I’m with you on many points in your proposal, up until the point where you want to allow abortion up to 8-15 weeks, which is where, as you say, “a majority of abortions take place”.
Why do you feel that it is moderate and/or good faith for someone who is pro-life to agree to allow most abortions to continue to happen?
Thanks for the question. First, it's important to note that this is not a proposal for my ideal set of laws around abortion. Instead, it's a description of a framework for congressional action which I believe the current state of play allows for, and which would achieve desirable outcomes in light of many of the (likely, in my view) scenarios if such a framework is not pursued now. Second, there is no pathway now or in the forseeable future for pro-life advocates to pass a federal abortion ban, and so the current reality is that every pro-choice state can maintain or even expand abortion rights. Many states controlled by Republicans today do not have an abortion ban prior to 15 weeks. My assumption, and the reason why I offer the range of 8-15, is that if the framework was primarily pursued by Republicans it would lean toward 8 weeks, while if it was pursued by Democrats it would lean toward 15. Even in the case of the latter, Democrats would need to recognize Republicans have a great deal of leverage now, and to your point, 15 weeks would be unlikely to attract enough Republicans to overcome a filibuster.
One final point: there are major questions as to how many of the 8 (or so...things are changing quickly) states that have total abortion bans will be sustained over time, and with each state that has its abortion ban overturned by their state courts or by a vote, the weaker pro-life/Republican leverage becomes nationally. I mention in my essay that there is probably not a pro-choice activist who doesn't now wish they could back to the 90s and accept codifying Roe with the restrictions needed to attract moderate Democratic support. Why would Republicans accept a deal within this framework? One answer to this question, as I write in the essay, is that they would do so out of a recognition that now is likely the peak of their leverage, and they have the opportunity to lock in not just legal restrictions, but a cultural understanding of abortion (principally, that abortion is not a social good) that would have been deemed unthinkable a year or two ago.
Understood, and to be fair, I understand that your headline is a proposal to end the debate (not to end abortion).
I guess my question is: for whom is this proposal’s outcomes desirable?
The only answer I can come up with is: people who wish Roe was still in place.
Was talking this through with my wife, more ardently pro-life than I, and she said this: “if you swapped this with an issue like civil rights or women’s right to vote, and proposed a framework that allowed most discrimination to continue or most women to continue to be prohibited from voting, it’s a non-starter and no one would see it as any sort of victory.” That’s been stuck in my head.
Curious, to your first sentence, what your ideal set of laws would be, pragmatism aside?
"I guess my question is: for whom is this proposal’s outcomes desirable?
The only answer I can come up with is: people who wish Roe was still in place."
Well stated. Here I point out that most people wish Roe were still in place. The Party positions (comprehensive ban or always legal) poll in the 15-20% range.
So to answer your question: "for whom is this proposal’s outcomes desirable?" The answer is most people.
And there's the rub. Most people have a mushy middle position on offer from neither Party.
"Second, there is no pathway now or in the forseeable future for pro-life advocates to pass a federal abortion ban"
This doesn't seem right. Suppose the Republicans have 52 Senators and flip the House with some margin. You think they wouldn't deliver on something they committed to do 38 years ago? Would the need to ditch the filibuster for that one bill stop them? This seems to be a pathway with decent odds.
"If Democrats stop evading the reality of the situation, they can lead" Yes. I don't think they are there yet but I see hope.
As far as Republicans you propose a compromise that gives up most of the ground they gained in Dobbs, a historic win. If 10 Republicans voted for that our ears would bleed from the screaming of the betrayed base, who have ached for this moment for 50 years! Since 1984 Republican position has been a national ban. Overturning Roe is the halfway mark.
Your post is pragmatic, let me outline a more plausible path to a compromise similar to what you propose (BTW I like the structure of your bill).
1. Get 48 Dem Senators to pledge that they will not only vote for a bill legalizing early-term abortion, they will ditch the filibuster if need be to pass it. The Bill will pass January 2023 if voters do their part. Two more Senators and hold the House.
2. By offering voters a concrete deliverable promise (and good campaigning all around) beat the odds, add two Senators and hold the House, and pass the Bill. Your proposal sound great, I personally think it hits the political sweet spot. Getting there will be an ugly fight between left and center Democrats. But they will have to deliver something, breaking such a concrete promise is suicide.
3. Provided the bill was moderate enough it will be too popular to knock down when Republicans take power later. ACA redux.
This is what Josh Marshall at TPM has been pushing, see his NYT op-ed Democrats Can Win This Fall if They Make One Key Promise.
It is the most politically realistic path I can see. If it worked would the Democrats realize a moderate bill that prefers popularity over purity is the way to go? I hope so. In the meantime the best we can do is lay the table.
Michael, interesting article.
I’m with you on many points in your proposal, up until the point where you want to allow abortion up to 8-15 weeks, which is where, as you say, “a majority of abortions take place”.
Why do you feel that it is moderate and/or good faith for someone who is pro-life to agree to allow most abortions to continue to happen?
Thanks for the question. First, it's important to note that this is not a proposal for my ideal set of laws around abortion. Instead, it's a description of a framework for congressional action which I believe the current state of play allows for, and which would achieve desirable outcomes in light of many of the (likely, in my view) scenarios if such a framework is not pursued now. Second, there is no pathway now or in the forseeable future for pro-life advocates to pass a federal abortion ban, and so the current reality is that every pro-choice state can maintain or even expand abortion rights. Many states controlled by Republicans today do not have an abortion ban prior to 15 weeks. My assumption, and the reason why I offer the range of 8-15, is that if the framework was primarily pursued by Republicans it would lean toward 8 weeks, while if it was pursued by Democrats it would lean toward 15. Even in the case of the latter, Democrats would need to recognize Republicans have a great deal of leverage now, and to your point, 15 weeks would be unlikely to attract enough Republicans to overcome a filibuster.
One final point: there are major questions as to how many of the 8 (or so...things are changing quickly) states that have total abortion bans will be sustained over time, and with each state that has its abortion ban overturned by their state courts or by a vote, the weaker pro-life/Republican leverage becomes nationally. I mention in my essay that there is probably not a pro-choice activist who doesn't now wish they could back to the 90s and accept codifying Roe with the restrictions needed to attract moderate Democratic support. Why would Republicans accept a deal within this framework? One answer to this question, as I write in the essay, is that they would do so out of a recognition that now is likely the peak of their leverage, and they have the opportunity to lock in not just legal restrictions, but a cultural understanding of abortion (principally, that abortion is not a social good) that would have been deemed unthinkable a year or two ago.
Understood, and to be fair, I understand that your headline is a proposal to end the debate (not to end abortion).
I guess my question is: for whom is this proposal’s outcomes desirable?
The only answer I can come up with is: people who wish Roe was still in place.
Was talking this through with my wife, more ardently pro-life than I, and she said this: “if you swapped this with an issue like civil rights or women’s right to vote, and proposed a framework that allowed most discrimination to continue or most women to continue to be prohibited from voting, it’s a non-starter and no one would see it as any sort of victory.” That’s been stuck in my head.
Curious, to your first sentence, what your ideal set of laws would be, pragmatism aside?
"I guess my question is: for whom is this proposal’s outcomes desirable?
The only answer I can come up with is: people who wish Roe was still in place."
Well stated. Here I point out that most people wish Roe were still in place. The Party positions (comprehensive ban or always legal) poll in the 15-20% range.
So to answer your question: "for whom is this proposal’s outcomes desirable?" The answer is most people.
And there's the rub. Most people have a mushy middle position on offer from neither Party.
"Second, there is no pathway now or in the forseeable future for pro-life advocates to pass a federal abortion ban"
This doesn't seem right. Suppose the Republicans have 52 Senators and flip the House with some margin. You think they wouldn't deliver on something they committed to do 38 years ago? Would the need to ditch the filibuster for that one bill stop them? This seems to be a pathway with decent odds.
Good article.
"If Democrats stop evading the reality of the situation, they can lead" Yes. I don't think they are there yet but I see hope.
As far as Republicans you propose a compromise that gives up most of the ground they gained in Dobbs, a historic win. If 10 Republicans voted for that our ears would bleed from the screaming of the betrayed base, who have ached for this moment for 50 years! Since 1984 Republican position has been a national ban. Overturning Roe is the halfway mark.
Your post is pragmatic, let me outline a more plausible path to a compromise similar to what you propose (BTW I like the structure of your bill).
1. Get 48 Dem Senators to pledge that they will not only vote for a bill legalizing early-term abortion, they will ditch the filibuster if need be to pass it. The Bill will pass January 2023 if voters do their part. Two more Senators and hold the House.
2. By offering voters a concrete deliverable promise (and good campaigning all around) beat the odds, add two Senators and hold the House, and pass the Bill. Your proposal sound great, I personally think it hits the political sweet spot. Getting there will be an ugly fight between left and center Democrats. But they will have to deliver something, breaking such a concrete promise is suicide.
3. Provided the bill was moderate enough it will be too popular to knock down when Republicans take power later. ACA redux.
This is what Josh Marshall at TPM has been pushing, see his NYT op-ed Democrats Can Win This Fall if They Make One Key Promise.
It is the most politically realistic path I can see. If it worked would the Democrats realize a moderate bill that prefers popularity over purity is the way to go? I hope so. In the meantime the best we can do is lay the table.