What’s up with Lindsey Graham’s Senate abortion bill?
What is Lindsey Graham’s goal in proposing a national abortion bill at this point, shortly before the midterms? There’s a common belief on the right that he’s trying to sabotage Republican control of the Senate in 2022, as argued in many comments I’ve seen around the blogosphere.
It would certainly seem that way. Graham has a long history of RINOism, and this bill has no chance of passing and becoming law in the present Congress and under the Biden presidency, and it gives the left ammunition for scare talk about Republicans and their Handmaid’s Tale designs on women’s bodies.
Or is he trying to expose “moderate” Democrats as extremists, when they speak against it?
Or is he trying to introduce a federal abortion bill that’s actually moderate and that conforms to the opinions of the majority of Americans, and mimics Europe’s policies on abortion?
Critics call it an abortion ban after 15 weeks, but actually it allows exceptions for rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother. It’s also going nowhere; McConnell has said, “most of the members of my conference prefer that this be dealt with at the state level.”
As far as I’m concerned, the bill is useless and counterproductive, but I’m not 100% sure most Americans will pay attention to a failed bill. The big issues for most Americans are the economy and the economy, as well as the economy. And probably most people for whom access to unlimited abortion is the big issue were not about to vote for Republicans anyway.
The part that bothers me most about Graham’s bill is that a federal abortion bill is or should be beyond the reach of what is constitutionally acceptable. Dobbs threw the abortion question back to the individual states, which I believe is where it should be, absent a constitutional amendment on the subject. Congressional legislation goes against that idea, although Dobbs only clearly established the limit for the court system and Congress might at least theoretically be able to pass something of the sort, subject to a later SCOTUS ruling. The Democrats certainly would like to try, because they’ve often spoken of “codifying” Roe by passing a bill that would prohibit states from banning abortion or even from limiting it in some common ways.
But it seems to me that it’s hypocritical for Graham or GOP candidates to get behind this bill. Maybe Graham is trying to finesse the Democrats in some way, and prove – through the bill’s rejection by the GOP leadership – that the GOP has no intention of banning abortion on a national level, thus depriving Democrats of a potential talking point? It seems a bit late in the game for that, plus it’s too Byzantine. A better way to suggest the same message would be to not propose a national bill at all.
NOTE: Last May I discussed whether a national bill on abortion (proposed by Democrats, but the same would be true for a Republican bill) would be constitutional. One thing I mentioned is that any effort to argue that it is constitutional would almost certainly employ the overused Commerce Clause, but that the present Court would almost certainly reject that argument, as it should. I see that Glenn Reynolds wrote about that on Thursday.
It is indeed useless and counterproductive, intended purely to garner more coverage in the media for the glaringly ghastly Graham and to enable him to appear virtuous when, in fact, he is not only seldom, if ever, involved in legislation which might be beneficial but has also consistently voted for leftist judges and undermined much that is popular with supporters of MAGA. He is, in fact, hardly any better (albeit less powerful) than “Cocaine Mitch” who is, according to some reports, sabotaging some candidates (Masters and Vance) as a result of his preference for “business as usual” and for being leader of the minority (GOPe) without any real responsibility for passing any sensible bills.
The time to have proposed this bill was prior to the ruling. It could have been proposed after the leak and before the official ruling. Doing it at that time would have nullified the argument that Republicans want to ban all abortion (some do, but I think there is a significant number that would support 15 weeks plus exceptions). It still would go nowhere and likely be unconstitutional, but it could still be a basis for developing state level laws that are similar. It is also equivalent to the Mississippi law that was challenged, which would make the proposal helpful in teaching what Dobbs was about and debating the merits. I don’t know why Graham didn’t act when it mattered, and I can find no benefit to anyone for acting now.
While it will never happen, Graham’s and McConnell’s lifetimes in Congress are the best arguments possible for term limits.
The ads are already out there. Bolduc supports federal legislation against abortion.
As far as I know, he simply supports what the Supreme Court affirmed in its decision. It’s up to the states.
Imagine it’s 1787, Madison, Adams, Hamilton, Washington, Jefferson, Paine and the rest wipe their brows, phew, I think we’ve got it. Then, someone says, “Hold on a minute, we did not cover abortion yet”.
I frequently do not understand Graham; but I never doubt his intelligence or his political sophistication.
I can’t imagine why anyone would accuse him of trying to sabotage the Senate. That assumes that he is not interested in a Committee Chairmanship.
His strategy may be obscure; but I don’t doubt that there is one.
I know that it is popular sport to throw stones at McConnell and others. Those who do so seemingly forget that they are constantly playing a rear guard game.
The Democrat ads in Washington state are all saying that the Republicans want to codify an abortion ban nationwide. The claim is (a strawman, of course) that if the Republicans get a one vote plurality in the Senate and take the House, they will ban abortion nationally as well as going after gay marriage, and contraception. Big boogey men, those Republicans. Be afraid, very afraid.
I think Graham’s proposal is meant to put the lie to those claims by the Dems. Whether it’s a smart move is the question. The Dems and MSM will spin it as a grandstand, hypocritical move because “everyone knows” that the Republicans are hell-bent on banning all abortions in all cases.
For opponents of Roe, having striven mightily for forty-nine years to have the matter returned to state legislatures, seeing a Republican senator trying to nationalize abortion policy is extremely annoying. Democrats already pushed a nationwide abortion-until-moment-of-birth bill through the House and came close to a majority in the Senate. There is no constitutional argument that I can see for either a ban or national approval.
The charitable view is what JJ wrote. Graham, a Republican, is giving the GOP cover in Senate elections by asserting Republicans do not support an absolute abortion ban.
I am ok with the GOP staking out this position. I would prefer, and maybe Graham’s bill does this, point out that Congress has no authority over state abortion law.
I think the view that Graham wants “far-right” candidates to lose doesn’t pass the smell test. Surely Graham prefers being in the majority, no matter the GOP composition, than being in the minority.
Frankly I am tired of these culture battles.
Other than the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.I want individual states to have the autonomy to create different sets of laws. I do not need to agree with them. The constant interference by DC insiders for their own self aggrandizement is infuriating.
California wishes to vote itself to a socialist hellhole. I may feel sympathy but you are free to leave. If states want to legalize prostitution, drugs etc. Then they should be free to do so and accept the consequences of their changes.
Instead of 50 different experiments going on. With the ability to freely choose among them The busybodies in DC keep trying to force everyone to the lowest common denominator.
Yup, I was caught off-guard by this head-scratcher. Seems that a true “small r” republican and US constitutionalist would leave it to the states. I doubt Graham has the intellect to be trying for some kind of set-up. Lack of support from the leadership also is telling.
Mythx:
James Madison (Federalist No. 45):
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
The Federal government was designed to look outwards and only deal with issues that apply to all the states, ie, foreign affairs. The States are meant to deal with everyday life but not foreign affairs. Unfortunately, the natural tendency of politicians to accumulate power has resulted in the Federal government taking over many powers that should be left to the states.
Kate at 7:22
“For opponents of Roe, having striven mightily for forty-nine years to have the matter returned to state legislatures, seeing a Republican senator trying to nationalize abortion policy is extremely annoying.”
Annoying is what Graham does. It is what he lives for. Pay it no mind.
15-20% on either end of the spectrum are one-issue voters with respect to abortion (a percentage that I totally made up but seems reasonable).
Another 15-20% on either end of the spectrum will vote for anyone on their side and never for anyone on the other side.
That leaves ~20% in the middle up for grabs.
Very few of them see abortion as #1 priority (or guns, or gays).
For most of them, it’s the economy, stupid. They care about immigration only to the extent that it benefits or hurts their economic situation.
Another thing that matters to the middle 20, and will likely help Rs in purple states, is crime.
None of them pay any attention to people like you or me agreeing that Graham’s maneuver was counterproductive, or 3D chess, or GOPe inspired. They don’t care about that stuff.
They care about how the Ds are wrecking their lives.
Rs will sweep (unless the fraud is more intense this time, but that’s a whole other topic).
With the exception of j e and few others, people here seem to want to give Graham the benefit of the doubt. Why? How many times does he have to demonstrate he doesn’t deserve it?
This bill is poison. The Fox poll (I admit polls may be garbage) suggests the abortion issue is a close #2 with inflation #1 in issues that voters care the most about.
… I would prefer, and maybe Graham’s bill does this, point out that Congress has no authority over state abortion law.
The bill does precisely the opposite, unless I’m missing something.
My pragmatic reading of the political landscape is that the GOP has been hacked. All it takes is to peel off a handful of GOP politicians and turn them into DIRCs. Democrats In Republican Clothing. Bribes, blackmail, and threats are the usual methods.
Surely Graham prefers being in the majority, no matter the GOP composition, than being in the minority.
Not if my previous statement has any validity. Besides, for many decades there have been many Republican pols who seem to be more happy as back bench ankle biters in the minority than they are in the leadership. I can’t explain it, but it seems to be demonstrated over and over. It is a low effort, low risk position and undertaking, given that they are not undertaking much.
Part of the problem with a two party system is that a portion of the election pitch for those folks is “Vote for me. What is your alternative?”
Apologies Invisible Sun. I’m not trying to pick on you. You just crystallized a particular point or two. Welcome, if you are new here.
No clue if Miss Lindsey is trying to sabotage the red wave or not.
At some point the future human becomes an actual human, with human rights like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Some of the blue states are past the point of obvious infanticide. Surely Congress has the power to protect those humans right to life.
Killing inconvenient children becomes killing inconvenient old or sick people and then killing the simply inconvenient.
That leaves ~20% in the middle up for grabs.
Very few of them see abortion as #1 priority (or guns, or gays).
For most of them, it’s the economy, stupid.
I hope that is true. I wish it was, but I suspect not. When I was young and stupid and more left leaning but not a reliable Democrat, I did base my vote on abortion related issues. I don’t even recall what the exact issues were then, or exactly what my point of view on it was. Liberty vs. Libertinism, where do you fall on that scale? I’d certainly support a state law similar to Graham’s now but wouldn’t have back then. But it isn’t a state law.
I’d say everyone in the GOP understands this is electoral poison. I’ve still not heard a believable charitable explanation for Graham’s motive.
@ Mike Smith > “While it will never happen, Graham’s and McConnell’s lifetimes in Congress are the best arguments possible for term limits.”
I would rather have mandatory retirement ages, but yeah.
Add Pelosi, Feinstein, Biden, and quite a few others.
Some reached their sell-by date a LONG time ago, many in their first term.
That they continue to be re-elected is a strong indicator of some kind of vote fraud, if only the purveying of misinformation to the electorate.
Getting earmark benefits for the home state is probably one driver, but some studies IIRC show that they aren’t always that great in the long run.
Graft and corruption are probably even more important to their longevity.
“Congress is where people go to do good, and stay to do well.”
Those three never a clue about the right thing
Yes im suspicious of lindsay because of the arab spring and first amendment issues and the apocryphal approval of the murder of ashley babbitt
I had high hopes for Lindsey 2.0 after the Kavanaugh inquisition.
https://notthebee.com/article/biden-plans-to-massively-reengineer-america-and-held-a-secret-meeting-with-historians-to-help-him-do-it-quickly
(And there are usually far too many Republicans in Congress helping them.
At this point, any number greater than zero is too many.
Kamala ought to have to break every Senate vote.)
Sad to say, Graham re-booted and reverted almost immediately to his former collegial persona. Whether that has actually helped the Democrats significantly or not is difficult to determine; IIRC he did sign on to some things that hard-core conservatives looked askance at, and is far too generous in approving judicial & administration nominees.
Effective insider politicking is not to be sneezed at, but it’s hard for the public to relate to, or even understand.
Which makes it hard to tell if he succeeds or fails, since we don’t know what the secret agenda is.
Peruse at your leisure.
https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/voting-record
The claims by Democrats about Republican intentions on abortion and a host of other social issues is cutting deep here in WA. Patty Murray and Kim Schrier have lots of very tough ads attacking the Repubbs. There are virtually no ads from the GOP side that set the record straight. First, that abortion is not an issue in WA. The state law makes it legal up to 23 weeks. There is little chance it will be changed. Second, that a national law either banning or legalizing abortion is likely to be ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS.
Both Murray and Schrier claim they will promote a national law legalizing abortion. I’m pretty sure other Democrat candidates are saying much the same thing. So, maybe Graham’s proposal is a way to get those facts out in the open and refute the Democrats claims. It may or may not be a good idea. I’m no political strategist.
I agree with many here that Graham has been a loose cannon at times You know that he and McCain were best friends. That may explain a lot about Lindsey.
He’s not from my state. I’m working to get Tiffany Smiley elected to the Senate and Vincent Cavalieri to Congress. Both far superior to Patty Murray and Susan Del Bene. What are others here doing?
Graham makes the case for his law here:
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/us-must-take-reasonable-steps-protect-unborn-reject-inhumane-abortion-policies-china-north-korea
It’s a strong case, and gives legislators some good talking points.
If someone, anyone, can provide a sure-fire method of shipping Dear Miss Lindsey off to remote political pastures, there are any number of South Carolinians who would pay handsomely for that information.
He’s been making political bank forever on that highly fraudulent capital R after his name and it’s long past time for such legerdemain to cease.
Re: Graham bill;
Just another in a long long long long line of stupid, dumb actions by republicans. The dumbpublicans are the world’s experts in engaging in political suicide.
The demokrats have to be pinching themselves wondering how their political opponents can be so inept, incompetent and stupid.
Are the dumbpublicans just clueless, or are they intentionally volunteering to be cannon fodder.
Honestly, it’s tough to tell.
I hate the Republican party. I hate the Democrat party way more. But I hate the Republican party plenty.
Nobody has said anything about timing. Why time the bill for debate and passage now, before mid-terms, when Republicans supposedly think they might gain control? What would be the downside to waiting on a bill that’s already doomed under the current majority/minority?
Therefore, the bill is salient as a mid-term election feature. It’s a platform plank. Accepting this, if Graham were interested in its reception amongst the electorate, why wouldn’t he be clarifying its intent for the voter’s benefit? Why not ensure a clear understanding of its intent to lock in voter’s sentiments?
Answer: It’s not for the voter’s benefit, and it’s not been made clear that it’s aligned to their interests.
Expat, thanks for the link. It’s clear that Graham is trying to refuter the Democrat claims about GOP intentions. Will it work? We can only hope.
Lindsey is a follower, not a leader. I guess he just doesn’t make great decisions on his own. If he’s playing some complicated game of 3-dimensional chess he’s not very good at it. If he really wants to blow the Republicans’ chances somebody really should have called him out beforehand. Democrats live for politics and Republicans don’t. Lyndon Johnson would have straightened out Lindsey Graham very quickly.
JJ,
It’s relatively clear to me that pushing the Graham bill before the election will do the opposite. That is, it will reinforce the Dem’s election claims about an authoritarian GOP. To many of us here, including myself, the abortion limits are reasonable. Although I think the federal law nature of it is unreasonable. However, a great many will see the bill’s abortion limits as unreasonable. They will see it as the GOP taking away their liberties.
Tommy Jay, you may be right.
It amazes me how hysterical the pro-abortion supporters can be. Witness the threats against the conservative justices and bombings of pregnancy care centers that offer an alternative to abortion. Madness.
It’s very possible that Graham’s bill could motivate them even more because so many pro-abortionists are, as you say, absolutists about their right to “choice.”
An answer to their claims that the GOP will ban all abortion, contraception, and gay marriage is needed. Tiffany Smiley’s answer has been that she is 100% pro-life but does not favor a national law on abortion. That seems like an acceptable but rather incomplete answer, but I’m no political strategist.
I made a very large donation to Senator Ron Johnson, and a smaller one to another candidate. Also nominal donations to Laura Loomer and Marjorie Taylor Greene. Those women have more spunk than most male candidates!
Jurisdictional and political concerns aside, the uproar over Graham’s bill seems indefensible.
So, women who want to kill their babies almost 4 months after they enabled those babies to start growing, need to be able to do so, or they are “handmaids”??
Don’t forget exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother, or that 47 out of 50 European countries have the same or stricter standards.
Shame on these nasty women!!!
The 1/2 “fetal-baby” compromise. #NoJudgments #NoLabels
There is no mystery in sex and conception, a woman and man have four choices: sex or abstinence, contraception in depth, adoption (i.e. shared/shifted responsibility), or compassion (i.e. shared/personal responsibility, and an equal right to self-defense. The wicked solution is neither a good nor exclusive choice.
That said, 6 weeks to baby meets granny in state, if not in process. Generally, a civilized society has compelling cause to discourage the performance of human rites for social, redistributive, clinical, political, and fair weather causes.
Demos-cracy is aborted at the twilight fringe.