Given the divisions within the Republican Party this seems like a good moment for Democrats to put forward a bill that would further divide them. I’m not familiar enough with abortion law to know what might work but it would be good for Democrats to exploit the extreme views. One possibility would be to propose legislation to that fits with something that moderate Republicans strongly oppose or support.
I think Democrats have proposed a lot of pro-choice bills over the years. The problem is this doesn't really divide Republicans because Democrats can't force a vote on any of their bills. They get referred to a committee and never assigned to a subcommittee.
Democrats can offer amendments to bills during floor debate (one recent example would have required the AG's office to reimburse sexual assault victims for Plan B and abortion services). But Republicans typically declare those amendments to be not germane so their members can avoid voting on them.
Iowa Democrats and pro-choice groups may also struggle. After the Kansas abortion vote, several of us suggested efforts for a pro choice constitutional amendment—even knowing the legislature would never support, but it provided something to be for. There were understandable arguments to not choose that path. Is there agreement among Iowa D’s and pro-choice leaders on what path to take today, since this essay is on target that R’s will not stand still.
The anti - choice leaders will not wait for the legislature to convene. Based on Iowa’s recent history of judicial retention votes on the same sex marriage ruling, we will see efforts to not retain the 3 Supreme Court judges who supported the lower court ruling. These efforts have probably started, as they did in the previous retention votes. Belin is correct in identifying a possible special session, to pass legislation and to begin the process of a constitutional amendment.
Bob Vander Plaats already said the justices should not be retained. Bad luck for him, though: Justices Waterman, Mansfield, and Christensen won't be on the ballot again until 2028. And Waterman and Mansfield will be close to the mandatory retirement age by that time.
I don't have a good read on how many Republican lawmakers want to push ahead with the constitutional amendment. But they will be hearing from the anti-choice advocates for sure.
Whew! Tour de force. Thank you.
Given the divisions within the Republican Party this seems like a good moment for Democrats to put forward a bill that would further divide them. I’m not familiar enough with abortion law to know what might work but it would be good for Democrats to exploit the extreme views. One possibility would be to propose legislation to that fits with something that moderate Republicans strongly oppose or support.
I think Democrats have proposed a lot of pro-choice bills over the years. The problem is this doesn't really divide Republicans because Democrats can't force a vote on any of their bills. They get referred to a committee and never assigned to a subcommittee.
Democrats can offer amendments to bills during floor debate (one recent example would have required the AG's office to reimburse sexual assault victims for Plan B and abortion services). But Republicans typically declare those amendments to be not germane so their members can avoid voting on them.
Iowa Democrats and pro-choice groups may also struggle. After the Kansas abortion vote, several of us suggested efforts for a pro choice constitutional amendment—even knowing the legislature would never support, but it provided something to be for. There were understandable arguments to not choose that path. Is there agreement among Iowa D’s and pro-choice leaders on what path to take today, since this essay is on target that R’s will not stand still.
The anti - choice leaders will not wait for the legislature to convene. Based on Iowa’s recent history of judicial retention votes on the same sex marriage ruling, we will see efforts to not retain the 3 Supreme Court judges who supported the lower court ruling. These efforts have probably started, as they did in the previous retention votes. Belin is correct in identifying a possible special session, to pass legislation and to begin the process of a constitutional amendment.
Bob Vander Plaats already said the justices should not be retained. Bad luck for him, though: Justices Waterman, Mansfield, and Christensen won't be on the ballot again until 2028. And Waterman and Mansfield will be close to the mandatory retirement age by that time.
as always thank you for your detailed research.
I don't have a good read on how many Republican lawmakers want to push ahead with the constitutional amendment. But they will be hearing from the anti-choice advocates for sure.