The Politics of Cruelty

Republicans are seeking new and improved ways to mistreat women and migrants. Also, a midterm update and Doug Mastriano's increasingly pathetic campaign for PA governor.

I’m Michael A. Cohen, and this is Truth and Consequences: A no-holds-barred look at the absurdities, hypocrisies, and surreality of American politics. If you received this email - or you are a free subscriber - and you’d like to subscribe: you can sign up below.

The Cruelty of Late-Term Abortion Bans

Shutterstock

Over at the Daily Beast, I had a piece last week on the cruelty of late-term abortion bans — and, in particular, the 15-week ban proposed earlier this month by Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

While the focus at Truth and Consequences is, generally, on politics, I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out why these laws are so particularly toxic to women. As I note in the piece, the “sad reality is that a second or third-trimester abortion is, more often than not, an act of love and a response to an unimaginable tragedy.” While Graham claims that 15 weeks is when a fetus begins to feel pain (a highly dubious and disputed notion), from a medical standpoint, “early in the mid-trimester is when doctors can detect fetal or genetic abnormalities, and usually, that tragic diagnosis is what leads women to get late-term abortions.” It is usually late in pregnancy when women and their partners receive news that their fetus has a profound genetic or medical disorder that will make viability impossible. In short, their babies will die or, if they are birthed, will live short lives of often awful suffering. It’s a tragic, heartbreaking moment for families desperate to have children. As I note in the piece, some have even picked out a name for their child. 

Under Graham’s legislation, women who find out their child has a fetal or genetic abnormality will have little recourse. Unless the mother’s life is at risk, an abortion will not be possible, and pregnant women could be forced to carry a non-viable fetus to term. It’s akin to torture.

While later-term abortions are usually the result of medical necessity, there’s another consideration I should have also mentioned in the Daily Beast piece. Some women have post-15-week abortions because they lack the resources to schedule the procedure earlier. Poor women without regular health care access may not know they are pregnant until several weeks or months into their pregnancy. If they decide to have an abortion, they may struggle to find the money to afford one. In addition, they may have to take time off from work or schedule travel to find a clinic able to perform the procedure. 

In the press conference announcing his legislation, Graham argued that many European countries ban abortions after 15 weeks -- and that America's abortion laws (pre-Dobbs) are more akin to North Korea or Iran than Western Europe. But left out from Graham's presentation is that most European countries allow broad exceptions to 15-week bans. Most also ensure that women have affordable and accessible health care options, so they don't face the same challenges as American women -- particularly those of limited financial means.

The reality is that performing an abortion is often the last part of an incredibly difficult and painful process made that much harder because of a lack of health care access and medical guidance -- which have long been defining characteristics of the American healthcare system. Not surprisingly, Graham’s bill does little to tackle that issue, but then as I’ve noted before, for many anti-abortion Republicans, a woman is merely “the crunchy outer shell of a fetus.”

Midterm Update

Mark Makela/New York Times

I feel like every “Midterm Update” between now and November will feature at least one anecdote about the ineptitude of Doug Mastriano’s campaign for governor in Pennsylvania. Today we get three!

He is being heavily outspent by his Democratic rival, has had no television ads on the air since May, has chosen not to interact with the state’s news media in ways that would push his agenda, and trails by double digits in reputable public polling and most private surveys … The most recent campaign finance reports show that Mr. Mastriano’s campaign account had just $397,319, compared with $13.5 million for Mr. Shapiro.

Oof.

Gov. Doug Ducey of Arizona, the R.G.A.’s co-chairman, was asked about whether he views Mr. Mastriano as a viable candidate during a question-and-answer session this month at Georgetown University.

“We don’t fund lost causes and we don’t fund landslides,” Mr. Ducey said.

Double oof.

According to Mr. Shapiro’s campaign, he answered questions or conducted interviews with 41 Pennsylvania newspapers, television and radio stations during the first three weeks of September. During the same time period, Mr. Mastriano — who speaks only to conservative news organizations and podcasts — spoke with just three Pennsylvania outlets, according to media trackers.

Wait wut?

I've never heard of a candidate for statewide office simply refusing to talk to media organizations that aren't ideologically allied. Put aside how deeply disrespectful that is to Pennsylvania voters and the state's political media; it's astoundingly dumb politics. Mastriano's stance means that no one outside those who likely already support his candidacy is hearing directly from him. How is that a winning strategy? (By the way, the picture above is from the New York Times and is an actual photo from a Mastriano rally — triple oof!).

Pennsylvania is arguably the key state in this election. Mastriano is one of the GOP's most prominent election denier candidates — and he's running in one of the biggest and most electorally decisive states. Moreover, his victory would likely ensure that abortion in Pennsylvania would become illegal. If Democrats can win the Senate race between John Fetterman and Dr. Oz, it will flip a seat from red to blue. If that happens, it would mean that Republicans will have to hold every vulnerable seat (Wisconsin, North Carolina, Ohio) while flipping two Democratic seats. That's a very tall order. There are also three toss-up House races that could potentially flip. If Mastriano gets crushed — and that is looking more and more likely — then it's hard to imagine down-ballot Republicans not getting hurt as well.

Meanwhile, in Arizona:

A judge on Friday ruled that a near-total abortion ban written before Arizona became a state must be enforced, throwing abortion access into question one day before the start of a 15-week ban that passed the Legislature this year.

This is quite obviously a terrible outcome for women in Arizona. But from a political perspective, this decision could boost Democratic candidates up-and-down the ballot. Depending on who wins the governor's race, it could go a long way toward determining whether abortion in Arizona is legal or illegal. Already, Democrats have seen an uptick in voter registrations since the Dobbs decision, but with abortion now decisively on the ballot this year, one has to assume this will help Democratic candidates in the state — particularly Democratic gubernatorial candidate Katie Hobbes, who barely leads Kari "election denying/MAGA-loving" Lake.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news to Texas Democrats, but I'm pretty sure Governor Beto is not happening. Abbott is consistently above or around 50 percent, and there's no evidence O'Rourke is gaining support.

I’m a firm believer in the power of the Harry Reid turnout machine in Nevada — and in toss-up races there, I assume Democrats will prevail — but Catherine Cortez Mastro is, undoubtedly, the weakest Democratic incumbent on the ballot this year. These poll numbers are not emblematic of a candidate who looks likely to win reelection. If I were to wager on any Senate Democrat losing in November, it would be her.

The latest Economist forecast for the House gives Democrats a 33 percent chance of winning the House and an 81 percent chance of keeping control of the Senate. The current House margin is 222-213, which is so narrow it’s hard to see how Republicans effectively govern without the help of Democrats.

DeSantis Revisited