GOP Struggles to Reach Consensus on Abortion Policy

‘We have a war within the Republican Party to decide if we even are pro-life at the federal level.’

By and
540

By: Mary Trimble and Grayson Logue

Happy Wednesday! 

Quick Hits: Today’s Top Stories

  • Hurricane Idalia strengthened to a Category 4 storm early Wednesday morning, with sustained maximum winds reaching 130 miles per hour as it nears Florida’s Gulf Coast. The storm is expected to make landfall early this morning.
  • Officials with Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, said Tuesday the company had disrupted a disinformation campaign run by accounts linked to Chinese law enforcement. The company described the effort—which lasted more than a year and saw secret users promote Beijing’s talking points and sow disinformation about Western governments—as the “largest known cross-platform covert influence operation in the world.”
  • Terry Gou—the billionaire founder of Foxconn, a technology company that supplies Apple—announced Monday he is running in Taiwan’s presidential elections set for January. He joins two other opposition candidates running against the current vice president, the ruling Democratic Progressive Party’s William Lai. Gou blames the DPP for the rising tensions with China, which claims sovereignty over the island, and vows to unite the opposition behind him.
  • The Biden administration announced Tuesday it would send an additional $250 million in military aid to Ukraine. The package—drawn down from current U.S. military stockpiles—will include AIM-9M air defense missiles, munitions for High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS), 155mm and 105mm artillery ammunition, mine-clearing equipment, and Javelin weapons systems.
  • Responding to a Freedom of Information Act request, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) confirmed Tuesday it is in possession of some 5,400 emails, documents, and other records from President Joe Biden’s time as vice president which include Biden’s various pseudonyms. The pseudonyms are relevant as part of a House Oversight Committee probe into whether Biden improperly shared information with his son Hunter. 
  • House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer announced Tuesday the committee will investigate the government response to the deadly Maui wildfires that destroyed the town of Lahaina earlier this month. “The response by federal, state, and local officials to the catastrophic wildfire in Maui raises serious questions, and Americans, especially those impacted by this tragedy, deserve answers,” Comer said Tuesday. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy is expected to visit Hawaii later this week. 
  • GOP Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the House majority leader, announced Tuesday he has been diagnosed with multiple myeloma, which he described as “a very treatable blood cancer.” Scalise intends to continue working as he receives treatment over the next several months.
  • Two co-defendants of former President Donald Trump pleaded “not guilty” on Tuesday to charges related to efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election in Georgia. Ray Smith, one of Trump’s 2020 campaign lawyers in Georgia and the first of the 19 total defendants to enter a plea, and Sidney Powell, another Trump campaign lawyer, submitted waivers of arraignment in writing, allowing them to skip the in-person arraignment set for September 6.
  • Miami Mayor Francis Suarez Tuesday ended his campaign for president after he failed to qualify for the first GOP primary debate last week. He’s the first candidate to drop out of the race so far, but he did not endorse any of the other candidates running. “I look forward to keeping in touch with the other Republican presidential candidates and doing what I can to make sure our party puts forward a strong nominee who can inspire and unify the country,” he wrote. 

GOP Looks for a Winning Abortion Message

(Photo by: Michael Siluk/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)
(Photo by: Michael Siluk/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)

In April, GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley delivered a speech billed as a major policy address on abortion. Speaking at Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America’s Virginia headquarters, Haley called for a “national consensus” on abortion but offered few policy details about what such a consensus would look like. At last week’s primary debate, however, she had a much more direct answer when she expressed strong skepticism about the feasibility of a federal abortion ban after 15 weeks of gestation.

“We haven’t had 45 pro-life senators in over 100 years, so no Republican president can ban abortion,” Haley said. “Let’s find consensus: Can’t we all agree that we should ban late-term abortions? Can’t we all agree that we should encourage adoptions? Can’t we all agree that doctors and nurses who don’t believe in abortion shouldn’t have to perform them? Can’t we all agree that contraception should be available? And can’t we all agree that we are not going to put a woman in jail or give her the death penalty if she gets an abortion?” The answer drew scattered applause from the crowd in Milwaukee, and some Republicans and pro-life advocates are heralding Haley’s stance as the party tries to find a winning message on abortion as Democrats prepare to capitalize on the issue next November.  

This content is available exclusively to Dispatch members
Try a membership for full access to every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism.
Start Your Free Trial
Already a paid member? Sign In
540
By and
Comments (540)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Brandon Hartley

    "Democrats want elective abortion up to the moment of birth." This statement has a clear purpose. It conjures up the image of killing a 39 week old fetus, so as to dehumanize the opposition.

    "Republicans want to deny the morning after pill to a raped 12 year old." This statement also has a clear purpose. It is to dehumanize the opposition.

    What both of these statements share is that they are profoundly misleading. Polls of republicans demonstrate that a vanishingly small number would support a ban on the morning-after pill, even though "logically" a pro-life stance would support it. Polls of democrats demonstrate that only a sliver approve of abortions after 25 weeks or so, even though "logically" a pro-choice stance would support abortions at any time if not limited.

    They also share a repulsive tendency of political cowardice among politicians. Democrats choose not to include hard time limits in their pro-choice bills because they don't want to fight their radical fringe. Republicans choose not to ensure access to morning after pills or mifepristone (think the 15 week ban) for the same reason - why fight your own radical fringe.

    What is truly depressing is The Dispatch's bias in this manner. Politicians that claim republicans want 12 year olds to carry a rape pregnancy are immediately dismissed as hyperbolic and cranks. Yet look at all the ink spilt supporting the "abortion up to the point of birth." They shame themselves and betray their anti-straw man principles every time they do so.

    Collapse
  2. Luba Soskin, M.D.

    Perhaps, all those right wing politicians need to be educated on some basic terminology on what abortion and gestational age is. Abortion at birth, full term, on demand is birth. No one is giving birth and then having a doctor whack a newborn. Late- term abortion: what are they referring to? Past 24 weeks? These are so incredibly rare and reasons for these are exceptional. Take it from an OBGYN who performed abortion up to 24 weeks: nobody wants to do them that late. If they do them, then there is a damn good reason. This isn’t a birth control or an entertainment. Republicans running around screaming non-sense like that is insulting to women and to any reasonable human being.
    And Democrats should know better to entertain or go on defensive. They should instead correct this gross misuse of terminology.
    Pathetic

    Collapse
  3. Mary Stine

    There will be no settling on this issue of abortion until the real elephant in the room is faced: the lack of medical ability to save every fetus in distress and every mother in danger of her life. We do not yet know how to keep every baby in the womb safe and healthy, nor it's mother. Many very wanted pregnancies have taken a severe turn for the worse, where it becomes impossible to save both mother and baby. As the current lawsuits in Texas show, abortion bans endanger the lives of healthy mothers when their babies in the womb are dying and cannot be saved. Part of this is just dollars: an emergency C-section is expensive, has high risks of its own and may not be covered by insurance. No for-profit medical center or doctor is going to take that on, especially with the threat of imprisonment hanging over them. Abortion, sadly, is the option left to save some mothers' lives.
    Mona Charen, in the Bulwark yesterday, speaks movingly about a Jewish group, Shiraf, that offers multi-leveled support to pregnant women in desperate circumstances, and has saved many babies. It's worth a read.

    Collapse
    1. Pohl

      I don’t think imperfect medical technology is a valid stumbling block to sensible legislation. States could definitely use a crash course in crafting better language for life-of-the-mother scenarios. I’ve articulated my position upthread, which is just bog standard Catholic fare, so it would be hard for me to craft any law that endorsed the direct abortion of a fetus. I would prefer to allow some latitude and then audit hospitals to catch abnormally high fetal deaths, ensure ethics boards are competent to sign off where time allows, and institute other bureaucratic measures. So, this is one prickly area, yes, where bad law creates hard cases. And hard cases . . .

      Collapse
      1. Mary Stine

        If we we truly cared about all life we'd not be vesting power over it solely in the hands of profit-based industries and politicians. We'd be committed as a society to supporting and protecting pregnant women and babies in all ways large and small. But to do that we'd need to erect nonprofit medical centers focused solely on women and pregnancy, without prejudice to financial status, religion, or political creed. No profit-based hospital is going to be able to take that on and answer to their shareholders and board of directors. No politician would touch it because bipartisanship is a death sentence.
        If we were committed to supporting all life we'd be putting hard dollars into fetal research that helps women have safer pregnancies. We'd be taking a hard, long look at all the toxins in our environment that are adding up faster than most of us can count. We'd be asking why endometriosis and polycystic ovary disease are on the rise and impacting so many womens' reproductive organs, causing ectopic pregnancies and other abnormalities that affect pregnancy.
        If we were committed to supporting all life we'd not allow so many of our fellow humans to suffer with mental illness and it's frequent sidekick, drug abuse. At the very least, we'd get pregnant women who are addicted off the streets and into treatment.
        But the core of what we agree on is this: better care of the pregnant mother and better options for care that is respectful of life, ALL life.

        Collapse
        1. Pohl

          I totally agree with the last part, including access to better palliative care for the terminally ill. The rest is a wish list that could easily be expanded, except for this network of maternity hospitals idea, which seems impractical. And the majority of hospitals are already non-profits. But we’ve agreed on what’s most important.

          Collapse
  4. Jccarper46

    During my courses on the Old South and Slavery Controversy, I recall both photos and illustrations of the disfigurement of those who were considered property not human beings. They impacted me almost as much as the arguments of, among others, Weld, Garrison, Lundy, Douglass, and Stowe. Perhaps it is time to show the American public what abortion looks like.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Scarlette Tarte

      This is what it looks like at 10 weeks...which is when 80 percent of abortions occur by, according to Guttmacher. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/this-is-what-an-early-pregnancy-actually-looks-like_l_6352a505e4b08e0e608df68b

      Collapse
      1. Jccarper46

        I think the pics are 4-9 weeks. Does anyone want to share a photo at 12 weeks?

        Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    David Burke

    “And can’t we all agree that we are not going to put a woman in jail or give her the death penalty if she gets an abortion?”

    Was Haley directing that one to Kevin Williamson?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Kmregan7

      But...according to the hardcore anti-abortion groups, she hired someone to murder her baby. Why in the world should she not be punished and put in jail?

      Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    PJ

    "it is in possession of some 5,400 emails, documents, and other records from President Joe Biden’s time as vice president which include Biden’s various pseudonyms"

    Hopefully the Democrat controlled Senate does to Republicans what they did on The Biggest Loser insurrection. Let us know when you want to honor the rule of law Republicans.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Richard Maxton

    It's a damned shame we don't have more outrage being expressed by our "leaders" regarding those allies left behind in our poorly executed departure from Afghanistan.

    Collapse
  8. Stevenreedcurtis

    Unfortunately for the prolife movement, abortion extremism can be defined in two ways. With a not insignificant minority advocating for a maximalist approach, a winning position has been turned into a loosing one.

    Contrast ourselves with the French, and accept a glass half full. The alternative is not winning.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Gbr0wn

    "Jawed lives in fear of being killed by the Taliban."
    This would be the dictionary definition of 'persecution' - not so for the Guatemalans massed at the southern border itching to drive roofing nails into American shingles. Of course, he COULD be lying, which should be easy to verify

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Scarlette Tarte

    Hello everyone! It's your favorite liberal, back visiting in Vermont!

    Portugal is wonderful. I cannot even begin to tell you how nice it is (although it's been warmer than usual) and how peaceful. The politics there are not eating up the populace. The biggest thing that has happened recently was a visit by the pope. Not every little thing is eaten up with politics. For example, if I drink Ginja instead of Beirao, no one freaks out because I chose the drink favored in Lisbon over one created in another region. It says nothing about me save the fact that I chose cherry liquor over one of cinnamon, mint, lavender and rosemary.

    That is so refreshing and so lovely. To not be judged by what I drink or eat or wear or where I go to eat. Or what car I drive. I also don't have to worry if I go eat in a restaurant owned by a conservative because in Portugal...politics are not that important...not enough to upset your diet if the best Caldo Verde is made in a restaurant owned by a conservative. (Or vice versa) Caldo Verde is my latest "yummy" that I have discovered ...a creamy soup made from Collard greens or some other similar greens, with onion and potato and garlic. Paired with homemade bread, OMG, I believe I have found a moment of heaven on earth. In fact, politics is so unimportant that we don't even know each other's political views for the most part...it's not something considered kosher for conversation unless you know each other very, very well.

    I must say, it is different here on so many levels, but the absolute peace and safety of this country is making me fall in love with it. I find very little to dislike here. Lots and lots of people speak English, although I do try very small conversations in Portuguese, and the locals don't mind helping me out. Things like " where is the bathroom?". I am making progress.

    I can read The Dispatch over there, after some machinations, but I can't comment. I don't know why, but the comments don't open up for me. It's not that important, I am having too much fun to spend too much time online, but I keep up with American news. There is a large, and growing, expat community here. So I am not at all isolated from the US, just...removed from it...that's the phrase.

    I hope everyone is well, and happy.

    But let me address one thing in this morning Dispatch...that 10 year old study. Even overlooking the age of it...just please look into the actual findings. The women who do choose a late term abortions that are not I'll or the fetus does not have a malady...look at who that is. The poor. Who cannot get the funds together quickly or who find it difficult to travel from another location. Who find out later that they are pregnant. Guttmacher looked at 272 women who were not having a late term abortions for fetal anomaly reasons or severe illness on the part of the mother.

    AND most of them had their abortion at 22 weeks...hardly "the moment of birth". Most of the findings are that women seeking second-trimester abortions did not realize they were pregnant until much later than women seeking first-trimester abortions, and that a bunch of logistical barriers slow down access to abortion once a woman is beyond 13 weeks.
    The average gestation time of the 272 women who had an abortion after 20 weeks was 22 weeks.
    Of the women having abortions after 20 weeks, the majority (65%) reported that the reason for the late abortion was "trouble raising money for the procedure" followed by 45% finding out late about the pregnancy."

    So this person at National Review, in attempting to make it seem that so many women are just choosing right up until birth to abort is nonsense.

    Do a very few? Yes. All together, even with the fetal anomaly numbers added in, it's 1.6 percent of ALL abortions. Let's round that up to 2 percent. That means 98 percent are having their abortions before 20 weeks, and the vast majority of those in the first trimester.

    Further, let's say 1 percent of abortions are late term on demand. That is peanuts. The fact that hard core prolifers want to shut down late term abortions because of a 1 percent on demand number is why so many in the US look askance at Republicans on this issue.

    The actual way to stop late term on demand abortions, is to make sure women have access to abortion, and the funds to pay for it, while it's still early, and to make it easy for them to travel, not harder. Or to get the pills via mail. Not to make it illegal so that women with fetal anomalies and illness have a harder time accessing the care they need.

    And in states seeking to punish people who help other women procure an abortion needs to stop too. As does the attempt to punish doctors criminally if they perform an abortion on an out of state patient.

    All these things that repubs are attempting, is backfiring on them. People do not like having others control their lives...I would think that right wingers, who hated the idea of simply being told to wear a mask would get that, but they seem to think "we want to control the behavior of others, even as we want complete freedom for ourselves."

    Sorry guys, it just doesn't work like that.

    I think Repubs eventually will come to some consensus, but right now, the hardcore prolifers, determined to somehow rid the country of the "scourge" of abortion will have to grow to accept that they live in a country where majorities don't believe exactly like they do, and they are going to have to accommodate that. They are not mentally there yet.

    In Portugal, a Catholic country, abortion is legal only up until 10 weeks...but there is exception after exception built into the law, so, effectively, abortion is easy to obtain for almost all women. And Spain is just a short drive away for those that cannot be accommodated in Portugal. It is "on request". There are exceptions for life and health of the mother, fetal impairment, rape, incest, maternal disease. A woman has a consultation, gets approval from a doctor, waits 3 days (in cases of on demand abortion- there is no wait for emergencies, rape, etc) and then has the abortion performed in a hospital or health center. In the first 10 weeks or for health reasons, the government pays for it. Abortions done by drugs are the most common.

    If a woman cannot find a doctor who will allow her a later abortion under "health of the mother" (very rare) then Spain allows them up to 15 weeks, also with numerous exceptions. In some cases, it's legal on demand up to 22 weeks...as in, for mental health reasons.

    In all practicality, it's pretty easy to obtain, mostly "free" for most women, and not as costly as the US when a woman does have to pay for it and no one attempts to prevent Portuguese women from traveling to obtain one and no one is criminalizing doctors. It's sane over here...and again, this is a Catholic country!

    I really feel for American women, trapped in a backward system, but not realizing just how their chains bind them.

    No one would mind a 15 week legal limit, if the exceptions were as broad as in Portugal. But no one here trusts Republicans with the issue and really, who can blame them? Maximalism is never a good thing to bring to politics.

    So Jen Psaki is actually right. No one is calling for "abortion till birth". But until Republicans commit to a sane policy with lots of exceptions, and stop trying to punish women who miscarry or travel out of state, Democrats are going to resist signing on to a federal ban or even state bans of 15 weeks.

    When some Republican says "look at Democrats extreme position" I just say "it's not extreme. It's in line with most first world countries. It's ONLY in 1st world America, that any of this is considered "extreme" by some members of the populace. Only in conservative America would a writer try to use such a tiny percentage of late term abortions that are elective and try to make hay of them.

    Now, I can't wait for Nick's column tonight!Show lessExpand full comment

    Collapse
    1. Brandon Hartley

      This was wonderful, Scarlette - thank you. I find The Dispatch's defense of the "moment up to birth" phraseology absolutely infuriating. You hit the nail on so many reasons why.

      Collapse
    2. BPhillips

      I’ve missed your comments Scarlette!

      Collapse
    3. Vitaly.Furman

      Thank you for your exellent comment. You hit a nail on the head: A 15-week ban will really be a 15-week ban on blue and purple states (since most red states already have much stricter bans). The voters in non-red states understand this. That is why Republicans will get nowhere advocating for it. Apart from this, a state-by-state regime is probably best for a country as large and diverse as the US. Neither very red nor very blue states will agree to any federally mandated "consensus".

      Collapse
    4. Avatar photo
      PJ

      Republicans WILL learn. The only question is how many years will it take. How many actual people deaths will it take (not clump of cells "deaths"). Silly human animals.

      Collapse
Load More