Washington Examiner: Harris harnesses Beyonce star power in Texas
Beyoncé told a packed stadium on Friday that it was time for America to elect Kamala Harris president, urging voters to “sing a new song” before the vice president delivered a message to battleground voters all the way from reliably Republican Texas — that former President Donald Trump was dead set on eroding women’s rights.
“I’m here as a mother,” Beyoncé said, talking about how her children would see “the sacrifices made so we can witness the strength of a woman … reimagining what leadership is.”
Harris came out to huge cheers. The vice president told the crowd that Trump had erased half a century of hard-fought progress when he appointed the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade and touched off a healthcare crisis.
“For anyone watching from another state, if you think you are protected from Trump abortion bans because you live in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada, New York, California, or any state where voters or legislators have protected reproductive freedom, please know: No one is protected,” she said. “Because a Donald Trump national ban will outlaw abortion in every single state.”
In the heat of the presidential campaign, Kamala Harris has leveled a serious accusation against Donald Trump, painting a dire scenario where a national abortion ban would trample over state protections, effectively stripping away reproductive rights from millions. However, this claim not only oversimplifies the intricate balance of power between federal and state governments but also misconstrues Trump’s policy positions on abortion, presenting a narrative that diverges significantly from legal and political realities as of October 26, 2024.
Kamala Harris’s sweeping statement on Trump’s abortion policy serves a campaign strategy rather than offering a factual analysis of what could legally transpire. By framing the issue in black and white, she might galvanize her base, but at the cost of misinforming the public about the complexities of legal and political maneuvers involved in creating national policy on abortion.
This claim, which seems designed to instill fear and rally voters, neglects the fundamental principles of federalism, where states are not mere bystanders but active participants in shaping policy, especially on contentious issues like abortion.
To understand why Harris’s statement is misleading, one must delve into the post-Dobbs landscape where abortion policy has been largely remanded to the states. This reversion did not occur in a vacuum but through a meticulously argued Supreme Court decision that respects state sovereignty in certain policy domains. For Trump or any president to enact a nationwide ban, it would require not just an executive order but Congressional legislation, navigating through a Senate that might not favor such a move, considering the intense divide on abortion rights.
Federalism and Abortion Rights: The current legal landscape post-Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) has returned the regulation of abortion to the states. This decision underscores a principle of federalism where state laws can indeed provide more protections or restrictions than federal law, unless Congress acts to preempt state laws under the Supremacy Clause explicitly. However, a complete federal ban on abortion would require an extraordinary act of Congress, which would then face legal challenges based on states’ rights.
Trump’s Stance and Historical Actions: Donald Trump has advocated for leaving abortion policy to the states. His appointments to the Supreme Court, which contributed to overturning Roe v. Wade, were part of this strategy to decentralize abortion regulation. While Trump has expressed personal opposition to abortion, his policy has been to not push for a national ban but rather to empower states to decide. During his presidency, no such nationwide ban was enacted, and he has not explicitly committed to one for future governance. Implementing such a ban now would face immediate legal challenges, potentially leading to a Supreme Court review that might uphold states’ rights, given the current judicial philosophy favoring state autonomy in such matters.
Political Reality: Enacting a national abortion ban would require not just Trump’s support but a significant shift in both houses of Congress. Given the deeply divisive nature of abortion, such a sweeping legislative action faces immense hurdles, including potential filibusters in the Senate if not controlled by a supermajority of one party. Furthermore, any such law would likely be challenged in court, leading to prolonged legal battles.
Misleading the Public: Harris’s statement could mislead viewers into believing that state protections are meaningless, which is not the case under current constitutional interpretations. States like California, New York, and others have passed laws explicitly protecting abortion rights, which would serve as legal battlegrounds against any perceived overreach by federal legislation.
The Role of the Judiciary: If a national ban were somehow passed, the judiciary would play a crucial role. The same Supreme Court that overturned Roe might also consider the constitutionality of states’ rights versus Congress’s power in such a scenario, potentially leading to a nuanced or even opposite ruling to what Harris suggests.
In summary, while the political rhetoric around abortion can be charged, suggesting that a Trump administration would unilaterally impose a ban overriding state protections simplifies a much more intricate legal and political landscape. The reality involves states’ rights, the balance of power between federal and state governments, and the intricate nature of American jurisprudence on such divisive issues. Harris’s claim, therefore, seems designed more for political impact rather than reflecting a likely or legally straightforward outcome.