Bill Berkowitz and Gale Bataille
On the face of it, South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsay Graham’s proposal for national legislation making abortion illegal after 15 weeks of pregnancy, seems like a strange political calculation. Why, when Republicans want to focus on inflation, crime and immigration is Graham bringing reproductive rights back into the spotlight? Is Graham’s proposal strategically unsound, or might it help mobilize the Republican base for the midterms even without Trump on the ballot? Is Graham undermining the GOP’s chances of taking over both houses of Congress or will he succeed in revving up the Forced Birth Movement’s grassroots to get out and vote in November?
Most conservative commentators labeled Graham’s proposal as ill timed and unsound. Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk, a very popular GOP-adjacent young conservative leader, said Graham’s proposal "feels like election interference." Longtime Republican dirty trickster Roger Stone called Graham’s proposal “willful sabotage.” "This is sabotage. It's the only way to explain it," said Daily Wire host Matt Walsh on his podcast. "When has [Graham] ever shown that he gives a damn about the pro-life cause? It's almost like he wants Republicans to lose. That's the conspiracy theory that I would actually subscribe to here."
Fox News host Jesse Watters told Graham that his proposal “is terrible timing, terrible tactics. We could’a shoved this [the economy] down their throats on the day the Americans got hammered with this inflation number and the market crashing."
In a story for American Thinker, Andrea Widburg calls Graham’s proposal wrongheaded in that it “(a) galvanizes the Democrats, (b) is unconstitutional, (c) cannot get a presidential signature, and (d) does almost nothing to stop the Holocaust of infants in America.” Widburg wants to know “What the heck kind of a game is he playing?”
Despite widespread questioning of his timing, Graham garnered some support for directly addressing, rather than ducking national concerns about abortion during this election cycle.
Rich Lowry, editor in chief ofNational Review, in a piece for Politico magazine, wrote that Graham’s proposal “has popular support and that [it] could represent a defensible consensus GOP position.” While acknowledging that the timing of Graham’s announcement may have been awkward, Lowry cites polling that shows a majority of Americans don’t think abortion should be permitted after 15 weeks at the state level. Lowry argues that “If nothing else, Graham’s proposal is a tool in this fight, and the broader battle for public opinion. If his bill ever gets to a floor vote, it could force Senate Democrats to declare themselves against a late-term abortion ban that will strike much of the public as reasonable, and then allow Republican Senate candidates to use that vote to portray their Democratic opponents as extremists.”
After trumpeting the idea that abortion should be a matter of each state to decide, the ever-opportunistic Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio, has reversed course and jumped aboard the national ban on abortion train. Rubio, in a hotly contested Senate race against Democratic Representative Val Demings, announced that he is co-sponsoring Graham’s bill.
Rubio "just cosponsored the bill to ban abortions and criminalize doctors. He’ll stop at nothing to strip women of our constitutional rights. We have to hold him accountable in November," Demings wrote on Twitter.
Meanwhile, former vice-president Mike Pence, who is quietly campaigning for the GOP’s presidential nomination, is also calling for a national ban on abortion. The Daily News’ Dave Goldiner recently reported that “The staunch Christian conservative said he backs any effort to ban abortion, either at the state or federal level, even if it costs Republicans seats in the midterms congressional election.”
“I welcome any and all efforts to advance the cause of life in state capitals or in the nation’s capital,” Pence told Real Clear Politics. “And I have every confidence that the next Republican president, whoever that may be, will stand for the right to life.” Pence added: “I’m convinced that enthusiasm among pro-life Americans in states across the country is equal to, or greater than, any new motivation by people that support abortion rights.”
Though most Republicans prefer an election focused on inflation, crime rates and immigration, abortion rights will be a major motivating issue in the midterm elections. Already, voters in heavily Republican Kansas have overwhelming rejected a push to roll back abortion rights, and pro-choice Democrats have been successful in contests in New York and Alaska.
Graham’s bill outlawing abortion after 15 weeks partially addresses anti-abortion activists’ goal for a national ban on abortion while including exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother, restrictions enacted in the most extreme state-level abortion bans that have given rise to national outrage.
However, according to the Washington Post’s Editorial Board, “Graham’s bill would not impose a consistent, nationwide policy. His legislation would allow conservative states to continue setting standards as draconian as they desire — which they’ve already started to do. Laws such as Mississippi’s, under which abortion is banned almost entirely, would be permissible.”
Since 1973, when the Supreme Court legalized abortion, anti-abortion activists have consistently worked to abolish a woman’s right to choose. The anti-abortion movement has operated on the principle that no matter how long it might take, it would fight to totally outlaw abortions. For these activists, the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade and ceding of abortion rights to the states was a victory, but did not win their war. By introducing the prospect of national legislation (which could be modified to be more restrictive), Graham could be shrewdly handing a bone to long-term total ban on abortion activists who will never be content when states including California, Oregon, Washington, New York and Connecticut can act as abortion sanctuaries?
In a Fox News opinion piece – co-authored with Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America – they state their intentions clearly: “”There’s a lot more work to be done to ensure that one day every child is protected under the law, and we believe, over time, life will win. But this is a reasonable starting place for a debate worthy of the United States Senate and our nation.”
At this juncture, anti-abortion politics are all over the map. Some long-time foes of abortion are offering up a somewhat softening of their hardline stance to address issues like incest, rape and the life of the mother. Some are offering a proposal being called Pro-Life 3.0, which calls for greater government support for pregnant women -- before and after childbirth. Other long-timers are advocating more hardline total bans. And, while Graham’s nationwide ban on abortion has no chance of passing at this time, it is a signpost of continued battles over reproductive rights for years to come.