Sunday, November 17, 2013

Democratic Members of Congress Battle Back Against Attacks on Abortion

After years of restrictive abortion laws passing Republican state legislatures, Democratic members of Congress have decided to finally battle back. Senators Richard Blumenthal, Tammy Baldwin, Barbara Boxer, and Reps. Judy Chu, Louis Frankel, and Marcia Fudge have introduced the Women's Health Protection Act. The bill would force states to prove that extensive measures at banning abortion under the guide of protecting women's health will actually do what they claim to do: protect women's health. This law would go as far to disallow states from passing TRAP laws (targeted regulation of abortion providers), as many states have passed laws that put such stringent regulations on abortion clinics, they have been forced to close. It would set up the criteria of a direct link between these measures and proven goals of protecting women's health, not just banning abortion. 

This law, though unlikely to pass the Republican-controlled House, suggests a powerful idea that Republican states have been loathe to admit; namely, that these restrictive policies do nothing to promote women's health, but instead make it more difficult (and more dangerous) for women to receive legal abortions. The bill is extensive, discussing the burden these laws put on low-income women in particular, and advocates for treating abortion providers as any other medical service provider.  However, the bill would not invalidate state laws but instead set markers for federal courts, allowing more suits to be filed against these bills without the fear of a court's validation of the state statute. 

Though proponents of the bill understand that it has little chance of passing the House, it has provided an opportunity for Democrats to position-take. In a debate that is largely characterized by the action-taking of Republicans and pro-lifers, Democrats could gain significant ground with women fed up with these restrictive measures by demonstrating that they do, in fact, care and want to make a change. Furthermore, in light of the struggles over Obamacare, this could allow Democrats to align themselves with a different part of the Healthcare debate, one that portrays them as active instead of passively accepting the issues of Obamacare. As Blumenthal commented, "As the election approaches, I think the voters are going to want to know where legislators stand on these issues," he demonstrated that this bill, though important, may also be part and parcel of the larger PR strategy of Democrats leading to the upcoming elections. Proposing strong, position-taking measures like this one help garner party unity while signaling legislative action to constituents who may be fed up with Congressional inaction. Again, watching the Republican House defeat this measure may help Democrats to, once again, point to the Republicans as the source for the failures of compromise in Congress. Considering the last time Congress passed a bill on abortion was 1994 (which protected abortion clinics from violence), it will be interesting to watch the progress of the bill, as well as the debate surrounding it.

Works Cited:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/senate-dems-eye-womens-health-protection-act

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/11/the_women_s_health_protection_act_democrats_finally_stand_up_to_the_anti.html

8 comments:

  1. This bill puts republicans in an extremely tough position. If they support the bill they could potentially pick up women voters, but alienate their base. If they don't support the bill, they will alienate women and be blamed by democrats for not compromising. In the end, I don't think they will support the bill because I think they have more to lose with alienating their base than they would gain by picking up some women voters. One vote on a piece of legislation can't undo all the the other blunders that republicans have made with regards to women in the past few years.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is interesting that the House Dems would open up so much litigation at the state level. I know the bill will never leave the Republican-controlled House, but it seems like a huge risk to open up so much litigation when state courts could do so much damage to a woman's right to choose.

    Kate

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While it would definitely be a risk to open up litigation at the state level, we already see much litigation taking place against state laws that this bill is fighting against. This bill would give actors who are already fighting against restrictive state laws more fuel for their case, and create a federal law that judges would be legally bound to acknowledge as superior to state law. Of course, judges could use their own discretion and rule parts of the bill unconstitutional, upholding restrictive state laws instead. But, considering precedent like Roe v. Wade, it may be more difficult for judges to come up with a valid argument to rule this law (or parts of it) unconstitutional, as the only real precedent they would have in striking it down would be other state laws or court decisions (which aren't binding).

      Delete
    2. Marissa is correct - a lot of courts, for example in Texas, have struck down these restrictions. They do so often on the premise that the so called "health interests" are actually nonexistent and that this is an end-run to ban abortion. Judges, it turns out, don't particularly like it when state legislatures try and outmaneuver the Supreme Court. If anything, the judicial interpretation of the law is on the Democrats side thanks to Roe v. Wade - Brian N

      Delete
  3. Another reason that I don't think Republicans will support this bill is because it regulates state's rights to make their own laws. In addition to going against their stance on abortion, they would also be limiting state's rights. This would be a much worse position for them than for voting against the bill (and keeping their position the same) and not gaining a female base.
    -Steph

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a really good point. This bill is a double whammy for Republicans because it is both pro-choice and it limits states' rights, so they will certainly not support it. Republicans that are pro-choice or that tend to stay neutral on the topic will likely attack the bill for its limiting of states' rights, rather than focusing on the women's health aspect of it and risk alienating female voters. While I agree that many state laws unfairly limit a woman's access to abortion, it is the states' right to determine the state law, and those that disagree with their own state's laws should hold their own state legislators accountable, rather than rely on Congress to limit states' rights.

      Delete
    2. That's an excellent point Jane. I think the Women's Health Protection Act's ability to limit states rights would also stop moderate Republicans from competitive states and districts from support this bill. However, I think this strategy could also backfire on Democrats. Instead of creating a scene where Republicans are going against a women's rights issue, Republicans can now spin the story to focus on how Democrats are attacking states rights. Honestly, I just don't like it when politicians create policy that they know is going to fail for the sole purpose of playing the blame game.

      --Arthur Townsend

      Delete
  4. This sounds like a great piece of legislation, I wish that it could pass through the House. As I read this post--it made me think about the VRA and the idea and process of preclearence (that formerly existed before Shelby County V. Holder) for those covered jurisdictions, in which they had to file for approval for election change to ensure they did not include discriminatory practices. What would be fantastic, but at this point--entirely unrealistic--would be to have a similar system of "preclearence" through the Department of Health and Human Services.
    All states looking to change or enact legislation pertaining to women's access to healthcare or abortions would have to be approved as not placing an unnecessary burden on those residing in the state, as many of these restrictive bills (Like the one in Texas that placed huge restrictions on what could be an abortion clinic). If this were ever to have happened, it probably would have had to be included in the ACA--but even then, it would have been a huge long shot.
    -Sophie

    ReplyDelete