Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), one of two prominent Republican senators who support abortion rights, said Thursday that she does not support a Democratic measure that would create statutory right to the procedure, arguing that the legislation does not provide sufficient protection to antiabortion health providers.
The statement from Collins comes as the Senate is preparing to vote next week on the legislation, known as the Women’s Health Protection Act, and as the Supreme Court appears poised to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling, which established a woman’s right to an abortion.
Uh huh. I guess we’ll see, but my initial reaction is that Senator Collins may be trying to reap the reward of independent voters by claiming to be pro-choice, but reminding conservatives, wink-wink nod-nod, that she’s really anti-abortion. Time will tell.
Erickson, as a reminder, claims that the SCOTUS decision is not going to be an election-mover, because “The people who care passionately about this issue are already on sides. Few are actually directly impacted by it.” I wrote that Erickson is blinded by his own convictions on the issue, which are so strong that he spews hate by labeling pro-choice advocates and all Democrats baby-killers. I suggested independent voters are not single-issue voters, but rather, like the mature voters of yestercentury, evaluate a range of issues for all comers in a given race, and from that combined judgment, selects a candidate.
But there’s more to this story than I first realized. Prior to this leaked (and, therefore, possibly false, despite Chief Justice Roberts’ claim of authenticity) draft of a decision to overturn Roe v Wade, pro-choice voters had the luxury of the bulwark of Roe v. Wade to protect their reproductive rights. Not a statute requiring a legislative majority that needs to be protected, but a Constitutional Right, basically unalterable by legislative fiat.
That gave even strong pro-choice voters the freedom to vote for whoever they wished, secure in the knowledge that their right to an abortion, if such an unfortunate requirement were to occur, was not imperiled.
But now the situation has changed. Not that all voters understand this, keep in mind; public polls seem to indicate that some voters hadn’t even heard that abortion rights may be on the edge of termination, perhaps at the level of 30% or more. But for those voters, especially of the independent variety, who are pro-choice, the opportunity to fully evaluate candidates might now be skipped, in favor of inquiring as to candidates’ position on abortion rights, and voting only for the pro-choice candidate.
And, given that support for abortion rights is well over 50%, from what I read, the Republicans may have buried themselves.
Assuming SCOTUS rules as expected, let’s watch the polls as November rolls around. I would expect to see the Republicans losing ground as the Democrats’ best message, The Republicans have stripped you of your right to an abortion, penetrates into the consciousness of independents and on-the-line Democrats and Republicans. If this is an important issue, I’d expect to see the Republicans edge in the aggregate, if any, shrink and disappear.
And that may turn into a permanent feature of the political landscape, only to be terminated by the right to abortion being reinstalled. Without the latter, legislative majorities will need to be acquired and retained in order to keep abortion rights safe by statute. Even gerrymandering may not be sufficient in some states for Republicans to retain power.
If that happens, keep in mind the old aphorism, You can’t have your cake and eat it, too. That appears quite applicable here.
