrinsic value of human life from conception till death do us part (i.e. Her Choice).
n.n said...
legal jeopardy if they get an abortion in a different state where it's legal
********
What? You mean I can't cross into State A and have a legal beer at 18, but will be liable for underage-drinking when I return to my home State B, where you have to be 21?
?????
Yes! MAKE Republicans to vote against allowing abortion all the way to the point of "crowning"!!
MAKE them vote against that---the foul fiends!!!
The Dems are gripped by the extremists in their party so they can't move to the center on anything. So they come up with ridiculous, intricate intrigues. An intricate strategy that leads to Dems publishing a hate-list which voters are supposed to remember is typical. Even if a few real people read one of the lists - so unlikely - they'll quickly forget who is on it or what it is alleged the Republican did. Then the real people will drive to the grocery store and see on a grocery bill what the Dems really did. Then to the gas station. While fueling and watching the numbers spin upward in a sickening way real people will think about the Dems suggesting that when $40. is too much for a tank of gas the solution is to buy a Tesla for $40,000. And the same thing happens at the grocery store and the gas station. Week after week. No chance to forget. If only we could. And real people can easily remember a time when we had energy independence and then how Biden revoked the policies supporting that independence. And how he could change his mind and help us out - right away. But he doesn't. And then the Dem President goes off to Rehoboth Beach by helicopter - no cutbacks due to the price of gas there. You think that can be countered with roll calls in Congress?
Sooner hopefully, rather than later, as it has been almost 50 years since Roe, the population will get tired of the politics of abortion and move towards punishing the politicians who use it as a political cudgel against their opponents, and a whip against their supporters. The game has gone on long enough. Stop playing.
On Capitol Hill, House Democratic leaders are discussing ways to force Republicans into uncomfortable positions on abortion
The problem being that the acceptable positions for the Democrats are so lunatic than any such effort would hurt the Dems far more than the GOP
effinayright said...
n.n said...
legal jeopardy if they get an abortion in a different state where it's legal
********
What? You mean I can't cross into State A and have a legal beer at 18, but will be liable for underage-drinking when I return to my home State B, where you have to be 21?
If you come back to B with alcohol in your system, you can certainly be arrested for underage drinking
If 30 year old you takes a 16 year old girl from FL to AL, and fuck her there, it's a crime.
And should be
Even if you get all the seman out of her before you go back to FL.
So if you take a 13 weak old girl from AL to FL, and kill her there, IMO that ought to be a crime
It will come down to a simple consideration for voters:
Do I want to keep my savings and retirement funds,
do I want to be able to drive around and travel easily,
do I want store shelves stocked and items at a reasonable price,
do I want to run the AC and heat without brownouts,
do I want to be able to go into the city without risk of being victimized,
do I want foreign adversaries to respect us,
do I want to protect my little children from being sexualized,
do I want penis-people and former-penis-people to stay out of girls/womens locker rooms and bathrooms and to not destroy fair competition in girls/womens sports, and
do I want a government that speaks honestly rather than insulting us with such transparent BS?
or
Am I willing to lose all of the above just so people who might have shown a bit more personal responsibility to be able to kill their prenatal babies?
I have the same problem with Congress acting as I do with the USSC. It is not in the enumerated powers, so it is a matter for the individual States. The best thing that I can see happening from this is the Congress passing a law, the USSC reviewing it, and striking it down as it is not in the enumerated powers of the federal government. And this court just might go that far. That would crimp the deep states power by a lot.
Is it true that women could be in legal jeopardy if they get an abortion in a different state where it's legal?
No. States do not have ownership over their residents. People can live in one state and go to another to do whatever is legal in that other state and then freely come back into the state of residence. This isn't the effing Soviet Union.
But the bigger reason is that THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT HAS NEVER CALLED FOR OR SUPPORTED THE PROSECUTION OR CRIMINALIZATION OF WOMEN THAT SEEK OR OBTAIN ABORTIONS. NEVER. That is only something that pro-abortionists have brought up as a scare tactic, together with a handful of unscrupulous hay-seed ignorant politicians who wrongly think they can score points with pro-life voters with such propositions.
Is abortion on demand nationwide worth the country going to economic, cultural, and social hell?
Especially when people have the FREEDOM to live wherever they want? An abortion state or a life state?
Voters in mixed or Dem states are not going to vote against their personal interest just so that other states, like Texas and Missouri, will be forced to let abortionists do business there.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा