Unvarnished Reflections: Mitch McConnell's Backflip on National Abortion Ban
Last week, the Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, told USA TODAY that a federal abortion ban was a possibility. However, he walked back these remarks on Tuesday, stating that the sentiment on Capitol Hill was that abortion was a problem that should be handled on a state-by-state basis. According to McConnell, if the Supreme Court was indeed on the brink of overturning Roe v. Wade, it would throw the decision back to the democratic process.
With a Democrat in the White House, a nationwide abortion ban is currently politically infeasible. However, the political landscape may shift between elections and by 2024, when presidential elections are scheduled. The Republican-led states are pushing for strict abortion limitations so aggressively that they are redefining women's reproductive rights fundamentally.
Feminist warnings to "calm down" and accept abortions due to the "hysterical" nature of our concerns areirical. Now, the Supreme Court stands on the brink of overturning Roe, setting off a domino effect of draconian restrictions and wider intrusions on women's sexual privacy and freedoms, something we have consistently warned against. Pardon us if we're not particularly swayed by McConnell's new sales pitch.
While McConnell has withdrawn his endorsement of a federal ban, his stance doesn't reflect the majority of his party or the broader anti-abortion movement. Conservative state legislators are drafting and passing extreme abortion laws that would come into effect immediately upon Roe's demise – including multiple exceptions for rape victims and at least one bill treating women who seek abortions as murderers.
Republican leaders are not content to hand the issue over to the states. They're busy crafting national legislation. Senator Joni Ernst is preparing to introduce a bill that would ban abortions within six weeks of a woman's last menstrual period – a time when many women are still unaware they're pregnant. Over 100 Republican House representatives have signed onto the Life at Conception Act, which would afford the same constitutional protection to a fertilized egg starting with conception or cloning or any other specific moment, as defined by individual members.
The strategy of restricting abortion at both state and federal levels is a long-term plan. For religious rights and their political allies in the Republican Party, it's part of a broader societal vision – maintaining white dominance. White evangelical leaders realized that forced segregation was a losing issue, so they turned their attention to abortion. Whilst Roe v. Wade was the anti-abortion movement's holy grail, it was never its ultimate objective.
The anti-abortion movement's goal is clear: to ban abortion nationwide, with some exceptions for rape, incest, or fetal anomalies. Some prominent anti-abortion activists and organizations have even gone so far as to claim that abortion is unnecessary to save a woman's life and that there are no exceptions for her health.
The dizzying lies and misinformation continue. "Life begins at conception" laws have significant repercussions. Firstly, it's estimated that up to half of all fertilized eggs never implant and there's no reliable way to know when implantation actually occurs. Secondly, the anti-abortion movement seeks to quietly outlaw many common forms of contraception that the movement argues interrupt implantation. The medical consensus is that contraceptives like the birth control pill and the intrauterine device (IUD) prevent pregnancy, not implantation.
Some anti-abortion activists don't care about these distinctions. Organizations such as Americans United for Life have drafted model laws for the anti-abortion and anti-contraception policies in the US. They argue that IUDs are "lethal devices" and that even taking the birth control pill is equivalent to committing abortion.
Conservatives – including those on the Supreme Court – have made it clear: It's not just about Roe, it's about a whole line of cases built on the constitutional right to privacy. The first case that officially recognized this right was Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965, which legalized birth control for married couples. Idealists in the anti-abortion movement want to bring down Roe but, beyond that, they want to eliminate the constitutional right to privacy, shutting down cases that protect consensual sex between adults and same-sex marriage.
The anti-abortion movement's to-do list is ambitious and covers much more ground than simply banning abortion. Naz hat bereits erwähnt, dass ein Bundesverbot wahrscheinlich selbst dann nicht erlassen werde, solange ein Demokrat im Weißen Haus sitzt, aber die anti-abtreibungsbewegung und ihre extremistischen Unterstützer innerhalb der Republikanischen Partei haben es sich zum Ziel gesetzt, in der Halbzeit 2022 eine Mehrheit im Kongress zu gewinnen um mögliche Präsidentschaftswahlen in 2 Jahren vorzubereiten und danach Amtsantritt des Präsidenten im Jahr 2024.
Doch es müssen noch einige Hürden überwunden werden, die größte davon die 60-Stimmen-Mehrheit, die erforderlich ist, um den Filibuster des Senats zu unterlaufen. Würde ein landesweites Abtreibungsverbot für die Republikaner ausreichen, um einen abtreibungsspezifischen Filibuster-Gesetzentwurf zu dazu zu bringen, die Wahlschwelle auf 50 Personen zu senken? McConnell sagt derzeit Nein: "Die Republikaner im Senat sind der Meinung, dass es kein Thema gibt, das von der 60-Stimmen-Hürde ausgenommen werden sollte. Mit anderen Worten, es gibt bei der republikanischen Senatskonferenz keinerlei Stimmung hinsichtlich der Abschaffung des Filibusters", sagte er gegenüber Reportern.
READ ALSO:
Despite McConnell's recent retraction, many within his party do not share his stance on a national abortion ban, as evidenced by the push for extreme abortion restrictions at the state level. This includes multiple exceptions for rape victims and at least one bill treating women who seek abortions as murderers.
Feminists have been consistently warned to remain calm and accept abortions due to their concerns being labeled "hysterical." Now, with the Supreme Court poised to overturn Roe and set off a chain reaction of draconian abortion restrictions and wider encroachments on women's sexual privacy and freedoms, we find ourselves apologizing yet again for not buying into Mitch McConnell's sales pitch.
Additional Insights
Republican-led states are pushing for extreme abortion restrictions through various legislative measures, even after the potential overturning of Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case. Here are some key strategies:
- Trigger Laws: Many Republican-led states had enacted "trigger laws" that would immediately ban abortion if Roe v. Wade were overturned. These laws have been implemented in 12 states, effectively banning abortion with few exceptions.
- Six-Week Bans: Several states have enacted laws banning abortion after six weeks of gestation, which is before many women even realize they are pregnant. For example, Georgia and Indiana have enacted six-week bans, limiting abortion access significantly.
- Medication Abortion Restrictions: States like Louisiana have classified abortion pills (mifepristone and misoprostol) as controlled dangerous substances, making it a crime to possess them without prescriptions. This move aims to restrict access to medication abortions, which account for more than half of all abortions in the U.S.
- Punishing Women: Some states are proposing measures to punish women who seek to end their pregnancies. For instance, Oklahoma has passed a law allowing private citizens to file lawsuits against abortion providers who knowingly perform abortions, and also permits lawsuits against women who obtain abortions.
- Global Gag Rule: Project 2025, a conservative policy agenda, calls for the reinstatement and expansion of the Global Gag Rule, which blocks U.S. international funding for organizations that provide, advocate for, or refer to abortion care. This policy limits access to all sexual and reproductive healthcare, including contraception, and has been shown to lead to a rise in unintended pregnancies and unsafe abortions.
- State-Level Restrictions: States are also using the Weldon Amendment to threaten state action to protect abortion access. For example, the Trump Administration withheld federal Medicaid funds from California due to its requirement that health plans include abortion coverage, despite no violation of the Weldon Amendment by California officials.
These strategies collectively aim to severely restrict abortion access, even in the absence of Roe v. Wade, by creating a patchwork of state laws that vary widely in their restrictions and penalties.
