There is an almost emotional need in politics to not only know that elected officials are fighting for you, but to feel that they loudly doing so with no holds bared. But sometimes that need to feel clearly and unambiguously that the politicians are fighting for them and against their enemies, that this performative act obfuscates the substative work to the point where the murkiness can lead to unexpected consequences. Such is the case in Wyoming.
“A state judge on Monday struck down Wyoming’s overall ban on abortion and its first-in-the-nation explicit prohibition on the use of medication to end pregnancy in line with voters in yet more states voicing support for abortion rights.
“…
“In the Wyoming case, the women and nonprofits who challenged the laws argued that the bans stood to harm their health, well-being and livelihoods, claims disputed by attorneys for the state. They also argued the bans violated a 2012 state constitutional amendment saying competent Wyoming residents have a right to make their own health care decisions.
“As she had done with previous rulings, Owens found merit in both arguments. The abortion bans ‘will undermine the integrity of the medical profession by hamstringing the ability of physicians to provide evidence-based medicine to their patients,’ Owens ruled.
“The abortion laws impede the fundamental right of women to make health care decisions for an entire class of people — those who are pregnant — in violation of the constitutional amendment, Owens ruled.”
So, who proposed that state constitutional amendment and why?
It was passed by Republicans who wanted to strike a firm and unambiguous blow against Obamacare!
“A decade ago, when conservatives were attacking President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act as government encroachment in health care, they worked to amend state constitutions around the country to affirm a broad right for people to control their own medical decisions.
“‘Each competent adult shall have the right to make his or her own health care decisions,’ reads section 38(a) of the Wyoming constitution’s Declaration of Rights, under the header ‘Right of healthcare access.’ The provision was placed on Wyoming’s ballot by state lawmakers and approved by voters in 2012; voters saw ballot language that described the measure as preserving this right ‘from undue governmental infringement.’
“Now these anti-ACA provisions—and their broad affirmations of a right to decide—have turned into an unlikely weapon in progressives’ fight against restrictions on abortion.”
In their zeal to be unambiguous about their opposition to Obamacare, these politicians made a broad statement that was written broadly enough to introduce ambiguity into its scope, if not its intend. There is a reason why legislation these days is hyper-technical and dripping with legalese: To avoid the ambiguity that allowed this Wyoming judge to issue the ruling that he did.
“Fighting” in politics is more than sweeping speeches and campaign promises, but hard work and and attention to detail that just doesn’t raise campaign funs or command the attention and approval of voters, be they the base or be they swing voters. It certainly doesn’t do much for the Grift Industrial Complex of niche media or less-than-honest political groups or PACs.
Keeping calm and doing things properly and methodically may not be the best electoral politics, but it is the best policy to enact.
