weather icon Clear

The manly men, men, men of the GOP

WASHINGTON — Ladies and gentlemen, Republicans are again voting on new abortion restrictions. Cue their theme song:

“Men men men men, manly men men men!”

“Men men men men, manly men men men!”

The House Judiciary Committee gathered Wednesday to pass another anti-abortion bill, and the nameplates on the majority side told the story: Mr. Goodlatte.

Mr. Sensenbrenner.

Mr. Coble.

Mr. Smith.

Mr. Chabot.

Mr. Bachus.

Mr. Issa.

Mr. Forbes.

Mr. King.

Mr. Franks.

In all, the nameplates of 23 misters lined both rows on the GOP side; there isn’t one Republican woman on the panel. The guys muscled through a bill that, should it become law, would upend Roe v. Wade by effectively banning all abortions after 20 weeks.

With the grace of Charlie Sheen and the subtlety of a sitcom, the manly men voted down a Democratic effort to add enhanced protections for the life and health of the mother. They voted down a Democratic amendment that would allow exceptions for women with heart or lung disease or diabetes. They even voted down an amendment that would have made exceptions for victims of rape or incest.

If that weren’t enough, the chief sponsor of the legislation, Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., had a Todd Akin moment as he attempted to argue that women aren’t likely to become pregnant from rape. Franks provided his variation of “legitimate rape” theory when he argued against the rape-and-incest exception because the amendment didn’t require women to report the crime.

“What difference does that make?” asked Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.

“The point I was trying to make, Mr. Nadler, is that, you know, before when my friends on the left side of the aisle here tried to make rape and incest the subject, because, you know, the incidents of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low,” he said. “But when you make that exception, there’s usually a requirement to report the rape within 48 hours.”

Hold on. The incidents of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low?

“I just find it astonishing to hear a phrase repeated that the incidence of pregnancy from rape is low,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, one of five Democratic women on the panel. “There’s no scientific basis for that. The idea that the Republican men on this committee think they can tell the women of America that they have to carry to term the product of a rape is outrageous.”

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, joined in. “I don’t think any of them can speak to the question, unless they desire to raise their hand, of being raped,” she said. Jackson Lee noted that “not a single hand was raised.” Even before the hearing, Democrats were talking about the legislation as evidence that the GOP had returned to its “war on women,” a favorite Democratic theme to widen the party’s advantage among female voters. But if this really is a war, women have nothing to worry about: These Republicans can’t shoot straight.

The legislation, even if it clears the House, has no chance in the Senate and would face a certain veto. It also contradicts the long-standing Roe precedent that the Supreme Court has shown no appetite to revisit. And yet House Republicans pressed ahead, inviting charges that they are unconcerned about the economy and indifferent to victims of sex crimes.

“This looks like just another battle in the Republican war on women,” Nadler observed, saying the majority thinks women are “too immoral or too stupid” to make their own choices.

To counter this argument, Franks invoked Kermit Gosnell, a Philadelphia abortion doctor who was convicted last month of murdering babies. But Gosnell was convicted under existing law and therefore didn’t help Franks rebut the war-on-women charges.

Lofgren told the story of a woman whose pregnancy was putting her life at risk. “The idea that we would force somebody like Vicki to endanger her own life — the Republican men on this committee think they have the right to do that,” she said.

The men easily defeated the rape-and-incest exception. But when it came time to vote on an exception for a mother’s health, there were 11 Democrats in the room and only 10 Republicans.

“It is good for everybody to have lunch, so we will stand in recess,” announced the chairman, Bob Goodlatte, R-Va.

“Can we vote on this amendment, please?” asked Jackson Lee, the sponsor.

“We will vote on it when we return,” Goodlatte said.

The Republicans needed more manpower.

Follow Dana Milbank on Twitter, @Milbank.

(c) 2013, Washington Post Writers Group

Don't miss the big stories. Like us on Facebook.
Tom Rysinski: Football’s zebra herd needs some thinning

Criticizing officials who work high school games is not something I enjoy doing. They’re not making a fortune, they put up with a lot, and you really have to love doing it to devote so much time and energy to it. And in most sports there is a shortage of them. So criticizing them is usually inappropriate.

Tim Burke: A look at open carry issues in nation

Walmart recently announced that it is “respectfully requesting” that customers not openly carry guns into its stores.

Steve Sebelius: Leadership lessons from people who’ve been there

Former governors and senators discussed leadership lessons at a symposium at UNLV’s William S. Boyd Law School last week in a program headed by former Gov. Brian Sandoval.

Thomas Knapp on universal basic income: a totalitarian state’s dream scheme

Andrew Yang’s small but solid polling in the Democratic Party’s 2020 nomination race shows that “Universal Basic Income” has gone from a fringe idea to an idea with a foothold in the popular consciousness.

Thomas Knapp: ‘Nuance’ in politics, public policy?

In 2004, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry called his ever-shifting position on the war in Iraq “nuanced” as a way of explaining why he was for it before he was against it and why his prescriptions for its future kept changing.