The Ohio Senate passed a revision bill of Ohio's state child abuse and neglect laws on Tuesday. In it, Senate Republicans - flexing a facade of moxie they believe Donald Trump has instilled in them with his election win - slipped in an amendment, the "heartbeat bill," banning abortion once the fetal heartbeat is present, which typically occurs around six weeks. Naturally, pro-choice advocates have decried this move, while pro-birthers are very excited to move the needle more in their desired direction.
If you noticed that I used the term "pro-birth," instead of "pro-life," that's because I don't believe in the term "pro-life." It's not real. Here are some stats for you, compiled from the most recent Pew Research and Gallup poll results I could find:
- 59% - Republicans who think abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. That number increases to 68% for the conservative end of the GOP, compared to moderates' 41%. Democrat support is 28%.
- While 63% overall support gay adoption, Republican support is only 26%. Democrat support is 87%.
- 67% - Republicans who supported the most recent cuts to the food stamp program, SNAP. Democrat support was 28%.
- 72% - Republicans who favor the death penalty, including 69% of white evangelicals. Democrat support is 34%.
So what does this mean? Basically, the largest block who would call themselves "pro-life" seem to not be too concerned with what happens after the baby is born, so long as it is forced to be born - after that, the baby is someone else's problem. They might be okay with the baby being adopted, but they strongly support limiting the adoptive parent pool by keeping gays out of the mix, regardless of the effect of keeping more children unadopted for much longer. In the event the parent has the baby, but is too poor to care for it, they strongly favor cutting or eliminating assistance that is available to the parent, in the form of welfare and SNAP, by extension making the child's life much harder - but then, that is someone else's problem. And if that baby grows up to kill someone, they are overwhelmingly in favor of killing it.
Hence, the term "pro-life" is a bit of a misnomer. Anyone who is in favor of the things listed above are "pro-birth," not "pro-life." Very little of what the "pro-lifers" advocate would fall under the heading of "pro-life." They, of course, don't see it that way as they bang on podiums and harass women at clinics in a manner that borders on the criminal (that's usually how they do it too, doing everything they can right up to the illegal line). And they always do it with the encouragement of politicians, who will never dirty their hands or go to jail. They let all of their supporters put themselves at risk with the dirty work, while they simply try to bend or break the law in the chamber.
And this is where we come back to the "heartbeat bill" in Ohio. They know the bill is unconstitutional, it's why they've held off on voting on it for the past several years. But Trump is President now. Here is Ohio State Senate President Keith Faber:
So to Keith Faber, Donald Trump winning the presidency means that he will put a conservative justice in the vacant seat on the Supreme Court, so the chance of his bill surviving is much better. It apparently does not matter that the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals already declared "heartbeat bills" unconstitutional, after Arkansas and North Dakota previously passed the same bills. The U.S. Supreme Court refuse to grant a writ of certiorari in January of this year. That is an important thing to note, because a writ requires the "rule of four," whereby four of the nine justices have to approve of a writ to issue it. This means that The Supremes didn't have four justices in support of reviewing the 8th Circuit Appeals Court ruling declaring the "heartbeat" bill unconstitutional - and that was with Antonin Scalia still alive on the bench at the time.
Trump can appoint a conservative justice to the court, but it still only brings the count to 5-4 in favor of Roe v. Wade. Where it starts to get sticky is if any of the three oldest justices - Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Anthony Kennedy - pass away or retire during Trump's term. Right now, Kennedy is the swing vote. If he is no longer there, the only remaining sometimes swing is John Roberts. I think we all were more than a little surprised at Roberts' decision during the Obamacare case, not only supporting the non-existent Individual Mandate "tax," but his willingness to break the SCOTUS rules and invent the tax out of thin air in order to support it. So the question becomes: Would Roberts vote down Roe, or would he instead vote to reverse the TRAP law decisions? The politician in him gives me the impression he is more likely to do something like that so he can feign that the legitimacy of Roe is maintained.
All of this, of course, brings the politicization of the U.S. Supreme Court to the forefront. They are not supposed to be making politically motivated decisions, only determining if decisions already made are constitutional. Roberts inventing a tax that didn't exist (because only the House of Representatives can create a tax, that is federal law) is the starkest abdication of duties seen in years. And he did it to manufacture a facade of bipartisanship to give the conservative side of the court cover when these exact cases came up, as expected, and they voted party lines most of the time. The legal credibility of The Supremes has been suspect for many years, to the degree that politicians like Ted Cruz claim "five un-elected people in Washington" are making laws for everyone to follow. It's not true, but he gets to make this preposterous claim because of justices overstepping their responsibilities, as Roberts did. And now, people like Keith Faber think Trump winning the election is the open door for all manner of idiotic bills to be put forth, because they see hope that the politician put into the vacant seat will usher in a new order, where women will ultimately be required to get permission from men about everything pertaining to their bodies. And they have such high hopes for this that all kinds of ridiculous laws will be coming down the pike. And it will be quick, as they surely think Trump's unbelievably dumb luck of winning will only last one term.
In the mean time, Ohio folks are hoping Governor John Kasich will realize how easily this "heartbeat" bill would likely be shot down by the Appeals Courts, as it with the previous two states who tried it, and will spare his own office the embarrassment. I doubt it. Kasich has proven himself to be a pretty stupid fellow in his time in the governor's office. But I'll take an unexpected surprise any day.
No comments:
Post a Comment