Yes They Can’t: Right Wing Fundamentalists Taste Change

Cristina Page

Some in the anti-choice establishment have cautiously stuck a toe onto the common ground that Obama has suggested is findable. The Old Guard, by contrast, is inspired in another way.

Apparently President-elect Barack Obama is inspiring everybody these
days, even right wing extremists. Take, for example, Gary Bauer of the
right wing group American Values, who recently explained,
"I found myself thinking, ‘My goodness, I can’t believe he’s (Obama)
going to make it this easy for us to rally our troops to get off the
mat and get back to work." Wendy Wright, president of
anti-contraception group Concerned Women for America, seems to relish
her loser status as much as Bauer. She waxes almost romantic,
"I knew, moments after the election results came in, that I was now
part of the resistance movement." Bill Donohue of the Catholic League
dispensed with resistance and quickly went on the offensive. "If Obama
signs the freedom of Choice Act or FOCA you will have a culture war the likes of which you have never seen before," he said. FOCA
would make abortion a right under federal law so that even if Roe v
Wade is overturned by the Supreme Court abortion will continue to be

Some in the anti-choice establishment have cautiously stuck a toe
onto the common ground that Obama has suggested is findable – ground
from which opponents can search for ways to make abortion less
necessary. The Old Guard, by contrast, is inspired in another way. It
insists on treating a potential turning point as another inning in an
unending grudge match.

Over the next weeks and months I’ll be monitoring the other side,
trying to discern where inspiration is taking them. From the
looks of it, they expect to dust off the same old playbook. Here are a
couple of plays to take note of:

Play #1, find something incendiary (even if fake) to rally
followers. As Michael Lindsay, a political sociologist at Rice
University in Houston told Reuters
in the wake of Obama’s landslide victory, "In order for the social
conservatives to succeed, they will need to have something to mobilize
against. It could be an issue or the congressional leadership." Without
the fictitious "partial birth abortion" issue that anti-choice groups
used artfully for over a decade, extremists will have to find a new
issue to quickly mischaracterize. Enter the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA).
"The challenge starting first thing … is raising "awareness" about
just how extreme his (Obama’s) agenda is, starting with (FOCA),"
said Charmaine Yoest, president of the anti-abortion group Americans
United for Life Action (quote marks mine). Likewise, Concerned Women
for America put out a press release detailing their first action after
the inauguration:

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

"Two days after Barack Obama’s inauguration, pro-lifers will be
doubling their impact during the March for Life, the annual pro-life
rally in Washington, D.C., held on January 22, the anniversary of Roe
v. Wade. As tens of thousands gather to oppose the deadly Supreme Court
decision that decriminalized abortion, Concerned Women for America
(CWA) will be handing out snacks with information on how to oppose the
Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), a bill supported by Obama. The next day, pro-lifers in Washington and around the country will be joining CWA’s FOCA Lobby Day by contacting their congressmen – in person or by phone – urging them to oppose this bill…"

Choosing FOCA as a target serves
extremists choice in several ways. One key advantage is that, though
Obama favors it, even pro-choice advocates do not expect it to pass
soon. This offers a protracted period to scare and misinform the
public. And so the antis are putting together their talking points. In
doing so they’re studying the strategies of Karl Rove, mastermind of
that recent unpleasantness a.k.a. the Bush presidency. Rove’s genius
was to identify emotionally charged wedge issues – abortion,
homosexuality, guns – which so roused targeted populations that they
voted against their own larger interests. Jack and Charmaine Yoest of
Americans United for Life would like to do the same. Yesterday they
posted a blog entitled, "How Would Karl Rove Fight FOCA?"
A large segment of "pro-life" sympathetizers voted for Obama this
election; still the Yoests posit that with the right Rovean wedge – or
wedge within a wedge – they can incite even pro-choice voters.

Which leads to Play #2: Cast FOCA as a
parent’s rights issue.  It’s a favorite gambit. Recast the debate in
not only false but inflammatory terms. They tried the same play with the HPV vaccine
when they tried to keep the cervical cancer prevention method from
becoming a state mandated vaccination. Expect a similar "parent’s
rights" line of argument to resurface with FOCA.

The Yoests write: "Conservative Pro-Lifers will be able to unify
and bring together even Pro-Choicers who are concerned about knowing if
their daughters are going to have an abortion…All parents want to know
if their children are playing with edged weapons and more so if they go
under the knife. Rove would suggest targeting this constituency who
would have a passionate position on knowing if their children are going
to have surgery by strangers.  And who would be paying for the
abortion.  No parent would allow a stranger to give candy to their
children; parents would not allow a stranger to operate on their child.
Rove would identify this group, persuade them and then prompt them to
action. The fear that mom and dad will lose control over their
healthcare decisions of their child is worrisome enough without Uncle
Sam stepping in."

Their claims against the HPV vaccine were hyped. Every state
but Mississippi had a generous opt-out provision for its vaccination
programs. Similarly, they will fan fears over FOCA even if not true. After all, Maryland and Maine both have active parental involvement laws and also passed the Freedom of Choice Act.

The truth has rarely gotten in the way of reproductive rights
opponents. Even in the age of evidence, which is what Obama says he will
rely on in making decisions, an energized, inspired right wing will try
to win with old-fashioned Rovean fear. Some things never change.

News Law and Policy

Louisiana Can’t Enforce GOP’s Clinic Closure Law, Court Rules

Jessica Mason Pieklo

The decision keeps in place an early ruling preventing the former Jindal administration from enforcing a Texas-style clinic shutdown law.

A federal district court judge on Tuesday continued to block a Louisiana law that advocates claim would have closed all but one abortion provider in the state.

The ruling comes more than a year after the same court blocked enforcement of Act 620, which required physicians performing abortions to have admitting privileges to local hospitals.

Former Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) signed Act 620, formerly known as HB 388, into law in June 2014. Reproductive rights advocates challenged the requirement in August, arguing it was impossible to comply with and unduly burdened abortion rights.

The GOP-backed measure provided 81 days for doctors to obtain the required admitting privileges, which can take anywhere from 90 days to seven months to obtain, depending on each hospital’s process.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

“Though today’s ruling is a victory, we know that the existing Louisiana laws regulating abortion care are onerous, medically unnecessary, and impact access to abortion care, particularly for young women, low-income women, and women of color,” Sylvia Cochran, New Orleans Abortion Fund board member, said in a statement. “While we celebrate this ruling, we know that abortion remains inaccessible to many, and we will continue to advocate for access to reproductive health care.”

Tuesday’s ruling comes just two months after the Supreme Court agreed to review a similar Texas clinic shutdown law which advocates claim is poised to leave the nation’s second largest state with ten or fewer abortion clinics.

“Clinic shutdown laws like those in Louisiana and Texas threaten to leave women with a patchwork of rights across the US that is troublingly reminiscent of the days before Roe vWade,” Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement. “Politicians cannot be allowed to sneak around the constitution and rob women of their ability to obtain safe and legal abortion.”

This is the second reproductive rights challenge before Judge John deGravelles, who issued Tuesday’s order. The judge is also hearing a challenge to efforts by the former Jindal administration to cut Planned Parenthood clinics from the state’s Medicaid program. In November deGravelles issued a temporary order blocking those efforts. That case is on appeal before the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Editorial Politics

Five Reasons the GOP Can’t Be Taken Seriously on ‘Poverty’

Jodi Jacobson

No summit can fix what ails the GOP when it comes to concern for people struggling to make ends meet, or who no longer have any means whatsoever.

GOP leaders will attend a “summit on poverty” in South Carolina on Saturday. But no summit can fix what ails the GOP when it comes to concern for people struggling to make ends meet, or who no longer have any means whatsoever.

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan originally planned the summit in September 2015, when he was chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, along with Senator Tim Scott (R-SC). “Poverty” is a recurring theme for Ryan: He talked about it during the 2012 presidential campaign, called for a “new battle plan” on poverty last summer and as speaker mentioned it four times in one of his first major speeches. Interestingly, however, poverty is not listed anywhere on his congressional website as a priority issue or legislative focus. Nor is it prominent anywhere on the speaker’s page. So for now, the rhetoric and the summit feel reminiscent of Ryan’s 2012 staged photo op, when as a vice presidential candidate he “ramrodded” his way into an empty soup kitchen to wash clean dishes for the cameras but stayed far away from the actual people being served.

Poverty also appears to be a popular new topic for GOP presidential candidates floundering about for an agenda that “sells.” As Rebecca Vallas wrote in the Huffington Post:

2015 seems to have been the year of Republicans finding religion on poverty and inequality, with GOP presidential candidates like Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and former Governor Jeb Bush making major speeches on the subject, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and then-Speaker Boehner (R-OH) lamenting the ever-widening gap between rich and poor in a widely-noted joint interview on 60 Minutes.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

Normally, we’d write a critique of policies after they’d been presented at the summit, and that may be yet to come. But for a party that is persistently disdainful of the working class and those without jobs, it’s hard to take any of the rhetoric seriously, especially given that GOP legislators overwhelmingly voted for a bill to overturn the Affordable Care Act and defund Planned Parenthood before many of them boarded planes for South Carolina. If the bill had not been vetoed by President Obama, those two actions alone would unquestionably have added to the economic struggles of millions of Americans. Moreover, the GOP has a knack for wrapping the same old policies—already found to worsen poverty and inequality—in new rhetorical packages. Jeb Bush, for example, is apparently now campaigning on a “fix welfare” platform straight out of 1992. So I think a “prebuttal” of whatever policy announcements are planned for Saturday is fair.

Here are a few of the actions Republicans have taken in recent years that suggest their platform won’t fix poverty:

Reinforcing Poverty Wages: From 2013 to 2014, the inflation-adjusted wages of American workers have stagnated across the spectrum, including for those with advanced degrees, despite increased corporate profits and productivity. According to the Economic Policy Institute, this has largely been the pattern, with some temporary shifts, since 1979. EPI notes:

The poor performance of American workers’ wages in recent decades—particularly their failure to grow at anywhere near the pace of overall productivity—is the country’s central economic challenge. Raising wages is the key to addressing middle-class income stagnation, rising income inequality, and lagging economic mobility, and is essential to moving families out of poverty.

Increasing the minimum wage is one critical portion of a larger effort to dramatically reduce poverty, especially among women: The U.S. Department of Labor explains that “89 percent of those who would benefit from a federal minimum wage increase to $12 per hour are age 20 or older, and 56 percent are women.” Nonetheless, in 2014 and 2015, the GOP-controlled Congress twice voted against a federal minimum wage hike. And in recent debates, GOP presidential hopefuls have expressed resounding opposition to increasing the minimum wage.

Ignoring the Role of Medical Debt in Poverty and the Financial Crisis: Good health is critical to personal well-being and to economic productivity. It’s hard, and actually economically counterproductive, for both individuals and for businesses when sick employees come to work. Many people facing chronic or acute diseases also need time off to see a doctor or receive treatment. But health care is expensive, especially in the United States.

And despite enactment of the Affordable Care Act, a longer-term trend of higher and higher deductibles and co-pays has made paying for insurance and for medical care increasingly expensive, a reality that weighs disproportionately on low-income workers. Moreover, health-related expenses contribute to more than half of all personal bankruptcies in the United States. A poll by the New York Times and Kaiser Family Foundation found that health care costs from both chronic and catastrophic illness can leave people with “crushing debt.”

While an increasing number of people, including those with preexisting conditions, are now able to get health insurance under the ACA, the costs of insurance and rate of growth in co-pays has left many others struggling. As has always been the case with other large and sweeping laws, updates and changes need to be made to the ACA to fix gaps and unintended consequences so we can reach the ultimate goal of affordable health care for all. Despite the fact that health care is a critical aspect of poverty reduction and economic prosperity, the GOP both refuses to fix the ACA and has worked ceaselessly to overturn it, voting more than 54 times to repeal it without any backup plan.

Choice in Childbirth: Personal decisions about whether, when, and with whom to have a child have lifelong consequences and are among the most fundamental economic decisions. Having a child when you are in school, for example, may mean you have to postpone or entirely forego your education. Low-wage jobs are precarious as it is; having a child may mean losing work due to lack of options for affordable child care. A study by the Economic Policy Institute found that the price of child care exceeded the cost of rent in 500 out of 618 municipalities in the United States underscoring just how difficult it would be for a low-income worker to sustain a family and have the supported needed to actually go to work.

Feeding, housing, educating, and providing health care and other necessities for a child is not only very expensive, it also entails a lifelong emotional and physical commitment. It’s a profound personal choice. Worldwide, studies show that access to both contraception and abortion are positively correlated with higher incomes and better personal outcomes. Ironically, while Jeb Bush and other GOP candidates recommendwaiting until you are ready” to have children as one of their recommendations for addressing poverty, they have at the same time been gutting funds for family planning and placing an increasing number of restrictions on access to abortion. If they really believed in addressing poverty, Republicans would pledge to ensure all people have access to both contraception and abortion.

Raising a Family: As noted above, kids are expensive. The average cost of raising a child to age 18 in urban areas of the United States is now roughly $245,000. For this and other reasons, two-income households are the norm, not the exception—a result, as columnist E.J. Dionne has noted, of “an economic struggle highlighting yet again the social costs arising from decades of stagnating or declining wages and growing income inequality.”

All families need and deserve basic choices, including the choice to be home with a new or sick child, or when caring for an ailing family member. And all children, including those who live in low-income households, deserve to have enough food, heat, and a safe place to sleep. Ensuring paid family leave is a critical aspect of broader efforts to combat poverty because so many people at the lower end of the economic spectrum, and especially women, lose jobs for lack of family leave. The GOP, however, lauds family values but consistently votes against actual families. For example, though a majority of U.S. voters support legislation guaranteeing paid family leave, the GOP has consistently voted against it. And today’s crop of GOP presidential contenders all oppose legislation to ensure paid family leave.

Education and Student Debt: As a social good, education is critical. While individual opportunities vary from one field to another and one city or state to another, on the whole, education is vital for economic success. High rates of student debt and high rates of interest paid on those debts have, however, kept many from paying off their student loans or getting an education in a different field of expertise, therefore limiting their ability to advance economically. Still, the GOP has several times voted against bills, including those introduced by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), that would have allowed students to refinance their debts from rates of 6 to over 10 percent interest to under 4 percent interest. While they’ve rejected these plans, congressional Republicans have not presented an effective plan to lower the burden of student debt.

So as Republican leaders convene in South Carolina, remember that the GOP has consistently made clear, through its legislative and policy choices (and I’ve only noted a few) and through its rhetoric, that it has little actual concern for people living in poverty and those who are most economically vulnerable. If you follow the axiom, “It’s not what they say, it’s what they do,” the GOP has done a whole helluva lot to undermine the economic prospects of those who are not male, not white, and not wealthy. Republican congressional leaders and presidential candidates as a whole not only don’t seem to care much about poverty, they don’t seem to understand what factors push people into poverty and keep them there. And they certainly don’t appear to understand what it would really mean to address poverty, yet are eager to exacerbate many of the problems that contribute to it in the first place.