It’s very interesting to look at the diametrically opposed reactions on the left and the right to the failure of the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act in the House of Representatives. There is one thing that both sides agree about, however, and that is that John Boehner isn’t very good at his job. This is hardly a news flash.
Probably the biggest disagreement is over whether this legislation is popular with the general public. On the left, the uprising against it by female Republican lawmakers is proof that they recognize, on some level at least, that voters will punish those who support the bill. On the right, by contrast, polling numbers are marshaled to make the case that there has scarcely ever been a more popular proposal in the history of the country than banning abortions after twenty weeks.
There’s no question that the decision to pull the bill off the House floor has angered the anti-choice Republican base, and I can understand their feeling of betrayal, but the president was going to veto this legislation anyway so I have a lot of trouble understanding why this should be treated as a big deal.
For Mollie Hemingway, the botched effort to coordinate this vote with the anniversary of Roe v. Wade is indicative of a general lack of courage, organization, and respect that bodes ill for the future of this Congress.
Ross Douthat tweeted that “The idea that GOP is a party of moneyed interests posing as a culturally conservative party is, um, not always without empirical support.”
And, of course, most of these Republican women who balked at passing the bill this time around didn’t bother to voice any objections the last time the House passed it. Back then, however, they knew that the Senate would reject it and it would never get sent to the president for a veto. Does this distinction really matter so much?
It raises an interesting question about what motivates members of Congress to vote as they do. Most of the time fear and laziness can do much of the explanatory work, but is there any actual rational basis for thinking that a vote for a bill that dies in the Senate is safer than a vote for a bill that dies in the Oval Office?
Of course, here I am behaving like a lefty. I’m assuming that the Republican women voted for the bill last time because it was easier and low-risk and that they’re opposing it now because they perceive the risk to be higher. Maybe they just came to the realization that the bill was really, really super popular and that they would oppose it this time for that reason. Isn’t that what the right is arguing?
No?
Yeah, I guess not.
They’re arguing that the GOP will support their agenda as long as there is no risk that it will actually become law but will double cross them the moment that there’s a real chance that their agenda will pass.
Except, wait…
There was never any chance that this bill would become law.
So, the right is making a fuss over what exactly?
I don’t know. I guess it’s just a habit at this point.
Back then, however, they knew that the Senate would reject it and it would never get sent to the president for a veto. Does this distinction really matter so much?
It does. Before, they could label Harry Reid, that commie pinko, as a baby killer. Now, they could have called President Obama as much. So I bet the base remains pissed off.
If I squint and stand upside down your comment kind of makes sense.
You know damn well how the right-wing nuts work. If they could get that bill to the President’s desk, and he vetoed it, they could tag him with the whole “baby killer!!” thing. I’m not saying it makes any more sense to us either way. I’m just pointing out how their screwed up lizard brain works.
Nobody pays attention to bills that die in congress, vetoes get lots of attention.
The best analogy that I can think of is if you can imagine someone crossing the PATCO picket line after Reagan fired the air traffic controllers. They were never getting those jobs back but you never, ever cross a picket line. Ever.
Abortion is more like that football Lucy holds. The GOP will never let the social conservatives kick that abortion ball. However, since we have entered a new century, the GOP might just deflate the ball….
That would be the Patriotic thing to do…
More recent polling would be more useful. Whether we should allow abortions after 20 weeks is really a different question from whether it should be a top priority for the new Congress. Perhaps some of these hesitant Republican women fear–perhaps correctly–that moves like this will lead people to see that their 2014 Congressional campaign was a massive bait-and-switch.
My own reaction is mainly disappointment. I was really looking forward to the veto.
Especially if Hillary is the candidate, socially moderate, voted GOP 2014 on account of greed suburban women could be a problem.
It was a bit of political theater, is my take. They wanted a nice symbolic vote to show off to their Every Sperm is Sacred base, but somewhere along the line the vote got derailed. How that happened? Yeah, Boehner’s not very good at his job.
The Save the Babies faction will be able to use this episode as an excuse for more fund-raising, naturally. One small difference will be that one of their points of emphasis will be to get rid of GOP squishes. Look for the Republicans to add another coat of reactionary veneer to the party.
I don’t know from where the factlet arose that banning abortion is popular with the general public, but it’s important to rebut that at every turn, lest it becomes another one of those things that “everybody knows” but that isn’t really true.