Dem
47
GOP
53
There was a time, and that time was not all that long ago, that Donald Trump tried to keep the abortion issue at arm's length. A big chunk of his base (mostly evangelicals) is fanatically anti-choice, and he needs those folks. But the rest of the base is either moderate on the issue, or is pro-choice. And, of course, independents skew very pro-choice. Put another way, it's tough to win elections, except in very red places, solely on anti-choice votes.
It would appear that a rather substantial change in approach is underway, with the White House leaning hard into the anti-choice side of the issue. Late last week, it was announced that the administration plans to ban VA physicians from performing abortions in nearly all circumstances. Rape and incest would not be enough; abortions would only be allowed "when a physician certifies that the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term."
The effects of this policy change are entirely predictable. First, experience has already shown that "only when the life of the mother would be endangered" is vague enough, and the professional consequences of a "premature" finding are severe enough, that physicians are compelled to err strongly on the side of not performing the procedure. As a result, a decision comes too late (or not at all) for some women. So, some patients will die needlessly. On top of that, some women will take a pass on a military career, or will leave the service early. And finally, there are plenty of push factors that must have many VA doctors thinking about an exit; this decision will add to the list.
So, women soldiers are a little less safe, America is a little less safe, and veterans will get lower quality care. Regardless of one's position on abortion access, these consequences are indisputable. The question is: Are the benefits of the new policy worth it? Well, actually, that is what the question SHOULD be, in a nation with good governance. But one cannot seriously believe that the administration is thinking about public health, the well-being of the military, or the lives of fetuses. No, the administration is thinking about pandering to the base, which is... not the best basis for a consequential decision like this.
Meanwhile, for several hours yesterday, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. appeared on Capitol Hill to testify before the Senate Finance Committee, and to deliver a heaping helping of his pseudoscientific quackery. On the whole, the testimony was largely what you would expect. The Democrats on the Committee were full of fire, particularly on the subject of vaccines. The Republicans on the Committee were actually also critical of Kennedy, particularly on the vaccine issue, and yet seemed to be completely unaware of who might be responsible for putting Kennedy in his current post, or who might have the ability to remove him. Kennedy, for his part, was cranky and defiant.
The one portion worth noting, and that fits in the context of this item, is that Kennedy hinted that he might be planning to target the abortifacient mifepristone. His basic, tinfoil-hat contention is that the Biden administration cooked the books to hide evidence that the pill is unsafe. This is nonsense; there have been over 100 studies, spanning 3 decades, affirming that the drug is safe.
Based on this news, not to mention the stories covered in the next two items, it suggests that the White House is developing its battle plan for the 2026 elections. Trump's approval rating is in the toilet with everyone except Republican voters, and there is little possibility of a rebound. So, he looks to be doubling and tripling down on ginning up the base, to get them out to the polls in droves next year. If Democratic votes can be muted at the same time, through gerrymandering, reductions in polling places and voting hours, voter ID laws, etc., then all the better.
This might be the best available strategy for the administration, but that does not mean it's a good strategy. Trump has shown no particular ability to get people to the polls when his name is not on the ballot. Further, voters who are happy with the way things are going tend to get complacent, while voters who are furious tend to be motivated to get to the polls. That means that the things meant to light a fire under MAGA voters could very well light an inferno under non-MAGA voters. This won't hurt Trump directly, but it could have a big effect on control of Congress. (Z)