Now that pillars of the Republican Party platform have been officially adopted, one of the leaders of the committee that wrote it has let it spill that the party’s supposed softening on abortion that many reported on last week is (as we and a handful of other outlets suggested at the time) not exactly accurate.
As TPM noted last week, at first glance, the proposed policy platform on abortion appeared to drop the Republican Party’s longtime interest in giving more rights to embryos and fetuses under the law.
“We proudly stand for families and Life. We believe that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees that no person can be denied Life or Liberty without Due Process, and that the States are, therefore, free to pass Laws protecting those Rights,” a final draft version of the document distributed last week read. “After 51 years, because of us, that power has been given to the States and to a vote of the People. We will oppose Late Term Abortion, while supporting mothers and policies that advance Prenatal Care, access to Birth Control, and IVF (fertility treatments).”
TPM and others noted that the ambiguity of the language of the proposed policy could lead some to interpret the proposal as calling for states to pass laws that would provide “due process” protections for fetuses. That would place the abortion plank of the 2024 platform pretty firmly in the camp of fetal personhood ideology that the Republican Party not only has supported for decades but also that has been recently used to ban abortion and put in-vitro fertilization access in harms way in at least one state.
Now that the platform has been adopted by the party at the Republican National Convention, during its kick-off day Monday, a top official on the writing panel has let the cat out of the bag a bit. Ed Martin — president of the conservative group the Phyllis Schlafly Eagles and one of the people the Trump campaign and the RNC put on the platform-writing committee — made some remarks on his radio show, Pro-America Report, Tuesday decoding the supposedly “softened” anti-abortion language.
“It’s got protections for pro-life. Don’t let anybody tell you there’s not protections for pro-life,” Martin said, as first noted by Mother Jones. “There’s not as many words describing it, but there’s protection under the Constitution, that life is protected.”
The remarks appear to suggest that the language of the platform would allow for 2024 Republicans to embrace a federal abortion ban, without saying that explicitly.
The Best Of TPM Today
FBI, DHS Warns Of ‘Retaliatory’ Attacks In The Wake Of Trump Rally Shooting
Yesterday’s Most Read Story
Cannon’s Mar-a-Lago Dismissal Plays Hard To Trump And His SCOTUS — Josh Kovensky
What We Are Reading
Bob Menendez is guilty. Here’s what happens next. — Politico
How J.D. Vance Won Over Donald Trump — New York Times
Trump endorses vaccine conspiracy theory in leaked call with RFK Jr. — CNBC News
OR . . . he could be lying about it.
I thought the Republicans on the Supreme Court already had done this.
But true, perhaps some people are not paying attention.
“federal abortion ban”
If Roe, a ruling that granted a federal right to abortion, was “decided wrong” because it violated the Constitution’s “up to the states” language then how is a federal ban OK?
And I thought the r’s only cared about the 2nd amendment. Seems they are also finding the 14th amendment useful as long as it can be twisted as a means to control women and their bodies.
I wish someone in the media would discuss what exactly it means to “leave abortion up to the states”.
Does it mean if you live in a state that bands abortion you can leave and get an abortion in another state? If yes, you have made abortion a class issue because if you have some means, obtaining an abortion would be as difficult as visiting a friend or relative.
Does leaving it up to the states mean if woman lives in a state that outlaws abortion it is a crime for her to leave that state and get an abortion? If yes, how would that be enforced without first testing every woman leaving a state at every airport of just road crossing. For example between Indiana, a state that has outlawed abortion, and Illinois that has passed laws to protect a right to it, there are literally hundreds of roads the cross the border. Would Indiana need to have checkpoints to test every women leaving the state on all those roads?
That is “leaving it to the states” means you have either imprisoned every woman who is a resident of a state that outlaws abortion or you have merely put extra burdens on poor women.