Lindsey Graham Gives Away the GOP Anti-Abortion End Game

Across the country Republican candidates are scurrying to scrub their campaign websites of any suggestion that they seek a total ban on abortion - many apparently believing the public is too stupid to remember their anti-abortion primary campaign positions (locally, Jen Kiggans who in her primary wanted to ban all abortions is a prime example) or that Democrats won't replay video excerpts of them pandering to anti-abortion extremists.  The motivation for such duplicity is to try to counter surging support for Democrat candidates that is tanking GOP dreams of retaking control of both houses of Congress.  Into this setting Lindsey Graham - a/k/a the Palmetto Queen and "Lady G" among male escorts - has thrown a hand grenade in the form of a proposed federal restriction on abortion that while seeking to obscure the real GOP agenda in fact shows the true GOP goal of a nationwde ban on abortions as the party continues to prositute itelf to Christofascists,  The action underscores the lie of Justice Alito's pretense in the Dobbs ruling that state could continue to freely regulate abortion within their boarders.   The simple take away is that women who want to retain control over thier own bodies - and men who care about them - simply cannot vote for Republican candidates. The reality is that a vote for a Republican translates into two things: (i) a vote to ban abortion, and (ii) a vote for Donald Trump.  A column in the Washingtom Post looks at Graham's unwitting exposure of the GOP end game.  Here are column excerpts:

So much for all that talk about the freedom of states to decide on their own abortion rules. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham on Tuesday unveiled legislation that would ban abortion nationwide at 15 weeks. The South Carolina Republican’s proposal puts the lie to the notion that the Supreme Court, in overruling Roe v. Wade, merely returned the contentious issue of abortion to state control.

It did that, but it also opened the door to proposals such as Graham’s — and even more extreme restrictions — to be imposed nationwide. Anyone who thinks abortion opponents will be content with a state-by-state patchwork of abortion rules isn’t taking the determination of the antiabortion movement seriously enough.

Graham’s move might be politically bone-headed, coming less than two months before a midterm election in which voters already appear angered and energized by the court’s action. But it is just the opening salvo.

The court’s conservative majority doesn’t want you to think so. In his opinion for the court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. painted a post-Dobbs picture of happy federalism, laboratories of democracy free to experiment with different approaches.

How misleading. That was clear from the moment the decision was released. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, in a concurring opinion, acknowledged that Congress could step in. “The Constitution is neutral and leaves the issue for the people and their elected representatives to resolve through the democratic process in the States or Congress,” he wrote — and then proceeded to echo the majority’s emphasis on state sovereignty.

Graham peddled his proposal — deceptively titled the “Protecting Pain-Capable Unborn Children from Late-Term Abortions Act” — as a reasonable middle ground. Don’t be fooled. This is rigged federalism, skewed in favor of restricting abortion access. Under Graham’s arrangement, even as the federal government draws the line at 15 weeks, states remain free to ban abortion entirely.

Of course, Democrats want their own national abortion law — theirs to write the protections once provided by Roe into law. That makes sense: The whole point of a constitutional right is that its existence shouldn’t depend on your Zip code. It's also different from Graham’s effort to have it both ways, preempting states with permissive abortion laws while empowering those with restrictive rules.

And you know who once thought the issue should be left to states? Lindsey Graham, as recently as last month. “I’ve been consistent. I think states should decide the issue of marriage and states should decide the issue of abortion,” he told CNN.

Graham’s effort to portray the measure as simply aligning U.S. practice with that of Europe is fundamentally disingenuous. . . . Here in the United States, a dozen states now ban almost all abortions: Ten are poised to do so once laws take effect or court challenges are complete, and another two prohibit abortion after six weeks. That is hardly the permissive landscape of Europe.

Moreover, Graham’s 15-week limit includes exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother, but not for maternal health or fetal abnormality — again in contrast to the practice in most of Europe. Many severe fetal abnormalities are not detected until after 15 weeks.

Graham has introduced a similar bill before. But it is telling that Graham felt empowered by the court’s action to up the ante, prohibiting abortion after 15 weeks instead of the 20 he had earlier proposed.

To be clear, Graham’s bill isn’t becoming law anytime soon, with Democrats in control of the House, Senate and White House. Even if Republicans were to retake the House and Senate, they wouldn’t be able to pass such a measure without eliminating the filibuster; in any event, President Biden would veto such a measure.

But it is not hard to imagine a moment when Republicans have the power to proceed, and use it. Graham’s GOP colleagues, rattled by midterm polling, scurried to distance themselves from Graham’s proposal and talk up states’ rights. Forgive me if I don’t feel confident that’s going to last.