Klobuchar Pushes Abortion Law, Dems May Regret It

Klobuchar Pushes Abortion Law, Dems May Regret It

Klobuchar Pushes Abortion Law, Dems May Regret It

It’s clear that Democrats have realized that last week’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court regarding Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization did not go the way they wanted.

In fact, the odds that the Mississippi law stands and begins the informal, if not formal, undercutting of Roe v. Wade look pretty good at the moment. However, we will not know what the ruling is until next June, when the Supreme Court announces all their decisions at the end of their term. Legal Insurrection’s Professor Jacobson thinks that the Court won’t go nearly as far as they could:

My “hot” prediction? The Court 6-vote majority, in an opinion by Roberts, upholds the Mississippi law, but finds it need not reach the issue of whether Roe v. Wade should be overturned. There will be at least three, possibly four, Justices with concurring opinions that they would overturn Roe v. Wade as wrongly decided.”

Roberts will push hard to gain consensus not to overturn Roe v. Wade explicitly, preferring in the interest of the Court to dismember it limb by limb.”

As Roberts has been obsessively concerned with public opinion in past rulings, this does seem like an accurate read on the tenor of the Supreme Court. Of course, any limit on abortion is seen as THE END OF ALL THINGS by the radical, pro-death left. Which means that in order to placate the left on what Democrats are certain is a winning issue for them, they want to push the euphemistically named “Women’s Health Protection Act” in order to make Roe the law of the land. At least, that is what Senator Amy Klobuchar was pushing this morning.

Klobuchar can read the tea leaves just as well as anyone else, and with the House narrowly passing the WHPA, she now wants the Senate to take it up. Because God knows we can’t leave this issue to the states.

Asked by host Chuck Todd on NBC’s “Meet the Press” if the U.S. should consider determining abortion regulations through legislatures or referendums rather than Supreme Court decisions, Klobuchar made the case for codifying the 1973 decision through legislation.”

“Fifty years of precedent — as Elena Kagan pointed out, 50 years of decisions and court decisions, part of the very fabric of women’s existence in this country, this is how our country protected rights. And now they’re willing to just flip it on its head. And so what is the answer?” Klobuchar said.”

“The answer may well be doing it through the political process now. I don’t think that’s the right thing to do. But it may be the way to do it. And I think the best way to do it is not a patchwork of state laws, but to codify Roe v. Wade, put it into law,” she added.”

And when asked, Klobuchar left the door open to packing the court to get what the left wants – but acknowledges that it’s too late for this particular case.

Pressed on if she is more open to packing the court amid the abortion conversation, Klobuchar said she has “always been open to looking at the numbers of justices on the Court,” but contended that “most sane route to gets done right now would be to bring this up before the U.S. Senate to codify Roe v. Wade into law.”

There is no way that the Senate gets 60 votes to block a filibuster on this bill. And the Democrat “majority” in the Senate is definitely not a majority when it comes to abortion on demand. Once again, we find Joe Manchin, a Democrat who would like to keep his Senate seat in a deep red state, being the stumbling block to all of the progressive left’s hopes and dreams of killing for convenience’s sake. So while Klobuchar is busy paying lip service to the left, she knows perfectly well that the WHPA is dead on arrival in the Senate. And once a new Congress is elected – hopefully one with a Republican majority in the House, if not the Senate – the bill will be dead in reality, because it could never be passed again.

And while some Democrats are promising a “revolution” if Roe v. Wade is overturned, some Democrat strategists are warning that the Mississippi case – and abortion in general – might not be the spark that holds back a red wave in 2022.

Interviews with more than a dozen Democratic strategists, pollsters and officials reveal skepticism that the court’s decision will dramatically alter the midterm landscape unless — and perhaps not even then — Roe is completely overturned. Privately, several Democratic strategists have suggested the usefulness of any decision on abortion next year will be limited, and some may advise their clients not to focus on abortion rights at all.”

“It hasn’t moved people to the polls in places like Virginia and New Jersey this year. It wasn’t an issue in either state,” said Julie Roginsky, a former top adviser to New Jersey’s Democratic governor, Phil Murphy, who won reelection this year, but by a far narrower margin than expected. “I wish we lived in a world where outrage mattered. But I think we live in a post-outrage world, and voters today are affected only by that which directly affects them, which is why the economy, affordability and cost of living is such a major issue for so many people. While a lot of people will express sympathy for that 12-year-old girl in Texas who got raped but no longer can terminate her pregnancy, it’s not what motivates them to go to the polls, sadly.”

Maybe because the most extreme example isn’t the most common one? Just a thought? Democrats are hoping that they’re wrong, but they aren’t sounding optimistic when allowed to be anonymous.

But some Democratic operatives preparing for midterm campaigns are far from convinced that abortion will factor significantly — or that their candidates will message on the issue. One Democratic strategist working in the Southwest said it’s “wishful thinking” that abortion will be a determinative issue in 2022, adding, “If anything, Republicans rally around abortion-based issues way more than Dems.” Another strategist dismissed abortion rights-based campaigning in a text message, writing “Roe isn’t going to surpass community issues, vaccine mandates, schooling, etc.” And a campaign manager who has worked on House and Senate races throughout the country said inflation — not abortion — is “the big factor.”

In a sign of how integral Roe has become to the Democratic Party’s orthodoxy, however, the strategist asked for anonymity, saying, “Don’t want people to think I’m downplaying Roe.”

Strategists are also recognizing the element of timing involved. The Supreme Court decision will come out sometime in June. The election will be in November. That’s an eternity in politics. When THE END OF ALL THINGS does not happen in June, will people still be thinking about it in November? Or will they be looking at their wallets and their kids’ schools?

Democrats know that fanning the flames of outrage regarding losing Roe v. Wade might not work for them. It’s not going to stop lefties like Klobuchar from toeing the progressive line on it, though. After all, when the arguments are pathetic and have no basis in law or science, all the progressives have left is their rage. Will rage over abortion be stronger than rage over inflation? You tell me, because the Democrats already seem to know the answer.

Featured image: Senator Amy Klobuchar in Wisconsin, photo via Lorie Shaull on Flickr, cropped, Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Written by

2 Comments
  • joetote says:

    Please note in advance. I am pro life and believe in life at inception. That’s me.

    Having said that. I would really like the Court to overturn it for another reason.

    The Court “enacted” a law with their ruling just as they did in the Yonkers school desegregation case. They created law out of thin air mainly because the legislatures refused to do their jobs, right or wrong to enact a new law.

    Case in point. Judge Bork argued that even if you could agree with the outcome (in this example the Yonkers case) it was completely unconstitutional for the court to create this law.

    I would hope the Court, if it does overturn it would point out this main fact. It was a mistake and throw it back to the loonies in Congress and have them do their job. We as Conservatives should demand the Court act by the rule of law, which does not allow them to create a law

    You’re correct that Democrats would not like that but in reality I’m afraid there are many Republicans who would also not want it thrown on their doorsteps. Heaven forbid they actually had to do their phony baloney jobs, but in reality the so called conservatives that aren’t would want to abstain for sure

  • Andrew X says:

    “I wish we lived in a world where outrage mattered. But I think we live in a post-outrage world….’

    OMG…. God bless you, Democrat Phil Murphy. If only if only if only this were really true, and maybe it is in fact moving that way.

    “Outrage” on behalf of others a thousand miles away is a civilization destroying indulgence. It is not accomplishing a g–damn thing, and it is a causing us to hate each other to civil conflict levels.

    Be “outraged” at WHAT YOU SEE ON FRONT OF YOUR OWN EYES, if such outrage is merited. EVERYTHING else is you being manipulated by others for their own ends, and you snapping at the bait like a bass for a worm.

    “Justice” on behalf of people you know only through your screens will be the death of us all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead