Hillary Clinton discovers something new

A recent statement from Hillary Clinton would sound almost poignant – if she hadn’t pushed so hard for supposedly “safe”, middle-of-the-road positions, including on abortion rights.

The phrase “better late than never” comes to mind:

The former first lady issued a dire warning in the interview, conducted in February, claiming that Democrats spent decades in a state of denial that abortion rights — which had been enshrined for generations under Roe v. Wade — could be revoked. While in that state, Clinton said the anti-abortion movement was able to chip away at the legal precedent until it was too late.

“One thing I give the right credit for is they never give up,” Clinton said. “They are relentless. You know, they take a loss, they get back up, they regroup, they raise more money.”

“It’s tremendously impressive the way that they operate. And we have nothing like it on our side,” she added. [my emphasis] (1)

Gosh, if only she had been in a position over the last 3 ½ decades to somehow influence the way her side operated!

But she’s right – now that the fight for abortion rights is back to a mid-1970s state.

She was the Secretary of State in the Obama-Biden Administration, which had pledged to cofidy the abortion rights that had been enshrined in Constitutional law for five decades since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. But they didn’t do it. Didn’t even try.

"The Dems refused to Codify Roe even when they had the power to," wrote screenwriter Thomas Cunningham. "RBG refused to retire when Obama could pick her replacement. Biden promised he's codify Roe. Didn't. Trump win is only 1 part. The other is Dem failure."

He was referring to the late Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal who passed away in late 2020 and who was succeeded by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was nominated by former President Donald Trump. Many progressives had called on Ginsburg to retire and allow Obama to appoint her successor.

"You could have codified Roe v. Wade in 2009, but you didn't because 'abortion rights weren't the priority,'" tweeted Ash Sarkar, contributing editor at progressive outlet Novara Media. (2)

Molly Moorhead wrote in 2012, when Obama still had over four years that he would be in office (after winning that year’s election, of course):

After initially vowing to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, President Barack Obama quickly said it's not his "highest legislative priority."

That was in March 2009. Since then, it has scarcely been mentioned. A version of the bill was last introduced in Congress in 2007, and no new bill has appeared since.

We asked NARAL Pro-Choice America, an abortion rights group, to assess the progress on this issue.

"The protection of Roe v. Wade in federal law remains a long-term priority for NARAL Pro-Choice America and the pro-choice community. Unfortunately, the composition of Congress (including the first two years of President Obama's term) did not include enough pro-choice votes to pass legislation like the Freedom of Choice Act," NARAL said in a statement. (3)

Yes, Hillary is right. Democrats actually should fight for their own side.

It’s also worth noting that somehow in the two years where Biden had Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress, he didn’t get it codified, either. Doesn’t seem to have really tried. (4)

Bernie Sanders was pushing for it 2022, when there was still time to do it (5):



Notes:

(1) Irwin, Lauren (2024): Hillary Clinton gives dire warning on abortion: ‘We could have done more to fight’. The HIll 05/25/2024. <https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4685823-hillary-clinton-dire-warning-abortion-rights-new-york-times-interview/> (Accessed: 2024-26-05).

(2) Roche, Darragh (2022): Barack Obama Blasted for Not Codifying Roe v. Wade: 'Dem Failure'. Newsweek 06/25/2022. <https://www.newsweek.com/barack-obama-blasted-not-codifying-roe-v-wade-democrat-failure-1719156> (Accessed: 2024-04-06).

(3) Moorhead, Molly (2012): Nothing to sign; bill has fizzled. Politifact 06/01/20212. <https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/501/sign-the-freedom-of-choice-act/> (Accessed: 2024-04-06).

(4) Saric, Ivana (2022): Biden believes Congress must codify Roe v. Wade, top aide says Axios 11/13/2022. <https://www.axios.com/2022/11/14/biden-abortion-congress-codify-roe-wade-democrats> (Accessed: 2024-04-06).

(5) We Must Codify Roe v. Wade. Senator Bernie Sanders YouTube channel 05/11/2024. <https://youtu.be/yLZvY5mgoF8?si=XBqFIgP5xSG2xxAX> (Accessed: 2024-04-06).

Should the Democrats fight for abortion rights, or duck-and-cover instead?

Walter Shapiro has an article in the New Republic on the Supreme Court's reversal on abortion rights that in some sense harks back to the conservative days of even-The-New-Republic days of Andrew Sullivan's dominance, In Texas, the GOP Has Just Overplayed Its Hand 09/03/2021.

Shapiro cites a Gallup poll that periodically surveys Americans about abortion. The tables presented at the links take various angles on support for abortion rights. These surveys did not ask specifically about abortion rights as such. The first set of results asked respondents, "Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances or illegal in all circumstances?"

The most recent results from May 2021 show the following responses:

• 32% Legal under any
• 48% Legal only under certain
• 19% Illegal in all
•   2% No opinion

The subsequent questions aim to add nuance to those responses. But they don't add much.

But Shapiro focuses on the illegal-in-all category, "And just around 20 percent want to render all abortions illegal." And since that is the basic position of the Christian fundamentalist antiabortionists, that's a reasonable estimate of the hardcore opponents.

For decades, Republican officials have been pandering to that militant 20 percent slice of the electorate. They got away with it politically because most of the extreme restrictions on abortion have been enacted in smaller, GOP-dominated states in the South. But with Florida poised to follow the example of Texas by enacting legislation that would effectively ban an estimated 85 percent of all abortions, we have entered an era when pregnant women will have few options in two of the nation’s three largest states. [my emphasis]

This is a key point. A flat-out ban on abortion is extremely unpopular. But the Gallup poll does suggest that the anti-abortion constituency is somewhat larger. The 48% "Legal only under certain" category breaks down into 13% "Legal under most" and 33% "Legal only in a few." I would guess that as much of a third of the public would be supportive of the antiabortion position. After all, even the now-infamous Texas back-alley-abortion-promotion vigilante law technically allows abortion in the first six weeks of a pregnancy, although it's actual goal and effect will be to end access to legal abortion in the state.

On the other hand, the fact that a full 32% are choosing legal under any circumstances is striking for a different reason. Virtually no one is pushing for "abortion on demand" right up until nine months. The Roe v. Wade standard for Constitutionally protected general abortion rights is viability, i.e., up to six months. I read that as indicating that a third of respondents wanted to be sure they were clearly stating their support for basic abortion rights as established by Roe v. Wade.

So, the Republicans have gone all in with their partisan Supreme Court on a position very unpopular among voters in general and one regarded by Democratic voters as a critical part of women's rights. So, how does he suggest the Democrats strategically approach this issue? "Conversations Thursday with political consultants in both parties led to a surprising conclusion: Abortion will prove to be a more potent factor for Democrats in 2022 if it is put in the larger context of Republican extremism."

Okay, so let the Republicans have it, right?

Uh, no:

The hardest lesson for Democrats to remember is that shouting only appeals to voters who passionately agree with you to begin with. There is a distinction between the kind of political language used in fundraising and the more nuanced arguments aimed to swing voters. This is not to deny the legitimate rage at the latest anti-abortion Supreme Court ruling. But the short-term goal (holding the House and Senate for the Democrats in 2022) may require lower-decibel forms of persuasion and voter motivation. [my emphasis]

In other words, he recommends the standard Democratic reaction to Republican overreach, Duck and Cover:

Shapiro's advice is consistent with the current Republican talking point that, oh, the Court action was no big deal, nothing to worry about, they may even strike it down later.

Digby Parton takes a more urgent view of the situation, Far-Right Violence Being Validated By Supreme Court's Affirmation Of Texas' Vigilante Abortion Law Majority Report [09/04/2021]:

Democrats traditionally have more of a challenge than the Republicans turning out their base voters in midterm elections like those of 2022. That means that mobilizing their base around abortion rights is exactly what they need to do. The Republicans will be motivated by having a Democratic President and by the antivaxxer/pro-COVID agitators who are the current incarnation of the Tea Party of the Obama years.

But the Democratic base voters also really need to see Biden and the Democrats in the House and Senate raise a serious stink and take concrete actions to defend abortion rights. Just adding this as one more bullet-point on the fund-raising letters is not nearly enough.

Katrina vanden Heuvel emphasized the need for women's-rights supporters to do the very opposite of being calm and acting like it's no big deal. In To stop abortion opponents, the only solution is mass mobilization (Washington Post 09/07/2021):

Because Republicans have chipped away at reproductive rights so gradually, it’s easy to underestimate this moment’s severity. As the Nation’s Elie Mystal put it, “I feel like people are waiting for the headline ‘Roe v. Wade Overturned’ … before they demand that Democrats do something to protect abortion rights.” To protect millions whose rights are already jeopardized, we cannot wait for that moment to act.

It’s time for those who care about preserving reproductive rights to reinvigorate the grass-roots mobilization of 2017, when masses of pink-hatted protesters filled cities nationwide. Immediately, we can lend assistance to vulnerable patients being turned away at clinic doors now that S.B. 8 [the Texas back-alley-abortion-promotion one] is law — remembering that while safe abortion care remains a plane ride away for the affluent, poor and otherwise marginalized people won’t get necessary care without support.

She also endorses the Women's Health Protection Act to provide federal protection for abortion rights. Biden himself and the Democrats in both the Senate and the House need to make the most serious effort to pass protective legislation as soon as possible. A bullet-point on the fundraising letters is really, really not enough.

Christian Right Protestant complains that Joe Biden is a bad Catholic

Richard Land, former head of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), had to step down from that position after comments he made after Trayvon Martin's murder. Morgan Feddes reported for Christianity Today in Richard Land's Comments On Trayvon Martin Investigated By SBC 04/20/2012:

Land, the president of the ERLC, accused black political leaders, including President Obama, of trying to "gin up the black vote" on his radio show on March 31.

"Instead of letting the legal process take its independent course, race mongers are anointing themselves judge, jury, and executioners," Land said. "The rule of law is being assaulted by racial demagogues, and it's disgusting, and it should stop."

Land also stated a black man is "statistically more likely to do you harm than a white man."

But Land is still considered downright respectable among the Christian Right, with his commentaries regularly appearing in the conservative Christian Post, including this recent one, Ask Dr. Land: What does President Biden’s pro-abortion blitz say about America? 02/05/2021. No, I hadn't heard about this "pro-abortion blitz," either.)

Land is currently president of Southern Evangelical Seminary and Bible College in Charlotte, North Carolina. Which is basically a fundamentalist Protestant institution. Some not insignificant number of conservative American Protestants think Catholics aren't "true" Christians and are therefore going to Hell.

Land's column includes some thinly-concealed disdain for Catholics in politics. Just so his readership understands that Biden is a Catholic - excuse me, a Roman Catholic:, he writes:

President Biden is the second Roman Catholic to be elected president. However, as JFK so cleverly put it 61 years ago in his appearance before the Protestant ministers gathered in Houston to hear him address the then controversial subject of his Catholicism —controversial because a Catholic had never been elected to the presidency to that point in the nation’s history.

With a hint of irritation which can be both seen and heard on the video recording of the speech, JFK said, “for contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic party’s candidate for president who happens also to be a Catholic.” JFK then proceeded to expand by stating, “I do not speak for my church on public matters — and the church does not speak for me.” [my emphasis]

He then flips his perspective to make one of those points that conservatives seem to think are very clever and criticize both JFK and Biden for not being good Catholics by his own conservative Protestant perspective: "That was true for JFK and by now as it is crystal clear for anyone with eyes to see, Joe Biden has completely broken with his church’s bedrock beliefs in the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death."

This because Biden does not support legislation banning abortion. Although as far as I know, Biden has never said he disagrees with the Church's position on abortion being bad, he does support mainstream Democratic pro-choice political positions. Which conservative Christians understand - correctly in this case - as being a key issue in the defense of women's rights. Which is not something that the Christian Right wants to embrace.

Citing poll numbers from unidentified sources, Land tries to create the impression that most American voters agree with the Christian Right that abortion should be banned, which is very far from accurate. And argues from there:

So, why then, 48 years after the Supreme Court attempted to “settle” the troublesome issue of abortion on behalf of the American people in Roe v. Wade, are we now confronted with a pro-abortion Trojan horse like Joe Biden. I, like many Americans, thought America was supposed to be about government “of the people, by the people, for the people.” Clearly a bipartisan cultural political elite in this country believes it has the right to ignore the will of the people and to impose on the people the policies they believe should hold sway and to force the American people to subsidize such policies. And, they have successfully implemented such anti-democratic policies for nearly five decades.

This is a mild, clean-shaven version of the argument. But he portrays the US is a country following "anti-democratic policies" due to abortion being legal under the principle established in Roe v. Wade. And the Christian Right portrays abortion as an absolute moral issue involving the killing of millions of babies, as they frame it. And it is common to hear from anti-abortionists that this makes the US morally much worse than Hitler Germany.

So for people sharing the Christian Right view of abortion, Land's statement very much reinforces the notion that the current democracy in America is radically evil and illegitimate. In other words, it supports the attitude of the seditionist lynch mob that stormed the Capitol on January 6.

But in a mild, clean-shaven way, of course.

Anti-abortion-rights Democratic Congressman Dan Lipinski

Dan Lipinski has been a Democratic Congressman from Illinois since 2005. As Joan McCarter reports, he's staunch opposed to abortion rights ('Democrat' Lipinski attacks fellow Democrats using the worst abortion lies in weekend rally Daily Kos 01/13/2020):

He crowed about being a "pro-life Democrat," saying "we need Democrats, Republicans, independents, everyone working together" and then attacking Democrats as "people out there who want to force taxpayers to pay for abortions." What Democrats are actually advocating for is access to full, and still legal, healthcare services for all women, especially low-income women. That's a regular smear the forced birthers have been using for decades, now, and Lipinkski is happy to promote it.

But that's not the worst he had in store. He picked up the latest big forced birth lie, that doctors are performing abortions up to the moment of birth. This is specifically what he said: "A child who’s born during an abortion - we are trying to get a bill passed that says you must care for that child." This myth has been around for years and persists because irresponsible politicians - Republicans and Lipinski - continue to repeat it. It is not a real thing. It is a figment of the sick and manipulative minds in the forced birth community. [my emphasis]

The Democratic Party really needs to be straightforwardly supportive of abortion rights. He has a progressive primary challenger, Marie Newman. Aída Chávez reported on her campaign last October (House Democrats, Dodging Party Policy, are Privately Supporting Marie Newman The Intercept 10/01/2019):

On September 17, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., told the New York Times that she would endorse Marie Newman, the pro-choice woman challenging Illinois Rep. Dan Lipinski, one of the few remaining anti-abortion Democrats in Congress. The following day, when asked about her endorsement, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters that there’s “absolutely” room in the Democratic Party for anti-choice lawmakers. “That doesn’t mean we’re not a pro-choice party — we are,” he said. “But that doesn’t mean that … either the Speaker or I believe that we ought to exclude people who have a different view.” ...

Many progressive House Democrats who want to stand up for reproductive rights have been privately helping Newman’s campaign, but are trying to keep it under wraps out of fear of retribution by party leadership. Other members have quietly expressed their desire to help. Much of the hesitation stems from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s longtime position of protecting incumbents, which DCCC Chair Cheri Bustos intensified through a contentious blacklist policy back in April.

But the eight-term incumbent is hardly a Democrat by today’s standards. Lipinski, who inherited the seat from his father, Bill Lipinski, in 2005, opposes abortion rights, LGBTQ equality, voted against the Affordable Care Act in 2010, and refused to endorse Barack Obama for reelection in 2012. According to one analysis, he votes with President Donald Trump about 40 percent of the time. [my emphasis]

If the US had a multiparty parliamentary system similar to those of most EU countries, the Democratic Party would be at least two separate parties, a labor-oriented progressive one and a corporate neoliberal ones. The official Party institutions are controlled by corporate Democrats and their donors. It's good to see progressives building parallel structures, which they need to have a fighting chance of becoming the dominant force in the party structure.

Until then, they will often be competing with the party establishment. And, yes, if progressive actually do take control of the party machinery, corporate donors will make sure of existing and new parallel structures of their own to try to take it back.