|
“They want a national abortion ban – no exceptions.”
“Democrats have the winning hand here.”
New commentary in the LA Times presented a damning double whammy this week for increasingly vulnerable House Republicans Michelle Steel, Young Kim, John Duarte, and David Valadao’s anti-choice agenda.
As the faces of the House GOP’s “broad assault on reproductive rights,” the California representatives were slammed for their blatant lies and hypocrisy over support for legislation aimed at stripping women of constitutional freedoms and access to abortions and reproductive care – including IVF.
According to the features, Steel, Kim, Duarte, and Valadao each have “a history of packaging” themselves as moderates, “but in reality, are actually pushing for extreme, hurtful policies that block people from accessing critical health care, including birth control and abortion care.”
As a reminder, Steel, Kim, and Valadao all voted against the Right to Contraception Act, the Ensuring Right to Abortion Access Act, and the Women’s Health Protection Act. And Duarte isn’t any better – having voted to restrict a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions and strip away access to safe and legal abortion medication.
Now, the Steel and Valadao-backed Life at Conception Act would ban abortion nationwide without exceptions in cases of rape or incest and impose similar restrictions on IVF and fertility treatments as the latest Alabama Supreme Court ruling.
DCCC Spokesperson Dan Gottlieb:
“No matter how you cut it, Michelle Steel, Young Kim, John Duarte, and David Valadao’s legislative agendas present real, dangerous threats to California women’s freedoms. They have every intention of overriding California laws with a federal abortion ban, and it will be their downfall this November.”
LA Times: Commentary: How to tell if your elected official is really pro-woman
Thy Bui | February 29, 2024
-
Some of these secretly anti-choice and anti-woman elected officials are among us in Orange County. Until there is a spotlight on their actions, they will continue to conveniently claim that they are “pro-women’s health” but in reality, are actually pushing for extreme, hurtful policies that block people from accessing critical health care, including birth control and abortion care. We must all pay attention, as our Congress representatives have the most relevant local influence over these national policies that affect our day-to-day lives and our private relationships with our doctors.
-
Rep. Michelle Steel, who represents Orange County cities from Fountain Valley to Fullerton in the 45th Congressional District, has a history of packaging herself as a moderate. However, she co-sponsored the Life at Conception Act, a bill that would enact a national ban on all abortions, even in instances of rape or when the woman’s life is at risk. The bill would also ban certain types of birth control, such as IUDs.
-
Meanwhile, Rep. Young Kim, who represents another wide swath of Orange County cities, including Mission Viejo and Tustin in the 40th Congressional District, has adopted the politically expedient badge of being “pro-women’s health.” To do so, she even sponsored a redundant piece of legislation called the Orally Taken Contraception Act of 2023, that she claims protects women by “streamlining the process for accessing over-the-counter contraceptives.” Sounds good, right?
-
The Orally Taken Contraception Act, however, does nothing to expand any protections for women and essentially directs the FDA to continue what it is already doing. Showing her true colors, Kim voted against the Right to Contraception Act, which would enshrine women’s and families’ right to access contraception into federal law. That’s not exactly supportive of birth control.
-
Steel has claimed that she is “pro-life with exceptions for rape” and if the woman’s life is at risk. However, she also unequivocally supports a national ban on all abortions with no exceptions for rape, incest or if the woman’s life is at risk. As a co-sponsor of the Life at Conception Act, Steel clearly aligned with this unpopular position, despite pretending she does not. Furthermore, she has twice voted against the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would protect a woman’s right to abortion. Kim, who also claims to be pro-women’s health, has voted against this legislation as well.
-
More alarmingly, both Kim and Steel voted against the Ensuring Access to Abortion Act, which would safeguard a woman’s right to travel to another state to receive an abortion if their state bans the medical procedure. This bill would stop states from putting a bounty on women, families and doctors who assist in obtaining the abortion — a drastic overreach from the government on everyone’s freedom to get the healthcare they need.
-
In sum, it can be hard to tell which elected officials are only saying they’re pro-woman to court more constituents and which ones truly are pro-woman. Look at their voting record to learn the truth. California is a reproductive freedom state, but access to reproductive healthcare is still not guaranteed. Even in Orange County, we are not immune to a national abortion ban.
LA Times: Opinion: How the GOP fixation on abortion could help Democrats
Jill Lawrence | February 29, 2024
-
Three days after that election, the prospect of a national ban loomed even larger. The New York Times reported that Trump — the all-but-certain 2024 GOP nominee — privately favors a ban on abortions after 16 weeks’ gestation. He apparently chose that limit with the same scientific rigor he applied to evaluating ivermectin and bleach as COVID treatments: “It’s even. It’s four months.”
-
That is far from the only development supercharging the abortion debate and the stakes in this year’s elections. The U.S. Supreme Court is due to decide this year whether to limit the use of mifepristone, part of an FDA-approved two-pill combination that can be used at home and that accounts for more than half of the abortions in the country.
-
And now the Alabama Supreme Court has ruled that frozen embryos created for in vitro fertilization are “extrauterine children” covered by state laws about wrongful death. The Legislature might act to protect IVF, but what about other states? Could antiabortion legislatures and courts make similar moves on frozen embryos?
-
To see why it’s massive, look to California. Like New York, it has four Republican-held House seats that the Cook Political Report rates as pure toss-ups. That’s eight strong opportunities for Democrats to flip seats.
-
How close were some of those California races in 2022? GOP Rep. John Duarte beat Democrat Adam Gray by fewer than 600 votes in the Central Valley’s 13th Congressional District. They’re now headed for a rematch, with Duarte playing defense over abortion. Democrats are targeting him on his own votes to limit access and the broad assault on overall reproductive rights by “Duarte’s majority.”
-
In another Central Valley district, GOP Rep. David Valadao beat Democrat Rudy Salas by just over 3,000 votes in 2022; now Democrats are attacking his support for “new, dangerous national abortion restrictions,” and Salas is ripping a fellow Democrat’s abortion views in his quest for a rematch against Valadao.
-
Still, it is hard to find anything comparable to abortion when it comes to personal pain, self-determination and downstream effects that are uncomfortably reminiscent of Gilead, where “The Handmaid’s Tale” unfolds. Some conservatives are talking about ending the “senseless use” of birth control pills and how “recreational sex” leads to poverty, crime and dysfunction. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wants to reconsider rulings on contraception and gay marriage. Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Tom Parker went full fire and brimstone in our supposedly secular government, guided in his IVF concurrence by “the wrath of a holy God.”
-
These are off-putting value judgments and religious beliefs, not persuasive political arguments. Democrats have the winning hand here, and I’m grateful — for countless reasons — that they are already playing it hard.
|
