As SC lawmakers weigh strict abortion ban, 2020 Dems pitch ways to block it
As South Carolina considers new abortion restrictions that have already been signed into law in other states, Democrats seeking the White House are rolling out proposals to stop it in its tracks.
U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris of California unveiled a new plan to curb state limits on reproductive rights at a South Carolina town hall late Tuesday night. The 2020 Democratic presidential candidate says she wants the federal government to pre-clear changes in abortion law at the state or local level, similar to how the Justice Department once blocked election changes under the Voting Rights Act.
The glut of new anti-abortion laws advancing in conservative states is forcing Democratic presidential candidates to raise the stakes on a controversial issue. But while taking stronger stances on protecting abortion access may excite strong supporters of abortion rights in party primaries, their enthusiasm also could end up alienating moderate general-election voters who are more uncomfortable with abortion even if they favorable the procedure being legal, political experts say.
“That will probably only work with a primary audience,” said Drew Kurlowski, a political science professor at Coastal Carolina University.
Harris is not the only 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful staking out aggressive stance on abortion — a debate likely to play out in South Carolina, where a bill that would ban abortions as soon as a fetal heartbeat can be detected has passed one chamber, awaits the second in January, and has the support of the governor.
For example, U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts has also called for an end to the ban on federal funding for abortion and said in a Medium post that on abortion what the country needs are “federal laws that will stand no matter what the Supreme Court does.” U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York spoke at the Georgia State House shortly after the Peach State passed its own heartbeat abortion ban. And last week, U.S. Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey announced plans to form an Office of Reproductive Freedom in the White House and to make permanent law federal protections for abortion access.
“When it comes to issues like reproductive freedom, reproductive rights, helping women, we don’t often deal with these issues in a holistic way,” Booker told The State recently.
On Tuesday, Harris laid out her plan during a town hall at Wofford College broadcast on MSNBC.
“It’s very clear women’s ability to access reproductive health is under attack,” Harris said. Citing recent abortion restrictions passed by Alabama and Georgia, among other states, she said, “Are we going to go back to the days before Roe v. Wade?”
Harris highlights abortion rights in SC
If she wins the presidency, Harris said “any state that has a history of passing legislation that limits women’s access to health care will have to come to my Justice Department, and until we determine they (those laws) are constitutional, they will not go into effect.”
Kurlowski said Harris’ proposal may be a way to wade into a politically divisive issue — abortion — without too much political risk. Her pre-clearance pitch signals her support for Roe to a more “pro-choice” Democratic primary electorate without linking her to more controversial issues like late-term abortion or spending public money on the procedure, he said.
However, he sees potential challenges to the idea looming.
“Do we consider abortion to be a fundamental right that’s constitutionally protected in the same way as voting?” Kurlowski said. “A court that’s hostile to Roe could be just as hostile to the idea of pre-clearance in practical terms ... It also gets into the idea of federalism. Is this an appropriate role for the federal government, or do states still have the right to regulate in this area?”
Ann Warner, CEO of the Women’s Rights and Empowerment Network, was skeptical how much of a bulwark the requirement would be under future administrations less sympathetic to reproductive health issues.
“You can’t assume they would be in favor of reproductive rights access,” Warner said. “It might not change the outcome, just delay it.”
Warner said her focus would remain on stopping bills like the heartbeat proposal from becoming law in the first place.
Opponents of abortion, meanwhile, are likely to push back against any restrictions on states’ ability to restrict abortion, given the success advocates have had in moving bills through state legislatures in recent years.
“I cannot understand where this bigotry and hatred of unborn babies comes from,” Holly Gatling, executive director of S.C. Citizens for Life, said of Harris’ proposal. “It’s not going to happen. We’re going to continue to do what we do, and expose the extremism that wants abortion for all nine months (of a pregnancy) for any reason.”
But on Tuesday, Harris castigated the changes many states have attempted to make to their abortion laws. She said the new law in Alabama could sentence a doctor convicted of performing an abortion to 99 years in prison. “As a prosecutor, I have a real problem with that.”
Under Harris’s plan, the Justice Department would have to approve any legal changes in “states and localities with a history of violating Roe v. Wade in the preceding 25 years,” according to a campaign release shared with The State. Any law restricting abortion access would be blocked until the Justice Department reviewed it for compliance with legal protections for women’s rights.
Harris’ proposal is modeled on the screening process federal officials applied to certain states’ election laws under the 1965 Voting Rights Act, to ensure minorities’ access to the ballot box was protected. The Supreme Court struck down that process as outdated in 2013, but left the door open for Congress to pass an updated pre-clearance model.
This story was originally published May 29, 2019 at 5:00 AM.
.jpg)