As I have recently noted, CNN has been carrying Planned Parenthood commercials; as a pro-lifer I have zero tolerance for the leading abortion provider, and so I decided for the first time in over a year to return to FNC (no, not its prime time content).
It seems like I've been repeatedly writing about the recent Dpbbs (SCOTUS Roe overturn) decision. What I'm writing about is in reference to the question of the Dem goal of codifying Roe, which has been pursued, at least since Justice Alito's majority opinion was leaked several weeks earlier. The purported (House) bill goes beyond an asserted federal guarantee for abortion on demand in all the states, including viable, later-term babies (born alive); it also includes federal funding of the procedure in contrast to the long-standing Hyde Amendment. For pro-lifers like me, using our tax dollars to kill babies is anathema.
What SCOTUS ruled is that, in fact, there is no federal constitutional right to abortion; the procedure, since the birth of the US, under English common law and later under statute in all states by 1910, abortion has been regulated under the states, explicitly under the 10th Amendment. There is no constitutional authority under Article 1 for the Congress to trump the states' legitimate authority. Note that the Alito opinion, in reversing Roe, did not set aside pro-abort state laws in 16 or so blue states or DC. As a pro-lifer, I am not crazy about pro-abort state laws, but they are consistent with the principle of federalism.
Just as in the case of Prohibition, I think the only way federal pro-life or pro-abort laws can be applied to the states is by a relevant constitutional amendment, which in its usual form requires passage of the amendment by super-majorities in both chambers of Congress and then by a super-majority of states. I don't think any of those 3 steps is politically feasible for either side. I don't think you can get abortion in the Constitution without an amendment, and I don't see how a Roe law gets past the Alito majority in SCOTUS
So where is this discussion going? Well, there's a talking point from conservatives which I and others used during the 111th Congress, during which at one point Obama had a huge majority in the House and a 60-vote/filibuster-proof majority. That 60 vote majority was fragile, with vulnerable red state senators well aware of typical opposition-party gains at midterms. The Dems focused their energies almost exclusively on ObamaCare; Senate Majority Reid cobbled together a deal with the "Cornhusker Kickback", the "Louisiana Purchase" and "Gator Aid". The more principled House didn't like the Senate's bill when the unexpected happened: Scott Brown (R-MA) unexpectedly won late Teddy Kennedy's seat as filibuster-sustaining #41. The Dems couldn't risk Brown effectively vetoing a House-Senate reconciliation. Obama then basically jammed the Senate bill down the House's throat.
Obama got hit in the mid-terms, but then hoped to jam through a DACA (foreign-born immigrants as minors) bill in a lame duck session of Congress that ultimately failed. I personally favored a more comprehensive immigration reform. But, and here's the point: why didn't the Dems prioritize the issue when they had a filibuster-proof majority.
Fast forward to Harris Faulkner, a FNC late weekday morning host. Now I don't think the argument has just been been made by her, but she's repeatedly made it. Paraphrased, "If codifying Roe was so important to Dems, why didn't they do they do it earlier when the Dems controlled Congress and the White House?"
I don't care for this argument for a few reasons. First, it seems to concede the constitutionality of Roe codification, which I reject.as discussed above. Second, I think after nearly 5 decades of Roe precedent, nobody really expected a Roe overturn, and it really depended on pro-abort RBG being replaced by Amy Barrett.
A second talking point involves the tragic, notorious case of a pregnant raped 10-year-old girl from Ohio, which purportedly was denied from getting an abortion in her home state. She reportedly traveled to the neighboring state of Indiana where an abortionist performed the procedure. The girl has become a cause célèbre for pro-aborts. I have specifically discussed the relatively rare cases of rape and incest pregnancies (<1.5%). (I have argued that pro-life legislators need to be more pragmatic; I do understand the equal protection argument for babies conceived under dubious circumstances, but the Hyde Amendment did specifically provide exceptions. In part, some pro-life politicians worry the rape exception can serve as a blank check for delayed rape assertions post pregnancy detection). There have been disputes in the media whether there was any such girl, whether Ohio abortion law in fact allowed for such exceptions, etc.
So FNC has picked up on the story, but not for the discussion of the abortion controversy. Guess why? Well, anyone casually watching FNC knows perhaps the one top topic they are obsessed with is: unauthorized immigration. So authorities have arrested a suspect in the Ohio victim's rape, and you guessed it: he's an unauthorized immigrant. So on top of obsessed coverage of southern border crossings, constant interviews with immigration-restrictionist politicians and Border Patrol and/or INS agents/veterans, incessant comparisons between Trump and Biden's records on border protection. we have this. It brings to mind Trump's incendiary POTUS campaign start when Trump accused Mexico dumping its prisons of violent criminals across the US border.
Familiar readers are well-aware of my pro-immigration stand. I'm not going to repeat my talking points here about how loosening legal immigration restrictions and allowing temporary worker programs could largely mitigate the issue of unauthorized immigration, how undocumented immigrants have lower crime rates than native populations, etc. In fact, I am pro "open borders" which nativists often use as a pejorative. (That's somewhat oversimplistic; I don't mean allowing unfettered access for infectious people, armies, terrorists, or criminals across borders. I'm more of an open immigration advocate with some some relevant basic checks. In particular, I want to lift current caps and deregulate processes that delay entry by 10 years or more, expedite processes for workers with job offers, etc.)
I will say I enjoyed Twitter leftists turning the tables on Trumpkins with recent Mexican promises to fortifying their side of the border, a deliberate slap on Trump's empty boast that he would get Mexico to pay for his wall/
