Of course, one assumes that this only holds true if Democrats win the White House and the Senate, not the Republicans?
So how childish, petty, partisan, and completely intellectually void is the vision of something like the filibuster being eliminated, but only for one side?
Everything Harris suggested "should" apply if Trump wins the Presidency and there is a majority of Republicans in both chambers. But I am guessing that somewhere in that pea brain of hers there is some sort of argument that it shouldn't.
I have often argued that there is probably a sweet spot for abortion (possibly around 10-15 weeks with exceptions for health of the mother or child) that could garner enough support both with the public and with our politicians to actually pass a federal law. It would be far from what either side wants, but it would effectively move us past the debate (at least for a while).
Sure, some would still protest that any abortion is murder and others would protest that no laws should apply to what a woman wants to do with her own body. But since this is a federal law (and not a reversable court decision), those arguments would have way less effect on our elections. Certainly a law can be repealed and replaced, but that takes way more work than just creating the law in the first place. Plus, once something like this was in place for a while (consistent across the entire country) people would get used to it and only the fringe people on either side would still protest or be angry about it.
In fact, I would suspect that within a few years of a reasonable abortion law being enacted, that support for that law would be way higher than it ever was for Roe v Wade. While people supported the concept of Roe v Wade, many had apparent disagreements with the actual effects of the ruling (as well as Casey which established the 26 week threshold). Most people supported Roe v Wade under the confusing lie that if it was overturned that abortion would be illegal. I think people would have a better understanding of a federal law than they did of Roe and Casey.
Ultimately, the real question is who would benefit politically from such a law? Obviously Democrats have saved themselves from potential electoral problems over the past couple of cycles almost exclusively over their advocation for abortion. I have suspicions that there would be at least some in that Party who do not want this settled again, lest they lose that strategic advantage. Meanwhile, many in the GOP consider themselves pro-lifers to the degree that any allowance of any abortions (even something reasonable like 10 week) would be bridge too far. They vote against it on principle. But I still feel like there might be 60 votes from the middle (and most certainly 51 votes if the filibuster was removed) for something in the ballpark of what I previously mentioned. Having this debate raging as it has been is unhealthy for the country as a whole, and some semblance of closure would have to be at least considered by reasonable leaders.
Comments