What was Schumer thinking?
See this recent comment from “Kate”:
The Democrat bill to “codify” Roe failed its procedural vote today, 51-49, with Joe Manchin voting with the Republicans. Manchin pointed out, correctly, that this would not “codify” Roe as it stands, but would expand it, invalidating any state law restricting abortion before 24 weeks and providing for a “health” exception later than that, which is a loophole allowing the procedure at any point.
For commenter Mike K, and others, who are limited pro-choice, there is (in my opinion) really nothing unreasonable about a twelve to fifteen week limit, with a provision for severe medical emergencies thereafter.
So all Chuck Schumer has accomplished with this vote is to label all Dem senators other than Manchin as pro-abortion extremists, ahead of an election which is likely to be very negative for his party.
Indeed, the phrase “codifying Roe” is an attempt to soften what Democrats were trying to do in that bill.
Why is Schumer engaging in what seems at first glance to be pointless theater? What else do Schumer and the Democrats plan (and in fact have already begun doing) to go along with it and complement it?
One approach of theirs is to present the slippery slope argument that next on the Republican ban list is interracial marriage and also homosexuality. The Democrats know that’s a lie, but they are hoping that plenty of voters will buy the lie. The engine of the left is to drum up both fear and envy, and this is the fear part.
Another idea I think Democrats have is that, if Roe is overruled, the red states that put stricter abortion laws in place will give the Democrats talking points. Even though the more stringent laws will be in red states, they believe it nevertheless will allow them to say that next abortion (and those other things – interracial marriage, etc.) will be banned nationwide if the GOP takes control of Congress. That probably will persuade some people to vote for Democrats, but it’s just as likely that the passage of extremely permissive abortion laws in blue states will turn off a lot of other people who are “pro-Choice” but not for infanticide. Killing a fetus of twenty-four weeks is infanticide now, considering what modern medicine can do, and this is what the bill they proposed would allow nationwide if passed:
The Women’s Health Protection Act would protect a woman’s right to end her pregnancy at least until ‘fetal viability’ and would require abortions be legal up until birth if ‘when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.’ The bill directs courts to ‘liberally’ interpret the legislation. The bill’s chief sponsor in the Senate, Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said that the bill ‘doesn’t distinguish’ between physical and mental health in decisions on late-term abortions.
Schumer and the Democrats also count on a cooperative MSM to frame the GOP vote against this bill’s advancement as an indication that the GOP wants to ban abortion entirely for the whole nation. While there are some Republicans who wish to do that, it does not appear to be even close to a majority position among Republicans (and in my opinion would run afoul of SCOTUS anyway). But this won’t stop the Democrats from saying it and from hoping that the public will believe it.
But why didn’t the Democrats let Collins and Murkowski’s more moderate bill be voted on? It had more chance of passing, although I don’t know whether it could have crossed that 60-vote cloture threshold. But I can only conclude that the Democrats wanted their own bill to fail so that they could keep the issue alive for the midterm – they believe (rightly or wrongly) that it’s the most winning issue they’ve got.
The vice president ignored shouted questions on why Democrats didn’t pursue a more moderate bill with Murkowski and Collins.
Murkowski said in a statement ahead of the vote that the Women’s Health Protection Act was billed as a way to ‘codify Roe v. Wade’ but ‘in reality goes much further—nullifying state and religious freedom laws across the country in the process.’
Murkowski noted that the bill does not include the Hyde Amendment, which bans federal dollars from funding abortion, does not include conscience protections for healthcare providers who do not wish to perform abortions due to their religious beliefs and ‘allows late-term abortions without any notable restrictions.’…
While typically a Senate leader won’t bring a vote unless they feel there are the votes to pass it, Schumer says it’s important for every senator to go on the record on abortion rights. He claims the proposal is ‘very simple’.
His team also feels it’s important to show that Democrats are fighting for a woman’s ability to terminate their pregnancy.
‘[W]e are making sure that … every senator will have to vote and every, every American will see how they voted,’ Schumer said. ‘And I believe the Republican Party, the MAGA Republican Party, will suffer the consequences electorally when the American people see that.’
That’s his hope, anyway, and he’s betting on the stupidity of the American public.
Because Schumer is a man of principle…
(As are most demagogues…)
Federal legislation regarding abortion should address a restricted menu of issues (e.g. provision of or financing of abortion by federal agencies &c and contracting for services between parties domiciled in different jurisdictions) and nothing more. Anything more than that is not legitimate, even if an appellate court gives their I-say-it’s-spinach. No attempt to annul state legislation by federal statute can be deemed legitimate unless there is express constitutional warrant so to do.
Schumer is malevolent.
I don’t see how this will improve their count. I suppose it could entice additional voters to turn out but turn out has been high for several cycles.
I hope that the pro-life side will be able to get out the message that what the Democrats want is unrestrained abortion of 2nd and 3rd trimester babies.
How is it that they are willing to allow a single doctor/provider to determine that these late term babies will cause a poor health outcome for the mother. I find this especially troubling since said provider will have a profit motive to do so. I thought that Democrats didn’t trust people with profit motives.
Political parties do so much harm to our political system, but this is an example of one of the ways they foster damage.
These *&#@(#!@’s are playing games with our rights, our government, our money… for the sole purpose of trying to get more control for their party.
They are elected to represent their constituents. Not their party! Not donors who live outside the boundaries of their districts or states!
This is not a *&#@(#!@ game!
This stuff is disgusting and these people are awful.
We so desperately need a communicator who will help the American people see that the parties, the system, the unelected bureaucrats, the regulations… are the enemy! It’s not red or blue, donkey or elephant. We are all individuals with God given rights and anyone who attempts to limit or restrict them; take our money, regulate our interactions… Anyone who pursues any of those things is the enemy of us all.
You could easily rally 70% of Americans around a campaign to drastically limit the power these people have. Drastically limit government funding. Reduce the number of agencies. Reduce regulations. They know this so they keep the focus of the fight on Team Blue vs. Team Red.
Those who intentionally profit off obfuscating the truth with the affect of harming others are the lowest of the low.
So many in our political class seem intent on turning the U.S. into a ‘Banana Republic’, in which lies and corruption are the keys to power.
Schumer is a poster child for the movement. He is disgusting. He has always been disgusting. He will always be disgusting. Sadly, I expect that like so many incumbents from certain locales, he has a life appointment.
Don’t overthink it. Abortion-on-demand is religious dogma to most of the Left. An illiterate 15th century Irish Catholic probably had a more intelligent and nuanced view of the Church than the Democrat/liberal activist class has of abortion.
Schumer did something because he had to do something or he’s admitting abortion-on-demand isn’t THE MOST IMPORTANT THING EVAH. He put forward the most maximalist bill because, even though it’s not what the law under Roe has ever been, unlimited abortion-on-demand is the default position of most of the Left. Acknowledging the value or worth in any possible restriction is like humping a statue of the Virgin Mary in the middle of Easter services.
Mike
Lord have mercy these Democrats are nasty on top of shameless: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/hakeem-jeffries-steps-up-attacks-justice-thomas
Abortion has become a huge industry, especially since the sale of the corpses became common. Long ago, I did a few abortions as a surgery resident when I did my GYN rotation. Nobody liked doing it but it was legal in California. Pretty soon, the county hospital hired people who willing to do abortions all day.
That same year, on my pediatric surgery rotation, I operated on a baby that weighed 1 pound 10 ounces. She had a bowel obstruction and recovered. She went home at 4 1/2 pounds. She was the smallest baby ever operated on at the time. There were no pediatric respirators then and neonatology was far in the future. That was 1969. I put a tube in her stomach at surgery and the nurses fed her with a dropper. When she was 3 pounds, she could roll over. I wonder where she is today?
It’s just appeasing the base, like all the Republican votes to repeal Obamacare. That’s why this bill is so extreme.
Because the media is in their pocket, they don’t have to worry about the public knowing what was actually in the bill. Even so, it was only a cloture vote, so the media will helpfully explain that D’s in purple districts only wanted an up-or-down vote, and would have voted no in the real vote. The progressives who donate the money and time see that they tried and don’t try to primary. The headline during the general election will say for every R candidate that they voted against women’s health.
It’s theater but not pointless theater. I’ve never heard of anyone demanding a refund on their Globetrotters’ tickets on account of it not being a real basketball game.
Don’t overthink it. Abortion-on-demand is religious dogma to most of the Left.
The archetypal Democrat:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/sCqEqZOSxjI
Schumer is malevolent, and also deep in the Acela corridor bubble. He may not fully realize how unpopular this bill would be outside of the northeast and the west coast. That’s the only reason I can think of for why he might think forcing a vote on this monstrosity is good politics.
I put a tube in her stomach at surgery and the nurses fed her with a dropper. When she was 3 pounds, she could roll over. I wonder where she is today?
If your household has a subscription to Ancestry.com, you can attempt a search, then attempt one of two sub-searches. One is the “Birth, Marriage, and Death” option which will give you a “Birth, Baptism, and Christening” suboption. Another is the “Directory and Member Lists” option which has a menu of useful suboptions. Your search results will also offer you suggestions. These may be an avenue to her married name. Ancestry has been more assiduous about digitizing reference material from California and Florida than it has in re any other states.
#unsolicited advice
Sadly, I expect that like so many incumbents from certain locales, he has a life appointment.
New Yorkers are content with disgusting. They put Letitia James in the Attorney-General’s office.
They are also starting to push that the Republicans will outlaw birth control.
Chuck’s ready to reap the whirlwind.
Murkowski’s comments, which Neo quotes, point out that the bill would not only permit elective abortion until the point of birth, but it would require hospitals and medical personnel to allow them and perform them, without regard to their religious or ethical objections.
The House had previously voted for a version of this. With this Senate vote, it is now clear that every Democrat except Joe Manchin and anyone in the House who voted “no” is an abortion extremist and an opponent of individual freedom of conscience.
Because the democRATS want talking points because they have no real ideas except death to babies.
I honestly think it’ll backfire on the dems, just like ‘parents are domestic terrorists’. They have gone way too far, the average person does not share their extreme views. Our modern DNC has lost any semblance of sanity, and I actually don’t think the majority of us, barring the very young, are nearly as easily manipulated as they’d like to think. This has already been evidenced somewhat with the Twitter freakout.
Yes, Schumer is appeasing his pro-abortion base and laying the groundwork for the dems election strategy.
“Killing a fetus of twenty-four weeks is infanticide now, considering what modern medicine can do” neo
It can only be infanticide if one accepts the premise that pre-birth, a developing fetus possesses inherent person-hood and is in fact an infant. The ‘Pro-Choice’ position rejects that premise. It used to be accepted by even radical pro-abortionists that, upon birth a baby was a person. Today’s most radical advocates of abortion no longer do, asserting that until a baby recognizes its own individuality, it is not yet a person. Is anything more evil than seeking to justify and legalize the murder of living babies?
dejavu again?
https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/05/john-kerry-says-ukraine-crisis-is-opportunity-to-shift-green-and-deweaponize-energy/
they want less population, they also want to flood the country with millions of people, to exacerbate the prospects of starvation, so tomato tomatoe,
God bless you, Mike K.!
I concur, God Bless Mike K!
Rufus T Flyerfly and Mike K make the strongest, most cogent statements.
I am elderly, facing death, but that’s OK. I will go to my grave convinced that life begins at conception with the creation of a new DNA unlike any other, and I will await the verdict of my God whether I was right or whether life begins with a heartbeat. I think I know how he will respond.
Probably the biggest reason I stopped voting for Democrats. There are legitimate reasons for debating almost everything the government does, but at some point the Democrats stopped debating and started inflaming for no reason I could see beyond gaining power. It also made me wonder what was so wonderful about gaining power, it certainly wasn’t satisfaction stemming from improving peoples’ lives. Money and perks? Maybe for some. I’m now thinking the main attraction is simply the pleasure of bossing people around and avoiding the moral restraints that govern most of us.
The problem with this argument is that it presumes that there is only the premise of “personhood” to consider. Empirically speaking, it is a genetically distinct living human at the fetal stage of development. Given that premise, arguing in favor of terminating its life becomes much more difficult, which is why pro-choice advocates stick with the philosophical “personhood” argument, which to my mind is appallingly weak in the 21st century given our medical knowledge.
Though the data is old, I can’t see it having improved in the last nine years. Among Republicans, Independents, and Democrats, the latter group was the least likely to know that Roe involved abortion:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/01/22/young-adults-least-likely-age-group-to-know-roe-v-wade-about-abortion/
In other words, Schumer is betting on the stupidity of Democrats.
Because in the view of the general public, support for abortion after the first trimester is shockingly, welcomingly low.
https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/b2mm7nepm0ebj1pxkar6xa.png
This strikes me as a catastrophic error on his and his colleagues’ part, because now the attack ads write themselves. I guess we’ll see.
Everything is one MASSIVE distraction (or if you prefer, one MASSIVE SERIES of distractions).
EVERYTHING.
Distraction from what? one might ask.
Distraction from the concerted Democratic Party policy to take America apart.
Blaming everyone else for the problem is a significant part of the distraction (and always a time-honored “solution” for the tyannically-minded) whether it be Trump or white people or Deplorables or Insurrectionists or the Supreme Court or Blacks who for whatever reason “ain’t Black” according to “Biden”‘s definition of “Blackness” (and “Biden” should know, right!?), etc….
We have reached the once-upon-a-time-joked-about “Weapons of Mass Distraction” stage of American history and it’s time to wake up….
It’s no longer a joke.
Here’s someone who gets it:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1524235834593095681
H/T Instapundit:
https://instapundit.com/519943/
(P.S. Don’t look at Canada for solutions. Canada’s in the same boat.)
There has been many issues through my adult years where it seems the Leftists could have a compromise if they moderate their position but don’t and it sure seems the ongoing talking point is the goal.
Chuck: “I’m now thinking the main attraction is simply the pleasure of bossing people around and avoiding the moral restraints that govern most of us.”
I saw that with the mask mandate. There were some people who just delighted in enforcing it, being loud and obnoxious as they did it.
It seems to me that the lynchpin of this whole debate is whether Roe is actually overturned. If it is, and people see that the parade of horribles does not come to pass, then Democrats’ tactics will fail and they may pay a price for their extremism. Sure, the media will give us a few months of “Republican Lawmaker Wants To Ban The Pill and Imprison Gay People” headlines or similar silliness after they get a few backbencher state legislators from deep red states to say something stupid. But people will begin to tune that out after it becomes apparent that it isn’t happening. Does it really affect the lives of normal people in Wisconsin if abortion is illegal in Mississippi?
If one of the five bows to pressure, though, all of the horribles remain on the table for another generation. That seems to be what Democrats are playing for.
That is a high-risk strategy. If McConnell were in Schumer’s shoes, I think he would have voted on the more moderate bill that Collins, Murkowski, and Manchin supported. Having that bill fall to a filibuster with a majority of the Senate in favor would have made Republicans look like the more extreme party. That Schumer didn’t take that path suggests to me that he is either cowed by the extreme wing of his own party or he thinks there’s a good change that one of the five conservatives will flip before the Dobbs decision is released.
I suspect Schumer already has pretty much all the stupids. Best this can do is get a few more of them to vote.
The rest of us, whatever our view on the issue, won’t be moved.
Two things: I’m one of the few pro-life women in my family, but no one really talks politics, so it’s a non-issue. However, my husband’s niece is Gianna Jessen (legally, not biologically) – if you don’t know who she is, she’s worth a Google – and she came up at some point in a conversation with my mom and two of her sisters, because one of my aunts made a comment about abortion only happening “early” in the pregnancy. I told them about Gianna, how she was an abortion survivor at 7 months, and they were all shocked – SHOCKED! – that it was legal to get an abortion at 7 months. Not one of them knew it was allowed beyond the first trimester, nor did anyone know the barbaric methods used on older fetuses (if you Google image search Gianna’s name, you’ll see pictures of her scalded infant body). Anyway, all these women were adults during RvW (I wasn’t even a thought yet), and yet they knew nothing of what was actually allowed.
On to my second point – I frequently hear the argument that there should be exceptions for late term abortions when the mother’s life is in danger. Okay…i can allow that too…IF and only if someone can give me an example of even ONE situation in which an abortion of an otherwise viable fetus (I.e. past 24 weeks) would actually be necessary to save the mother’s life. If a mother is in that much danger due to pregnancy, then the best option is to get the baby out ASAP, either vaginally or, more likely, via c-section. Aborting the baby first is a time-wasting additional step, especially since, depending on the method used, some late term abortions can take up to 24 hours. No, if the mother’s life is in mortal peril, they’d deliver the baby immediately and try to save them both. If you have time to waste to kill the baby first, then obviously there is no “real” danger, especially considering that delivering an alive baby isn’t more dangerous to the mother then delivering a dead baby. And yes, obviously there is risk that the baby could die if it’s born too early, but delivering the baby alive and still attempting to save it is NOT abortion, even if the baby ends up dying.
So yes, if anyone at all can give me just ONE example of a late term abortion saving a woman’s life (not ectopic, since those happen in the first trimester), I’ll support that exception.
I looked for the reference that I read (thinking it was AoSHQ but not finding it there) that speculated that this serves the Democrats tactically in a couple of ways. One, it demonstrates a solidarity (less the obvious black sheep) that has been pretty tattered over the last few months of in-fighting. Two, this is a vote on a cloture motion, not the actual bill. That leaves the Senators who voted for cloture free to say that they were merely voting to dispense with debate and that their vote *for* the motion does not indicate that they are *for* the provisions in the bill. This is likely the Tim Ryan gambit of “I don’t want to talk about culture war issues.” From all appearances Schumer wrote the bill specifically so it was unlikely to get any Republican votes, and since it didn’t, it will provide some fodder for Democrats to say that Republicans want to tie up the Congress fighting the culture wars. Yeah, that is double-talk given the screeching from other Democrats about how vital securing abortion availability is but what’s new about that?
I should have added to my previous comment that that is why I simply don’t believe in the “mother’s life” exception for anything post-viability. To me, it just seems like a loophole that doctor’s can claim in a very *wink wink nudge nudge* sort of way to still perform an abortion that otherwise would be illegal.
Sort of in the vain of how my doctor fudged a few indicators during my last NST in my previous pregnancy to induce me just before 39 weeks. My second baby was stillborn full-term with no explanation, so the plan in my next pregnancy was to induce me at 39 weeks unless there were, ahem, “signs” of distress. At my 38 week appointment my daughter was fine…she was actually asleep during the NST, but they used her sleeping as a sign of “lack of movement” so they could legally be allowed to induce me that day. I can totally imagine a pro-abortion doctor similarly fudging some indicator that the mother’s life is in danger in order to give her the abortion she’s wanting.
Hang in there Cicero….we enjoy reading your posts! You have a lot of support out here.
dejavu again?
John Kerry has put enough Grecian Formula on his hair that his pillow must be brown. Hair coloring is tiresome on dames, risible on men. He’s 78 years old for chrissakes.
Many years ago, Michael Kinsley offered that “In Washington, a man’s reputation expands – like a gas – to fill whatever office he occupies”. You pump out the gas and what you get is John Kerry, Esq., a partner in a two-lawyer firm in Boston. (Neither partner was making enough of a living at it to continue with private practice). The foundation of his political career was built of trading on his military service (which was satisfactory such as it was); his adversaries pumped out the gas by pointing out for just what he was awarded those five medals and republishing some of his post-discharge yarn-pulling. (And you want to see rank dishonesty, have a gander at what the AP, The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The New Republic &c published in response to that). A mole in the apparat at Boston College pumped out more gas by seeing to it that a copy of his law school transcript landed in the lap of a media enterprise willing to publish it.
David Hyarsani makes the point that the Schumer likely believes that increasing the temperature—the hysteria and the politicization, the lies and the disinformation—can only help the Democrats, especially with the full power of the dishonest, weaponized “Narrative” behind them.
He cites the “Don’t Say Gay” campaign that Disney recently deployed against DeSantis as the template.
Well, that certainly did raise the temperature; but given the success of Disney’s attempted take-down of the the governor, one might be inclined to say, “Bring it on”….
“Fighting the Narrative™ on Repealing Roe v. Wade”—
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/chris-queen/2022/05/12/fighting-the-narrative-on-repealing-roe-v-wade-n1597341
H/T Instapundit
Yes to what NS says.
One question: does not the Constitution reserve to the States any powers not enumerated to the federal government? Doesn’t this make it strongly arguable that the feds have no right to “codify” abortion anyway?
And isn’t it cute how Biden, Schumer and other Dems smugly assume that “MAGA” is a pejorative in the eyes of the public, just because it is in theirs? I can just see Trump begging them “Oh please don’t call me those awful names like ‘The MAGA King’ – it hurts soooooo much!” Or is it “AWFL” names?
* Affluent White Female Liberal
I am not very knowledgeable about women’s reproductive processes. However, re NS’s comments about abortions “to save the life of the mother”, I have read a statement that such a procedure is not really an abortion per se, but simply an operation to save the life of a pregnant woman.
Not to be mean or anything–wouldn’t be in my character. Ask anybody.
But. It’s said that to age forty we have the face our parents gave us. After that, we have the one we earned.
Hate to think what Schumer did to earn that one.