The Maine Republican Party has a death wish.
Over giving birth.
The GOP controls the governorship, both chambers of the Legislature, all three constitutional offices, and the hearts and minds of most swing voters. All it needs to do to cement its status as the state’s dominant political organization for the next decade is to deliver on the economic promises it made before the last election.
Which, lest any GOP official has somehow forgotten, were to reduce state spending, cut taxes and improve the business climate. Conspicuously absent from that list was anything about making major changes in Maine’s laws dealing with abortion.
During the campaign Republican gubernatorial candidate Paul LePage brushed aside questions about his pro-life position, insisting he was only interested in dealing with the budget and attracting new jobs to Maine. He said he wouldn’t be advocating for new restrictions on a woman’s right to choose.
But he didn’t say he’d object if somebody else did that advocating for him.
According to news reports from the Jan. 15 anti-abortion rally at the State House – an event LePage attended, but didn’t speak at – GOP legislators have already introduced bills to require parental consent before a minor can have an abortion, to require women seeking abortions to be given material detailing the negative aspects of the procedure and to require a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion can be performed.
That’s right, the Republican Party, which firmly believes it’s unconstitutional for the federal government to intrude on people’s lives by mandating that they have health insurance, thinks it’s perfectly OK to enact laws forcing pregnant women to jump through a series of hoops to obtain medical care. The GOP, champion of cutting red tape wherever its found in the bureaucracy, is in favor of creating more government roadblocks for individuals who don’t want to carry their pregnancies to term.
Oh, and they also want to make it tougher for minors to get birth control. And make it less likely sex education classes in high schools will mention contraception.
After all, Maine needs to do something about its declining birthrate.
Obviously, Republicans are playing to their right-wing base. But that’s a strategy that could backfire.
First of all, there’s no guarantee these measures will pass. Influential GOP legislators, from state Rep. Meredith Strang Burgess of Cumberland to state Senate President Kevin Raye of Perry are staunchly pro-choice and recognize there’s no widespread support among Maine citizens for imposing new restrictions on abortion. Burgess and Raye could rally enough votes to block some of these initiatives.
If they do, their fellow Republicans should thank them. Killing these bills might just preserve their party’s political prospects.
Here’s why. In the near future, the U.S. Supreme Court is probably going to rule on the future of Roe vs. Wade, the 38-year-old decision that legalized abortion. If the justices decide to overturn Roe, legal authority over the procedure would revert to the states, which would then be free to outlaw it or severely restrict its availability.
Maine voters have consistently indicated they don’t want either of those results to occur here. Over the past two decades, they’ve rejected any candidate for high office who put too much emphasis on his or her opposition to legal abortion. They shot down a citizen initiative outlawing late-term abortions. And even with the rightward tilt in the 2010 election, more than 60 percent of them cast ballots for pro-choice gubernatorial candidates.
The GOP may be convinced it can overcome the public’s support of a woman’s right to control her own body by riding its emphasis on taxes and spending into a prosperous tomorrow. But as the economy slowly improves, social issues will almost certainly grow in importance, and a pro-life Supreme Court decision would only speed up that process. All this could give the Democrats the wedge issue they’ll need to regain control of the Legislature in 2012 and the Blaine House in 2014.
So what’s a rabid social conservative to do?
Nothing. At least for the moment.
Sensible pro-life Republicans would be well-advised to avoid attempting to pass restrictions on abortion until they’ve achieved some quantifiable economic results. Get the budget deficit under control. Pass some kind of tax break that people will actually notice in their wallets. Do something about the massive unemployment rate in the parts of the state where the only people driving shiny new Lexuses are dealers in stolen prescription opiates.
Then, and only then, might an electorate that leans toward social liberalism be willing to overlook small, incremental reductions in their reproductive rights.
The pro-lifers are fond of saying, “Abortion stops a beating heart.”
When it comes to the coronary health of the Republican Party, they’ve got that right.
Give birth to an inspiring thought, and e-mail it to me at aldiamon@herniahill.net.
Well written Al, and if the goal was success through political expediency, you may be totally correct. I disagree, though, with your comparison between Republican claims about the unconstitutionality of mandated healthcare and abortion measures. There is a vast difference between health care decisions and life decisions.
What is so terrible about requiring information be provided about the negative effects of abortion? Do we want women to make potentially uninformed decisions about a baby’s life and their own health and well being? I thank God that doctors have always been responsible enough to warn me about the dangers of treatments and medications that I have received. And of course parental consent should be required for abortions – we hold those parents responsible for other actions their young people take. But then again, I’m one of those crazy people that thinks life starts at conception, life is precious and should be protected, and there are worthwhile alternatives to abortion.
Well said Isaac!
Excellent comments Isaac. Requiring parental notification for a minor seeking an abortion is a responsible thing to do. All procedures are not without risk, including abortions. We need parental notification for any other procedure performed in both an inpatient and out patient setting. Why abortions should be excluded is beyond me.
I also agree that dispersing information about the procedure is in no way “infringing” on anyone’s legal right to chose this option. Nobody is saying no….and 24 hours to think about other possibilities is not too long to wait.