Which would leave the vast majority of abortions intact. But progress is progress:
The overwhelming majority of Americans remain very uncomfortable about abortion, with 84% wanting it limited to, at most, the first ninety days of pregnancy, according to a new Knights of Columbus-Marist poll.
Almost seven in ten (69%) who identify themselves as "pro-choice" favor this limit on abortion, the survey found.
"Four decades after Roe vs. Wade, the American people remain unhappy with its legacy," said Knights of Columbus CEO Carl Anderson. "The survey makes clear that the American people understand that abortion is far too common, and causes great harm. And even those who consider themselves ‘pro-choice’ want it reduced significantly. It is time that our lawmakers respond to this public consensus with appropriate legislation."
Several problems with that exhortation, Mr. Anderson. First, no such legislation will ever fail to be struck down by the federal courts, so as a practical matter, the gesture is futile. Second, such legislation can only, constitutionally speaking, be enacted at the State level, as there's no enumerated power in the federal Constitution that gives Congress any say over abortion one way or the other.
Third, the Obama Regime, as is its want of late, has already threatened to veto:
The Obama administration, however, appears to be going in the opposite direction. The White House is threatening to veto the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 36) – a Republican-backed bill to ban abortions after twenty weeks – arguing the measure is an "assault on a woman's right to choose" and "disregards" women's health and the Constitution.
Blah, blah, blah. Standard hard-left pro-abortion boilerplate. Although the "disregards the Constitution" crack is crammed to bursting with irony.
But O probably won't have to worry about taking out that particular pen, because Republican women are running RINO interference for him:
House Republican leaders abruptly dropped plans late Wednesday to vote on an anti-abortion bill amid a revolt by female GOP lawmakers concerned that the legislation’s restrictive language would once again spoil the party’s chances of broadening its appeal to women and younger voters.
Apparently, they didn't get the memo about the aforementioned Marist poll.
In recent days, as many as two dozen Republicans had raised concerns with the “Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act” that would ban abortions after the twentieth week of a pregnancy. Sponsors said that exceptions would be allowed for a woman who is raped, but she could only get the abortion after reporting the rape to law enforcement.
Which would seem to be a step in the right direction of combating the nation's rampant "rape culture," but then, I'm convex rather than concave, so I'm probably not entitled to an opinion on the matter.
A vote had been scheduled for Thursday to coincide with the annual March for Life, a gathering that brings hundreds of thousands of anti-abortion activists to Washington to mark the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion. But Republican leaders dropped those plans after failing to win over a bloc of lawmakers, led by Representatives Rene Ellmers (R-NC2) and Jackie Walorski (R-IN2), who had raised concerns.
The House will vote instead Thursday on a bill prohibiting federal funding for abortions – a more innocuous anti-abortion measure that the Republican-controlled chamber has passed before.
The awkward part? Not only did the 113th House pass the exact same bill two years ago, but Ellmers and Walorski both voted for it and spoke in favor of its passage on the House floor. The former is starting her third House term, the latter her second. Looks like they've already "gone native".
Exit question: Suppose that this "bloc of GOP women" had invoked Congress's lack of constitutional authority over abortion as their reason for opposing the PCUCPA; would socons be displaying the same paroxysms of betrayal-ecstasy? My guess is yes.
No comments:
Post a Comment