Dem
51
GOP
49
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)