Senate page     Jan. 17

Senate map
Previous | Next

New polls:  
Dem pickups: PA
GOP pickups: (None)

The Abortion Wars Are Heating Up, Part I: Quaker Guns

Many readers will be familiar with the use of Quaker guns in 18th and 19th century warfare. The basic shtick was to get a bunch of logs, paint them black (usually) and point them at the enemy. In a time where long-range battlefield communications were nearly nonexistent, and few military men carried high-quality optical devices (e.g., telescopes), an army could create the impression of having vastly more cannon than it actually had, which could influence its opponent's decision-making. If we adapt the old aphorism, the cannons may have had bark, but they didn't have any bite.

What do Quaker guns have to do with the abortion wars? We'll get to that. For now, note that just about everyone elected back in November has now been seated, and many of those folks are eager to hit the ground running. Meanwhile, the 2024 election cycle has began, and those politicos who are hoping for reelection or a promotion want to make a statement to their potential voters. For both these reasons, then, the fight over legalized abortion is being waged vigorously right now.

That includes the halls of Congress, where the House Republican Conference is in the midst of adopting a bunch of show bills that have no hope of becoming law. Among the latest batch is the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which was passed by a straight party-line vote, 220-210. As the name makes clear, the law would require doctors to render treatment to any infants who survive an abortion procedure.

There is little question that the abortion issue played a key role in wiping out the prophesied "red wave" of 2022. So why would Republicans immediately go back to the anti-abortion well? Are they just gluttons for punishment? Probably not. No, this bill speaks to the impossible position in which the GOP finds itself. On one hand, they have to kowtow to the anti-abortion crowd, a faction that is feeling the thrill of victory and that dreams of scoring the final blow: a nationwide ban on abortion. At the same time, roughly two-thirds of the populace would like to see abortion remain legal, and is not happy about Roe being overturned.

The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act is the kind of bill that tries to walk that fine line, because it seems to be doing something substantive on the abortion front, while actually doing virtually nothing. The bill isn't even going to come up in the Senate, of course, much less pass that body and then secure a presidential signature. But beyond that, the bill "solves" a problem that either barely exists, or that may not exist at all. The majority of abortions these days are medical rather than surgical (keep reading; more below). And among the minority that are still surgical, the chance that a fetus survives is virtually nil. In those cases that the fetus does somehow survive, it's already considered homicide to "finish the job." So, the only scenario that might plausibly be covered by the bill is one in which a fetus survives the abortion, and the physician is deliberately neglectful in order to bring about death. That is probably already illegal as well, in addition to being a violation of medical ethics (thus posing a risk to a physician's license). And it's not clear that this particular set of factors ever actually comes to pass; it's more the stuff of urban legends (and, indeed, was the subject of many such legends in the 1970s and 1980s).

Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) & Co. also have another vote cued up; this one would make permanent the Hyde Amendment, which forbids federal funding for abortion. As with the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, such a bill is never going to get past the Senate or the President. Further, and once again, the Republicans' bill is effectively meaningless. The Hyde Amendment was first introduced on September 30, 1976, and was incorporated into that year's budget. And you know how often it's been added to the budget since then? The answer is: 100% of the time. Every federal budget since 1976 has included a version of the Hyde Amendment. So, it's already de facto permanent, and a bill making it de jure permanent wouldn't actually change things.

In theory, the Speaker is trying to give the anti-abortion base what it wants without giving Democrats ammunition for 2024. And maybe it will work. But we are inclined to doubt it. The anti-abortion activists may be rather fanatical, at least some of them, but they are not stupid. They know the difference between "an actual change in policy" and "an empty gesture." We doubt they will be happy with phony, Quaker-gun legislation that doesn't actually do anything (even assuming it's passed, which it won't be). Meanwhile, for Democrats, the ads can already be written: "After the fiasco in picking a speaker, what was the first thing that the radical Republican right did? Try to restrict freedom of reproductive choice even further. Are these the people you want running the country?" (Z)

The Abortion Wars Are Heating Up, Part II: (Attorney) General Marshall

Inasmuch as his conference has a national constituency, Kevin McCarthy's calculus on abortion is tricky, as we note above. On the other hand, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall (R), who clearly would like to be Alabama Governor Steve Marshall, has things at least a little bit easier. Since the Yellowhammer State is ruby red, all he has to do is find a way to kowtow to the anti-abortion folks.

As it turns out, however, that might be easier said than done. Alabama is one of those states that has already imposed a near-total ban on abortions, threatening those who provide the procedure, or assist someone in getting the procedure, or encourage the procedure, with serious criminal penalties. So, there is no good way for Marshall to "make his bones" by leading the charge against abortion providers. That charge has already been led by others.

The AG has been thinking carefully about the situation, however, and it would seem he's found his angle: prosecuting women who take abortifacient pills. The statement he issued is written in a language only loosely related to English, but the plan he's bandying about is to make use of an existing law that punishes women for taking harmful drugs (e.g., meth) while they are pregnant. This would allow Marshall to carve out his very own battlefield in the war against abortion.

There's still a problem, though. The reason that Marshall is compelled to creatively interpret the harmful drugs law is that there's no existing law in Alamama that specifically criminalizes the use of abortifacient pills. And that, in turn, is because even anti-abortion activists don't favor the passage of such a law. The stated reason for this, among members of that movement, is that the women who receive abortions are victims of the abortion-industrial complex, and should not be treated as criminals. This belief is probably sincerely held, at least among many anti-abortion activists. However, we suspect there is a second reason for this position, one that is not stated openly: Going after women, many of whom are poor, young, and/or already have children, would be really bad PR. Better to target the rich, elitist physicians.

And so, Marshall is getting a lot of blowback in response to his plan, including from anti-abortion activists. After all, most politicians can bluster about going after X person for Y offense, but can't actually do anything about it. The AG, on the other hand, most certainly can initiate prosecutions, so his announcement was met with much alarm. He appears to be backing off, though it's not clear if he is just waiting for things to blow over, or if he's concluded that his plan was a bad one. In any case, given his obvious aspirations for higher office, it will be worth keeping an eye on him in order to keep track of potential new fronts in the abortion wars. (Z)

The Abortion Wars Are Heating Up, Part III: The Battle of Walgreens

Abortion activists on both sides are aware that the number of medical abortions has already passed the number of surgical abortions and the trend is for more of them. Now that the FDA has allowed retail pharmacies to stock and dispense mifepristone (albeit after the pharmacy has gotten certified for it). the abortion wars are coming to a pharmacy near you.

As we note above, anti-abortion activists do not generally like prosecuting women who take abortifacient pills. So, as an alternative, they are going after the pharmacies that distribute the pills. Anti-abortion activists are starting to picket CVS and Walgreens pharmacies in an effort to: (1) frighten away women who are going there to buy abortifacient pills and (2) intimidate the stores into no longer stocking abortifacients in order to get rid of the picket lines. However, if the picketeers are on private property (and the parking lot at a mall is most likely private property), in some jurisdictions the store can ask the police to arrest them for trespass.

The pharmacies are in a bind, of course. If they stock mifepristone, they may get picketed. But if they don't, they may also get picketed, just by different people. The drug is relatively pricy (typically, $75), so there is some economic incentive to sell it, and in some cases it may be covered by health insurance. It is, after all, a medicine prescribed by a doctor and many insurance policies cover medicines prescribed by doctors.

Caroline Smith, a leader of the group Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising, is fairly explicit about her group's goals: "We want people to be uncomfortable going into a CVS that has a demonstration going on and to consider going to a different pharmacy." The goal here is to pressure both consumers and store management.

But there is another piece of the puzzle. Some states are passing (or have already passed) laws that ban the sale of the drug or at least give pharmacists who object to it the right to refuse to dispense it. The latter might not work in a large CVS or Walgreens with multiple pharmacists, one of whom was willing to dispense the drug, but could effectively ban it in a small independent pharmacy with one pharmacist. In small towns in rural areas, small pharmacies are much more common than big chain pharmacies, and are probably more willing to bow to anti-abortion protesters.

A major complication here is that mifepristone has medical uses aside from inducing abortions. If state bans on legal products survive court challenges, that opens the door to blue states banning other legal products. For example, cigarettes. Or maybe bullets. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, but says nothing about stores having the right to sell ammo. Having states ban legal products opens a real can of worms.

Some pro-choice groups are arguing that the FDA should drop all its extra certification requirements and simply say that mifepristone should be treated like any other medication. This is especially so since it is extremely safe and drugs with a much greater risk of complications can be dispensed by any licensed pharmacy without any special certification needed.

In any event, the abortion wars will continue for the foreseeable future. Sort of like the Eighty Years' War in Europe in the 16th century. (V)

The Abortion Wars Are Heating Up, Part IV: Battlefield Medicine

Anti-abortion activists hope to reduce the number of abortions by picketing pharmacies that are dispensing mifepristone. However, the other side is not sitting still and giving up without a fight. The chosen weapon of the pro-choice crowd right now is not picketing, though, but instead opening new abortion clinics.

Illinois is an interesting state, abortion-wise. It has some of the most liberal abortion laws in the country, allowing the procedure up to 26 weeks—the entire first and second trimesters. It is also bordered by four states (Iowa, Missouri, Kentucky, and Indiana) with very strict abortion laws. Wisconsin, to the north, is more tolerant than these four, but still not as liberal as Illinois. The Prairie State is also within spitting distance (if you are a champion spitter) of another state with tough abortion laws (Tennessee) and a 2-3 hour drive from parts of Arkansas. So realistically, Illinois is within easy reach of people from six other states that ban most or all abortions and one that is more restrictive than Illinois.

Consider little Carbondale, IL, a small town of 22,000 and seat of Southern Illinois University. Here it is on the map:

Map of area near Carbondale, IL; it's right by the Missouri border and is just a bit north of the Kentucky border, and of Tennessee

All of a sudden, little Carbondale has not one, but two new abortion clinics. They provide one-stop shopping, with an ultrasound, lab tests, and an abortion all in one visit. This has economic consequences for the little town. Hotel bookings are way up, restaurants have more patrons, gas stations are pumping more gas, and other businesses have more customers as well, due to the thousands of people coming to the town for services unavailable at home. Setting up an abortion clinic is becoming a business model for small towns without much local industry that happen to be in the right places.

Dobbs is giving "border state" a whole new meaning other than the five states (Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware) that allowed slavery but did not secede and that (primarily) fought on the side of the Union during the Civil War. In addition to Illinois, there are several other border states that allow abortions fairly freely but border on other states that do not. New Mexico has borders with Arizona, Texas, and Oklahoma, for example. Clinics are springing up in the other border states, close to the border of states that have banned most or all abortions. And sometimes patients come from unexpected places. For example, the clinic in Cortez, CO, in the southwestern corner of the state, was expecting patients from Utah and Arizona. But instead, the majority of the women showing up are from Louisiana, South Carolina, or Texas.

Not everyone is happy with their "border state" status. Jeanne Ives, a Republican former Illinois state representative, says all new abortion clinics popping up along the state's borders pose dangers to young women. She said: "They come in for a quick in-and-out procedure, and a lot of abortions are not easy decisions. It basically makes it a drive-thru service decision and I think that's shameful."

Some of the biggest fights are along the western border of Idaho, which has one of the most stringent abortion laws in the country, whereas Washington and Oregon are much more liberal. Idaho is doing its best to make sure students at the University of Idaho in Moscow, ID, don't know that there is an abortion clinic only 8 miles away in Pullman, WA. Idaho state law makes it a felony to use state resources to "promote" abortions (and also contraception), so a professor who told a pregnant student that there is an abortion clinic only 8 miles away could face prison time. Although, hoo boy, would that be a front-page case while it unfolded, with the anti-abortion side getting the majority of the and PR, we would guess.

And with that, we conclude today's update on the abortion wars. Tomorrow, we will put abortion aside, and run a bunch of items about Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL). We hope that you are not so giddy with anticipation that you are unable to sleep tonight. (V)

Wyoming Lawmakers Want to Ban EVs

As long as we are on the subject of right-wing lawmakers and bans, how about this story out of Wyoming? A group of lawmakers in the Cowboy State has taken note of plans in California and elsewhere to ban the sales of new gas-powered vehicles by 2035. And so, they plan to counter by banning the sales of electric vehicles in Wyoming by 2035. The argument, laid out in the text of the bill, is that "phasing out the sale of new electric vehicles in Wyoming by 2035 will ensure the stability of Wyoming's oil and gas industry."

Last we checked, the Republican Party claimed to be the party of free markets, deregulation, and limiting government overreach. Perhaps we misunderstood. Meanwhile, it's hardly a secret that many (most? all?) Republican politicians are beholden to the petroleum industry. But now some of them, it would seem, are saying the quiet part out loud, and announcing that it's their job/mission/sacred duty to protect the fossil fuel interests.

We probably shouldn't take this all that seriously, since the primary purpose of the bill is clearly to "own the libs" (as indicated by the adoption of a timeline that is the mirror image California's EV policy). And if Wyoming does decide to move forward with this, well, the auto makers' staff mathematicians are actually sober (most of the time), and so are capable of discerning that 27,005,302 drivers (California) is rather more than 427,233 (Wyoming). (Z)

Looking Backward: How Did the Readers Do?, Part I: Donald Trump

We've put the pundits' predictions for 2022, and also our predictions for 2022, under the microscope. Now it's time to turn to the readers' predictions. Recall that the boldness scores were set last year, and that a prediction has to have an accuracy of at least 3/5 to earn the boldness bonus.

Not the best showing in round one; we count 13 points out of a possible 120, for a batting average of just .108. Oh, well, there's still time to recover. And, if not, that's still good enough to start for the Pittsburgh Pirates.

We will start reader predictions for 2023 tomorrow, so if you have any, now it the time to send them in. (Z)

The Word Cup, Part X: Group B (Presidential Campaigns, Pre-Civil War), Round Two

There's been so much news and other stuff, that we haven't had time and space to keep going with this feature, but the decks are clearing up now. So, we proceed to the third set of results. Recall that since ties are relatively common in soccer, we've decided that any matchup decided by less than 5% of the vote will count as a tie. And with that said, here are the results (winners in bold):

Slogan 1 Pct. Slogan 2 Pct.
The Union Must and Shall Be Preserved! 41% Tippecanoe and Tyler, Too! 59%
The Union Must and Shall Be Preserved! 60.5% 54-40 or Fight! 39.5%
The Union Must and Shall Be Preserved! 65% Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Speech, Free Men, Frémont 35%
Tippecanoe and Tyler, Too! 74.2% 54-40 or Fight! 25.3%
Tippecanoe and Tyler, Too! 70.6% Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Speech, Free Men, Frémont 29.4%
54-40 or Fight! 51.7% Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Speech, Free Men, Frémont 48.3%

That produces these results for Group E, Round One:

Slogan W L T
Tippecanoe and Tyler, Too! 3 0 0
The Union Must and Shall Be Preserved! 2 1 0
54-40 or Fight! 0 2 1
Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Speech, Free Men, Frémont 0 2 1

This is the clearest result we've had thus far; nobody can doubt which slogan was in first, which was in second, and which two were also-rans.

Here are some reader comments on this round:

J.A. in Puerto Armuelles, Panama: Clearly, "54-40 or Fight!" was the most important slogan in this group and, frankly, your pooh-poohing of it has me worried.

If it had been taken more seriously all of the Canadian nefariousness of the past decades could have been avoided.

Perhaps (V) or (Z) wants to build a tower in Toronto, or maybe the Canadian Security Intelligence Service has video of certain dachshunds peeing on a mattress? Fishier than a Canuck just back from the Outer Banks if you ask me.


C.G.B. in Milwaukee, WI: Hey. It's the one Everyone knows! Plus, my dad, the king of the bad dad pun, had one with the punchline, "Typical Gnu and Tiler, Too." Sorry. Forget the (surely hilarious) setup.


J.M. in Stamford, CT: One of the slogans is clearly the most significant because it is still being performed today for popular entertainment, even by people who don't necessarily know what it means.


D.S. in Havertown, PA: First of all, I've found that the song "Tippecanoe and Tyler, Too!" is equally as catchy, and only slightly less annoying, than "Mickey" by Toni Basil. It is, however, equally as catchy and monumentally less annoying than "Barbie World" by Aqua. And I'll thank you both now that I have that torturous tri-symphony of claptrap stuck in my head.

In spite of, or perhaps because of that, I gotta go with two other slogans. I'm picking "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Speech, Free Men, Frémont" and "The Union Must and Shall Be Preserved!" to advance. The Civil War was the most transformational event in U.S. history, arguably even moreso than the Revolution itself. It is also arguably one of the most transformational events in world history. What would the 20th Century have been like without the U.S. as one united country? The Free Soil movement and the idea that the Union was, in fact, a Union rather than a loose coalition of states (The United States IS vs. The United States ARE) can both be linked specifically to the Civil War.


L.G. in Thornton, CO: I voted "Tippecanoe and Tyler, Too!" because it was the first campaign slogan used and thus has great historical significance. I must admit, however, that my favorite campaign slogan of all time is "In your guts, you know he's nuts," used by Lyndon B. Johnson supporters in response to Barry Goldwater's "In your heart, you know he's right."


A.B. in Wendel, NC: A little surprised that "Manifest Destiny" did not show up in this era, the phrase coined by Louis O'Sullivan in 1845 concerning the annexation of Texas and of, ironically, Oregon... which led to the "54-40 or Fight!" thing.


P.M.C. in Schaumburg, IL: "54-40 or Fight!"To me, this slogan exemplifies American politics to a "T." It's overtly aggressive, catchy, was completely compromised, and then remembered as a great victory.

We'll have another set of results, and another ballot, tomorrow. (Z)


Previous | Next


Back to the main page