Tangle - Democrats' abortion bill.
Episode Date: May 10, 2022In the wake of the Roe v. Wade opinion leak, which revealed that the Supreme Court is ready to overturn its previous rulings on abortion rights, the political blowback has been swift. Plus, a listener... question on abortion rights in Europe.You can read today's podcast here.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here.Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and produced by Trevor Eichhorn. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, Ari Weitzman, and produced in conjunction with Tangle’s social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo.--- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tanglenews/message Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Transcript
Discussion (0)
The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported
across Canada, which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases.
What can you do this flu season? Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot.
Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu
vaccine authorized in Canada for ages 6 months and older, and it may be available for free in
your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed.
Learn more at flucellvax.ca.
From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle.
Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle Podcast, the place where you get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking without
all that hysterical nonsense you find everywhere else.
I'm your host, Isaac Saul, and on today's episode, we are going to be discussing the Democrats' abortion bill.
It's a piece of legislation that's being proposed and maybe pushed onto the floor for a vote in the Senate this week.
But as always, before we jump in, we'll start off with some quick hits.
First up, the Senate unanimously passed a bill to allow Supreme Court justices and their families increased security after protests broke out in response to the leaked draft opinion striking down Roe v. Wade.
Number two, Uber, Netflix, and Facebook have announced plans to slow hiring or lay off employees, citing a shift in investor sentiment. Number three, congressional leaders struck a deal
to send another $39.8 billion in military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine that could be taken up by the House today.
Number four, Russia has intensified its attacks in the port city of Odessa in southern Ukraine.
Number five, Nebraska and West Virginia are holding primary races today for a set of seats
in the House of Representatives.
Senate Democrats warning of Republican efforts to restrict abortions nationwide after Mitch McConnell left the door open to a nationwide ban,
telling USA Today it was, quote, possible.
The Senate plans to vote on a bill to provide protections for abortion rights on Wednesday.
The vote is expected to fail. Democrats don't have the support to pass the 60-vote threshold.
The Senate is set to vote next week on legislation that would set out to put abortion rights into federal law.
It's in response to that Supreme Court leak first reported by Politico of a draft decision that would overturn Roe v. Wade.
of a draft decision that would overturn Roe v. Wade.
In the wake of the Roe v. Wade opinion leak,
which revealed the Supreme Court is ready to overturn its previous rulings on abortion rights,
the political blowback has been swift and loud.
Protesters have gathered outside the homes of Supreme Court justices,
members of Congress have proposed bills to codify abortion rights, and state legislators have moved to restrict or enshrine
these rights before the final ruling comes down. Late last week, Republican Senate Minority Leader
Mitch McConnell told reporters it was possible his caucus could move on a nationwide abortion ban
if they took control of Congress in the midterms, although he and other Republican senators
shot the idea down in subsequent interviews. Yesterday, McConnell
backtracked and also ruled out ending the legislative filibuster, which requires 60
votes to pass major legislation, to pass abortion restrictions, telling Politico,
I will never support smashing the legislative filibuster on this issue. Instead, Republicans
insist they want to leave the issue to the states and have mostly avoided any victory
lapse on the potential end of Roe v. Wade as they wait to see what the final Supreme
Court ruling looks like once it is released toward the end of the court's term in June.
Whether that is a political calculus or apprehension about the pending nature of the ruling is
something we will only find out later this year.
Democrats, meanwhile, are looking to address the issue with legislation now, even though
they expect to fail on the federal level.
Senator Richard Blumenthal, the Democrat from Connecticut,
introduced the Women's Health Protection Act, the WHPA,
which Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said will be brought to the floor for a vote this week.
If passed, the Women's Health Protection Act would enshrine a sweeping right
to access and perform abortions into federal law and would supersede nearly all state laws banning or limiting abortions. It would ban states
from prohibiting abortion services before or after fetal viability if a health care provider
determines the pregnancy poses a risk to the patient's life or health. It would prohibit
burdensome rules restricting access to an abortion, like waiting periods and ultrasound requirements.
At least 33 states require patients to receive counseling before an abortion, and 14 require it in person, a practice the bill would end.
The bill would also prohibit governmental measures that restrict access to abortion services unless a state government can prove the measure significantly advances the health of patients or safety of abortion services.
It would allow the Department of Justice, abortion providers, or individuals to file lawsuits against violations of the bill,
regardless of whether the abortion restrictions came before or after the law was implemented.
In some cases, the bill could also override religious exemptions for hospitals and health care providers,
forcing them to provide
abortion services. The bill passed the House in February by a vote of 218 to 211, with every
Democrat except Henry Queller of Texas voting in favor and Republicans unanimously opposing it.
Shortly thereafter, it failed in the Senate 46 to 48 after a Republican filibuster,
with six senators missing the vote. Right now, the WHPA has 48 Democratic sponsors in the Senate, 46-48 after a Republican filibuster, with six senators missing the vote. Right now,
the WHPA has 48 Democratic sponsors in the Senate, with Senators Joe Manchin and Bob Casey,
who both describe themselves as pro-life, opposing the bill. Republican Senators Susan Collins and
Lisa Murkowski, meanwhile, who support abortion rights, say they're opposed to the bill because
it overrides state law and have proposed
their own narrower piece of legislation. It supersedes all other federal and state laws,
Senator Collins told reporters on Thursday about the WHPA. It doesn't protect the right of a
Catholic hospital to not perform abortions. That right has been enshrined in law for a long time.
In a moment, you'll hear some reactions from the left and the right, and then my take.
First up, we'll start with what the left is saying.
The left mostly supports Congress's action, but is wary of how it will pan out.
Some say state-level movement is just as necessary while others call for supporting a bipartisan federal bill. Some are skeptical of the legality of WHPA. Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer said
she is not going to wait for Congress and has filed a lawsuit asking the Michigan Supreme Court
to resolve whether women
have the right to abortion under the state constitution. As a woman born and raised in
Michigan, I have a moral obligation to stand up for the rights of nearly 2.2 million Michigan women
who will lose their right to make decisions about their own bodies if Roe falls. Michigan,
like several other states, has a law criminalizing abortion that is still on the books, Whitmer wrote.
It was enacted in 1931 and would make our state home to one of the most extreme anti-choice policies in the country once this decision from the court is officially released. If Roe falls,
abortion will become a felony in Michigan without exceptions for rape or incest. My argument is
predicated on the due process and equal protection clauses in our state
constitution. The due process clause of the Michigan constitution protects the right to
abortion in the same way that the United States constitution does per row, and the equal protection
clause prohibits the state from adopting laws based on paternalistic justifications and over
broad generalizations about the role of women in the workforce and at home.
Other state constitutions, including the constitutions of Kansas, Montana, Alaska,
and Florida, have already been interpreted to protect the right to abortion, she said. I hope that my novel lawsuit can offer a course of action for others to follow.
I encourage my fellow pro-choice governors, state legislators, private sector leaders,
and citizens to use every available tool to protect access to safe, legal abortions. Given that Michigan has a
Republican-controlled legislator, I am not optimistic that I, as a pro-choice Democratic
governor, can get a bill passed to overturn the 1931 Michigan law. At the national level,
I joined with several of my fellow governors from across the country to urge Congress to pass the In Slate, Jordan Weissman examined what Democrats should do next and expressed skepticism that this bill is the answer.
In the very short term, Democrats lack the votes to enact a federal statute protecting abortion rights.
The party has 50 seats in the Senate, and one of them belongs to Joe Manchin,
who identifies as pro-life and voted with Republicans to block such a bill in February.
He and fellow centrist Kyrsten Sinema have also said
they won't lift the filibuster in order to pass a bill. The most Democrats can muster right now is
a show vote that might one day provide grist for attack ads against battleground state Republicans,
such as Maine's Susan Collins. Even if there were enough votes to right-row into federal law,
there's a strong chance the Supreme Court would strike it down,
he added. The bill Democrats plan to introduce, the Women's Health Protection Act,
would regulate abortion based on Congress's power to oversee interstate commerce. But there is a
long-running debate about whether that would be a legally valid exercise of lawmakers' authority,
and the justices who appear ready to unravel Roe could pretty easily reject the law
simply by ruling that no, abortion does not count as interstate commerce.
On the bright side, that might also block Republicans from passing a national abortion ban,
since such a law would likely have to be rooted in the Commerce Clause as well.
In Politico, Alana Shore said Democrats should embrace the bipartisan bill
that Senators Collins and Murkowski are proposing.
There is a path to getting Collins-Murkowski and possibly even Manchin on board for a narrower bill
that would codify Roe and Casey into the law of the land in all 50 states, Shore said.
The two GOP women have their own bill that would establish abortion rights on the federal level.
It's far more narrowly tailored, with carve-outs for objections from medical workers based on religion or conscience. It's also more focused on abortions and early pregnancy. Democratic
leaders have no plans to call it up. Not because they're convinced it's a bad idea, necessarily.
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin told our Marian Levine this week that, given Collins and Murkowski's
votes for recently confirmed future Justice Katonji Brown Jackson, he wanted to see if there's
any common ground on their bill. Senator Mazie Hirono gave the clearest explanation of the
political logic behind giving Collins and Murkowski the stiff arm. Neither bill is going to pass,
so why not vote for one that Democrats think is better? Except that Democrats have spent two years
decrying minority rule in the Senate. Most of the Democratic Party is trying to chip away at the legislative filibuster
that requires 60 votes to pass most bills.
The failure of an abortion rights bill that passed with 52 votes
would seem to be a stark illustration of how the Senate works right now.
All right, that is it for what the left is saying. That brings us to what the right is saying.
The right says the bill Democrats are proposing is radical and unpopular.
They suggest it goes well beyond current law and would legalize abortion in nearly all cases.
Some say it could backfire politically. The Wall Street Journal editorial board called it Schumer's radical abortion bill. Bill Clinton's artful framing was that abortion
should be safe, legal, and rare, but that's ancient history to today's Democrats, the board wrote.
The WHPA would guarantee abortion access at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability,
about 23 weeks. Women seeking such services could not be asked to disclose the patient's reason.
Some states have tried to prohibit sex-selective abortion,
the practice of usually terminating a girl merely because a boy is desired.
The WHPA appears to protect that choice.
After fetal viability, the WHPA would assure a right to an abortion
whenever the physician's good-faith medical judgment is that the pregnancy would pose a risk to an abortion whenever the physician's good faith
medical judgment is that the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient's life or health.
What counts as health, the board asked. This is sometimes defined to include mental, emotional,
or familial factors, a loophole that permits elective abortions more or less through all
nine months of pregnancy. The legislation also exempts itself from the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act, which is why Ms. Collins said it would undercut basic
conscious protections for religious health care providers. John Hirschauer and the American
Conservatives said the bill would end every existing federal conscious provision for
anti-abortion and health care providers. The legislation, which passed the Democrat-controlled
House in September of 2021,
bars states from restricting access to abortion at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability and from banning late-term abortions when the pregnancy poses a risk to the pregnant
patient's life or health. That effectively legalizes abortion on demand up to birth,
as the Supreme Court has held in Doe v. Bolton and that health encompasses not only a woman's
actual physical health, but her emotional, psychological and familial
health, Hirschauer wrote.
The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported
across Canada, which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can
you do this flu season? Talk to your pharmacist or doctor
about getting a flu shot. Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu.
It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages six months and older,
and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur,
and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at FluCellVax.ca.
protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at flucellvax.ca.
Senator Susan Collins signaled she's a no on this draft of the WHPA because it doesn't protect the right of Catholic hospitals to not perform abortions. Blumenthal responded that Collins
was wrong and claimed that there was nothing in the bill that detracts in any way from existing
protections based on conscience or religion. Blumenthal is
either lying or ignorant of the text, Hirschauer wrote. The bill expressly preempts the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act and any law that impedes access to abortion services. The latter would
include conscience provisions like the Weldon Amendment, which prohibits the Department of
Health and Human Services from funding any federal, state, or local government that discriminates
against hospitals and other institutions that refuse to provide abortions, and the Church
Amendment, which ensures that federal funds for health services are not made contingent
on the state recipient's willingness to perform abortions. Mark Thiessen said Democrats should
watch out because trying to take up the abortion fight might backfire politically. A Fox News poll released this week finds most Americans agree with the Mississippi abortion law
at the heart of this Supreme Court case.
The survey found that 54% favor state laws banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy,
except in the case of a medical emergency, exactly what the Mississippi law does,
while just 41% oppose such a law.
This is consistent with the results of a 2018 Gallup
poll that found most Americans want abortion restricted to the first trimester, the first 12
weeks of pregnancy, while only 28% support allowing abortions in the second trimester,
and just 13% in the third trimester. If Democrats focus on defending abortion this November,
it will backfire, he wrote. An April Economist YouGov poll found that abortion is the most important issue for just 4% of voters,
trailing jobs, the economy, immigration, climate change, national security, health care, taxes, and civil rights.
This should come as little surprise.
We are experiencing the worst inflation in 40 years, the worst crime waves since the 1990s,
and the worst border crisis
in American history. Focusing on abortion amid these crises will make Democrats seem hopelessly
out of touch. Every minute they spend talking about abortion is a minute they don't spend
talking about the issues Americans say they care more about.
Alright, that is it for the left and the right's take, which brings us to my take.
So I'm kind of of two minds on this legislation. On the one hand, I understand Democrats' sense
of urgency and desire to just do something, anything. As I wrote last week, Roe v. Wade
being struck down would be a frightening turn of events for many different reasons in my point of view. That's my personal view, but one shared by many
Americans. Democrats who represent most pro-choice Americans can't simply sit around and do nothing.
Bringing forward a federal bill that has already passed the House is not the worst idea, and this
bill does precisely what Democrats say. It protects the right to abortion in nearly all cases across the country and would amount to a sweeping solidification of a woman's right to
choose, one that goes far beyond current law. On the other hand, politically, this seems like one
of the worst decisions possible. As I've noted before, abortion polling is really messy. I could
make a good argument that the current state of abortion law, where it is broadly protected as a
right while some states have created significant burdens to having one, is actually pretty much in I could make a good argument that the current state of abortion law, where it is broadly protected as a right,
while some states have created significant burdens to having one, is actually pretty much in line with American sentiment.
But there is very little indication that a bill essentially greenlighting all abortion nationally would be popular.
Most Americans support some kind of abortion restrictions in the second and third trimester. Just 28% say abortion should be generally legal in the second trimester.
That means even Americans you might think of as pro-choice are probably not going to be supportive
of a bill that would essentially prevent any state legislation from restricting access in any way.
Even less popular is a law that would supersede nearly all state restrictions and force religious
affiliated hospitals into performing abortions. Predictably, Republicans are having a field day on this bill,
and I suspect their messaging is going to be well-received by voters in the middle of the issue.
It's especially confounding when you consider there is another bill with two Republican votes on the board,
one that may be able to win over Democratic Senators Manchin and Casey.
Some Democrats have argued that either bill will fail,
so they are reluctant to join hands with Republicans and would rather mark the distinction between the two parties. Fine.
But a bill failing 48-52 with two members of your own party objecting looks a lot worse than a bill
failing with a 52-48 majority with every member of your caucus on board and support from two
Republicans. On top of that, the Murkowski-Collins bill does essentially
protect abortion rights as they exist now, a la Roe v. Wade, in a democratic fashion, which is
simple enough messaging. Additionally, and again, looking at this through a political lens, such a
vote would also shed more light on Democrats' assertions that the minority party is little
more than obstructionist, which seems to be a narrative many on the left want to emphasize in
the cause of abolishing the filibuster. I'm uncertain why they wouldn't take this opportunity
to add fuel to that fire. Even worse, there are real questions about whether the WHPA would even
be legal or survive Supreme Court scrutiny. I'm personally skeptical. Governor Whitmer's approach
to file a lawsuit in her own state and try to leverage the state's Supreme Court to enshrine abortion rights is novel and clever, and there are a limited number
of states where it will work. I'll be curious if any other Democratic governors follow suit.
As Weissman pointed out, there are few good options on the table for Democrats if this
ruling comes down even remotely close to what was in the leaked draft. What Democrats really need
is a majority of Supreme Court justices, but that is decades away. Or they need 60 Democratic senators, which seems nearly impossible thanks to the
institutional advantage Republicans have in the Senate. Or they need control of more state
legislators, but they appear to be losing power in most purple and red states, not gaining it.
Of course, they could also try and abolish the filibuster, but they don't have the votes to do
that in their party, and their current bill wouldn't pass even if the filibuster was abolished.
None of this is to imply Democrats should do nothing. If or when Republicans take control
of Congress and the White House, there is good reason to believe they'll try and push for a
nationwide abortion ban, even if they're saying right now that they won't. Anti-abortion activists
are already calling for such a ban, the draft from
Alito seems to leave the door open for one, and 19 senators and more than 100 Republican
representatives have already co-sponsored legislation that would grant legal personhood
from conception. Like the WHPA, all of that would be an affront to many Americans who are generally
moderate on this issue. So if Democrats want to simultaneously take the political high ground and align themselves with the moral compass of most Americans, they should embrace
the Murkowski-Collins bill while throwing whatever else they can against the wall and hoping something
sticks. All right, that is it for my take. Remember, it's just my take. And now that brings us on to your questions answered.
This one is from Braun in Austin, Texas.
They said, how did Europe seemingly skip over the abortion debate
while here it seems to be the largest single issue there is?
So I'm not sure that's how I would characterize it as being skipped over in Europe.
Abortion rights in Europe
actually vary widely and are being squeezed in many of the same ways they are in the U.S.
It is true that nearly all European countries allow abortion on request or on broad social
grounds in the first trimester of a pregnancy. Some allow it up to 18 to 24 weeks, but that is
much less common. This happened not through court rulings or an implied right, but through legislation and the democratic process. Some countries, like Sweden, are at
the top of the rankings in terms of abortion rights. They allow unfettered access until the
18th week of pregnancy. Still, though, there is absolutely a fight continuing on the ground.
Countries with religious traditions, like Poland, have been in an American-esque battle over abortion
for years.
The country passed a near total ban on abortion in 2020 which caused widespread civil unrest.
Those protests kicked up again last year after a woman died from a pregnancy, which her lawyers
said happened after doctors delayed her abortion. The government claims it was a medical error,
not a result of restrictive laws there. Meanwhile, in countries like Malta, which is deeply Catholic,
abortion is illegal under any circumstances. The truth is, abortion rights in Europe are broadly
accepted because they were instituted mostly through the democratic process and align mostly
with the views of Europeans in the countries where they exist. Again, that is not to say they
skip the fight or that there isn't tension there, and there is. Conservatives in Europe are pushing
for abortion restrictions much as they are here. But their answer has been legislation.
All right, next up is a story that matters. In an effort to ease up the pain of inflation,
nearly three dozen states are enacting or considering forms of tax relief, according
to the Tax Foundation. In Kansas, the Democratic governor is pushing to slash the state's grocery tax.
In Iowa, Indiana, and Idaho, legislators have already cut some income taxes.
In New Mexico, lawmakers passed a $1,000 tax rebate to households struggling due to gas prices.
In many cases, Democrats are joining Republicans in cutting or reducing taxes,
including for high earners, at a time when budget coffers are healthy
and families are feeling the pain from the rising cost of goods.
Economists, however, have expressed concern that cutting taxes could actually exasperate the inflation issue
by putting more money in people's pockets.
The New York Times has the story. There's a link to it in today's newsletter.
New York Times has the story. There's a link to it in today's newsletter.
All right, that is it for our story that matters, which brings us to our numbers section.
The share of U.S. adults who say abortion should be generally legal in the first trimester of pregnancy is 60 percent. The share of U.S. adults who say abortion should be generally legal in the
second trimester of pregnancy is 28 percent. The share of U.S. adults who say abortion should be generally legal in the second trimester of pregnancy is 28%.
The share of U.S. adults who say they would not like to see the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade is 69%.
The share of U.S. adults who say they would like to see the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade is 29%.
The number of new COVID cases in the U.S. per day, according to the latest averages, is 73,000.
cases in the U.S. per day, according to the latest averages, is 73,000. The median age of U.S. women giving birth is now 30 years old, the highest on record.
All right, last but not least, our have a nice day section.
Patron, the bomb-sniffing dog, has officially been recognized by Ukraine's government.
The tiny Jack Russell Terrier became a viral sensation for
his role in helping neutralize unexploded devices in Ukraine. On Sunday, Ukrainian President
Volodymyr Zelensky formally recognized the dog for his service to the country. His name, patron,
means ammunition in Ukrainian, and he's been credited with detecting more than 200 undetonated
bombs since the war began in February. His talented nose and pint-sized
protective vest have become a hit on social media, inspiring fan art across the globe.
NPR has the story. There's a link to it in today's newsletter.
All right, everybody, that is it for today's podcast. As always, if you want to support our
work, go to reetangle.com slash membership, or just give us a five-star rating and share this podcast
with your friends who enjoy getting their news via podcast. Either way, we'll see you tomorrow.
Same time. Peace. Our newsletter is written by Isaac Saul, edited by Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, Ari Weitzman,
and produced in conjunction with Tangle's social media manager, Magdalena Bokova, who also helped create our logo.
The podcast is edited by Trevor Eichhorn, and music for the podcast was produced by Diet75.
For more from Tangle, subscribe to our newsletter or check out our content archives at www.readtangle.com.
The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada,
which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases.
What can you do this flu season?
Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot.
Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine
authorized in Canada for ages six months and older, and it may be available for free in your
province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed.
Learn more at FluCellVax.ca.