I don’t always agree with Josh Barro but on this I think he’s right:
In calling for total bans on abortion, and in dusting off the trigger laws, Republicans are signaling they are willing to pay a political price for the unpopular policy they’re seeking to impose, but it’s not automatic that they’ll actually pay it. This is where Democrats need to focus. To obtain that political price from Republicans— and to win the elections they will need to win to protect and restore abortion rights — Democrats will need to make a counter-offer: set up favorable comparisons, where voters see a broadly popular policy offering from Democrats compared to the extreme, unpopular one from Republicans.
If Democrats offer proposals and rhetoric that are easily framed as similarly extreme, that’s tantamount to allowing Republicans to win the policy fight and suffer few consequences at the ballot box along the way.
There are a few prongs of that fight I want to discuss.
As I’ve written before, Democrats should use the floor of Congress while they still hold both houses. Now. Not in November.1
After the draft decision leaked, Democrats brought a wish-list bill to the floor of both chambers that even pro-choice Republicans — even Sen. Susan Collins — were able to comfortably vote against on the grounds that it was too extreme, more expansive than Casey. Democrats need to break the agenda into pieces. As soon as possible, force Republicans to vote on matters like:
a federal right to abortion in the first trimester,
a federal right to abortion in cases of rape and incest,
a federal prohibition on criminal penalties for women who seek or obtain abortions, and
a federal prohibition on criminal penalties for non-providers who assist women in seeking or obtaining abortions.
I’ve written this myself. Put the individual issues on the floor not some big vote that just says “Are you pro-choice/pro-Roe or not?” and leave it at that. We know the Republicans call themselves “pro-life” and are anti-Roe. It’s amorphous. I’d go further than his list and make them be specific about whether they expect women to inform men of their pregnancies, whether they think pregnant women should be allowed to cross state lines to obtain abortions in other states, whether they will spend money for health care and child welfare now that they are forcing millions of women to give birth against their will. Should vigilantes be allowed to chase them down and sue anyone who “turns them in?” Is it ok if women obtain abortion medication through the mail? Should the government be allowed to track women’s pregnancies though their internet and social media habits? All that stuff is on the table in various states.
Make them own the fucking details of this monstrous philosophy they so cavalierly support. Because if they vote one way on these issues their base will rebel and if they go the other way the Democrats can hammer them with their unpopular stances in the elections.
Barro continues:
This is not anywhere close to an exhaustive list. Unlike a catch-all bill, there are many individual ideas about protecting abortion rights that are very broadly popular — bringing them to the floor puts Republicans in the position of either voting for policies to protect abortion rights, or going home to defend votes that are actually hard to defend in election campaigns.
On issues where the Democratic position is popular even in red states, such as minimum wage and Medicaid expansion, liberal groups have gone directly to voters for approval in states where that is possible. And they have had significant success: In part because of referendum campaigns, 30 states have minimum wages higher than the federal minimum wage, and 38 states have expanded Medicaid, despite widespread opposition from Republican lawmakers.
Replicating this success on abortion rights is going to require a significant degree of pragmatism and flexibility. There are some states where a measure that codifies rights similar to those created by Roe and Casey could win — one passed in Nevada all the way back in 1990, and you might pass something similar in, say, Arizona — but in more solidly red states, it will be more prudent to advance a more limited proposal, such as creating a state constitutional right to abortion only in the first trimester.
Of course, abortion can and should also be an issue in campaigns for state-level elective office, including where referenda are not possible or practical. I don’t think Democrats should be overconfident about abortion carrying them to victory in races for governor, legislature, and state courts — abortion is one of many issues voters care about, and even states that have pro-choice majorities will not always break their way, especially in the political environment that prevails this year. Few voters tell pollsters abortion is the most important issue for determining their votes. But, again, Republicans are running on extreme abortion policies in many states, and Democratic candidates will be able to use that fact to their electoral advantage — so long as their own agendas are more in line with the state’s median voter’s view on abortion.
A few weeks ago, explaining why he wasn’t bringing more limited abortion rights legislation to the floor of the Senate that could get the votes of some Republicans like Collins and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said: “We are not looking to compromise something as vital as this.”
Well, there is no Roe left to compromise about. It’s gone, and positioning yourself as above half-measures is a way to end up with nothing. During the long fight for gay rights legislation, advocates (at least until recently) avoided being arrogant — they assessed what was possible with public opinion and coalitional support as it was, and they took half-measure after half-measure on the way to a near-total victory that was made possible by changed minds. Something similar is going to be necessary on abortion.
Sadly, he’s right. There is no Roe. It’s gone. Nobody should give up their belief that women’s rights to bodily autonomy are fundamental. There’s no need to go out and defend “states’ rights” or be dismissive of the fundamental principles involved. That goes without saying. And we can push the envelope wherever we can in places where it’s possible. But this issue has always been complicated, even under Roe, which had a million exceptions and caveats and compromises. That’s not going to change. But as he says, we are going to have to move forward with imagination and flexibility in order to save the lives and futures of women in this country.
So yes, we need to elect Democrats which, for better or worse, is the only hope of passing laws and regulations that will mitigate this disaster. But it’s going to take a long-term concerted effort from all directions to actually fix this problem — and stop them from doing even more damage.