This Week in Statehouse Action: In Like A Little Lyin’ Man edition
WHERE THE HELL DID MARCH COME FROM
Happy March, y’all!
Since “lions” of legislatures seem pretty tough to come by these days (Virginia has Louise Lucas, I suppose; who would you nominate from your favorite state?), I figured I’d use an adulterated homophone and a reference to an old-ass song to make a terrible joke.
But that kinda fits because most things are, indeed, terrible, and many lawmakers have either proven themselves liars already this year or made fools of the folks who didn’t think they were being honest about what they planned to do.
Take, say, IVF.
Two weeks after the Alabama Supreme Court’s absolutely bonkers decision that decreed that eight-celled embryos frozen in test tubes should be considered “children,” lawmakers in the legislature that 100% enabled this wretched ruling scrambled to slap a band-aid on the situation.
… the situation being, of course, that the liabilities that exist in the normal course of an IVF clinic’s business – not every clump of cells in a test tube makes it to actual baby-hood – made the business of IVF completely untenable.
Lawsuits are expensive and scary! And losing them sucks and costs a lot!
So the GOP-controlled Alabama state House and Senate both swiftly rammed through measures that would protect IVF providers from both criminal and civil liabilities.
But, even though Gov. Kay Ivey will almost certainly sign them into law, do these measures really address the problems raised by the Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling?
Given that a big chunk of it was based on the state’s Sanctity of Life Amendment – approved by voters in 2018 – which added this text to the state constitution:
(a) This state acknowledges, declares, and affirms that it is the public policy of this state to recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children, including the right to life.
(b) This state further acknowledges, declares, and affirms that it is the public policy of this state to ensure the protection of the rights of the unborn child in all manners and measures lawful and appropriate.
(c) Nothing in this constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion.
… the state Supreme Court could, theoretically, decide that its own definition of “child” is the law of the state and that the measure the legislature just passed that protects IVF providers is unconstitutional because it fails “to recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life.”
But in the short term, enacting this new law should allow Alabama IVF clinics to reopen and go about their business.
But GOP lawmakers might not be willing to leave well enough alone.
Some Republicans have signaled interest in restricting what IVF clinics do with unused embryos.
One tried to add an amendment to one of the emergency IVF-protecting bills that would prohibit clinics from discarding unused embryos (never mind who’s gonna be on the hook to pay for all that deep-freeze storage).
Another wants his colleagues to, like, generally consider regulating and restricting fertility clinics, since “once that is fertilized, it begins to grow, even though it may not be in a woman's uterus.”
Obviously Rep. Mark Gidley (who seems weirdly unable to use the word “embryo”) doesn’t seem to understand how embryo freezing and storage actually works (THE FREEZING STOPS THE EMBRYO FROM GROWING YOU NUMBNUTS), but failing to understand the first thing about a specific scientific topic or medical procedure hasn’t stopped any lawmaker from regulating anything.
Alabama Democrats had their own proposal that would have remedied the IVF debacle, too (although it runs a similar risk of being found unconstitutional, I guess): Codify the fact that a human embryo outside of a uterus cannot be legally considered an “unborn child” or human being.
Obviously, Republicans blocked the amendment from even coming up for a vote.
The IVF debacle in Alabama might have some unintended positive consequences, however – at least in the short term.
Anti-reproductive rights activists have long held out fetal “personhood” as a goal of the movement, and there’s been no shortage of bills in states already this year that would legally establish that “life” begins at conception.
But since the Alabama IVF ruling laid bare the liability issues that attach to deeming a clump of cells a “person,” some other states are rethinking these measures.
At least 11 states have broad “personhood” language in their codes that could be read to affect all state laws, criminal and civil.
The specifics of fetal “personhood” can vary quite a lot from state to state: e.g., four states establish fetal “personhood” only when it’s capable of surviving outside of the womb, or at “viability.”
Two additional states – Alaska and Florida – are also considering fetal “personhood” bills, but the Alabama situation might have derailed both measures.
By the by, reproductive rights are protected by Alaska’s state constitution, so a “personhood” law there couldn’t be used to ban abortions, but such a measure could be used to criminalize doctors who perform the procedure.
The potential impact of so-called “personhood” laws on IVF has given opponents of the Alaska bill fresh ammunition, and it may have completely halted a similar measure in Florida.
The Florida bill would have allowed civil lawsuits over the wrongful death of a fetus; parents of an “unborn child” would qualify as surviving parties who can file a civil suit.
So, civil fetal personhood.
“Unborn child” is already defined in Florida statute as “a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any state of development, who is carried in the womb,” which would seem to rule out impact on embryos frozen for IVF, but the bill has been effectively sidelined for the year anyway.
… but it might have been sidelined just to make it clear that it does apply to extra-uterine embryos.
A Florida anti-abortion group praised the bill’s Republican sponsor for pulling what the org described as a flawed bill, because it thinks that the measure should specifically apply to “those unborn children frozen as embryos.”
Look, as far as Democrats are concerned, Republicans can keep talking about IVF all they want. Whether they support unfettered practice of infertility treatments or believe that every test tube should be issued a Social Security card, a GOPer talking about IVF is just reminding voters of how extreme their stances are on reproductive rights.
Anyway, yes, things are bad.
But they could always get worse!
Here are a few sucky things that might have flown under your radar recently:
In South Dakota, Republicans are advancing a measure county officials say will result in fewer folks voting (I mean, common sense says it, too): Cutting off voter registration 30 days before an election (instead of the current 15-day cutoff).
Why does GOP Rep. Kirk Chaffee think that voter registration should shut down a month before Election Day?
Argle bargle voter fraud!
Chaffee claims his bill is needed to allay “perceived concerns” about election integrity in the state.
Never mind that the Secretary of State herself – a Republican, of course – says that voting in South Dakota is already an “accountable, secure process.”
In Oklahoma, where GOP Sen. Tom Woods described the LGBTQ+ community as “filth” during a public forum last Friday, there was a little rebuking by fellow Republicans this week, but also Woods 100% doubled down on his hate.
GOP Senate President Pro Tem Great Treat called Woods’ remarks “reprehensible and inappropriate” on Monday.
Also on Monday, Woods issued a statement on the matter: “I stand behind what I believe in.”
“Anyone … who is trying to normalize behavior that shouldn’t be tolerated is unacceptable in my mind,” he continued, and said his voting record “speaks for itself,” highlighting his votes for bills blocking minors from receiving gender-affirming health care and preventing transgender girls from participating in girls’ sports.
It’s an election year, so it’s small wonder that extreme right-wing lawmakers are going all in on bullying trans kids.
This is obviously an issue that doesn’t motivate your average, non-foaming-mouthed voters, but in a lot of red states, Republican candidates have to survive primaries this spring and summer, so they’re going hard on items that burnish their MAGA cred.
According to the Trans Legislation Tracker, 504 bills targeting transgender folks have been introduced across 41 states this year.
It lists just nine as having failed and 492 as “active,” but that’s definitely an undercount of the bills that have failed and an overcount of those still alive: e.g. in Virginia, 10 anti-trans bills are listed and categorized as “introduced” and “active,” but since crossover is long behind us, any bill that hasn’t passed at least one chamber of the legislature is effectively dead, if not technically.
So, at least 19 anti-trans bills have failed!
And probably several others, too, since West Virginia, Utah, South Dakota, North Dakota, Kansas, Indiana, Georgia, and Colorado are all at post-crossover points in their sessions.
(Crossover in Iowa is on Monday, by the by, so by next week we’ll have a pretty good idea of just how awful this election-year session is going to be there.)
Speaking of election year drama and MAGA cred …
A year ago in this space, I (admittedly rather gleefully) wrote about the leadership battle among Ohio House Republicans as they tried to sort out who would hold the Speaker’s gavel in the chamber.
If you’re just tuning in, though, the short version is that right-wing extremist Rep. Derek Merrin, who thought he was going to be House Speaker in the 2023 session, was stymied by an alliance of more moderate members of the GOP caucus + all the chamber’s Democrats.
These strange bedfellows instead elected the (... somewhat, everything’s relative) more moderate Rep. Jason Stephens to preside over the state House.
Merrin’s sense of entitlement wouldn’t allow him to let this go and get on with the business of legislating, however.
After the vote, he proclaimed himself “the leader of the House Republicans,” and 37 of the 43 GOPers who supported his effort to become Speaker began calling themselves the “Republican Majority Caucus.”
So the stage was already set for a year rife with infighting among the Ohio House Republicans.
[popcorn dot gif]
But it gets better/worse (depending on your point of view–I welcome readers of all political stripes!).
Because soon after, Speaker Stephens and the pro-Merrin Republicans started fighting over cash money.
Stephens claimed that he was in charge of Ohio’s House Republicans and of the Ohio House Republican Alliance (OHRA), which is the campaign fund that spends millions electing Ohio House Republicans.
But Rep. Phil Plummer, a Merrin supporter, also claimed that he was in charge of the OHRA.
Now, these cats weren’t arguing over chump change.
In 2022, the OHRA spent $4.5 million on GOP House candidates, to say nothing of the $1.8 million in in-kind contributions.
Traditionally, the Speaker is also head of the majority House caucus, but that’s certainly not required by any law or rule.
Plummer even took his fellow Republicans to court over the matter.
The OHRA website, by the by, has a cute little 404-esque message on its “Members” page at the moment, but don’t worry–you can still donate to support this dysfunction.
Anyway, even though the March primaries are right around the corner (March 19, specifically), this court fight is still unfolding.
The Merrin Squad (Plummer and co.), also aware of the looming March primaries, filed for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to force the “Blue 22” (what the Merrin Squad call Stephens and the other Republicans who bargained with Democrats to elect the less-extreme guy as House Speaker) to freeze the OHRA campaign account and stop Stephens and co. from spending that money.
The Merrin Squad (...we’re gonna need a new name for them if this intraparty squabbling continues into next year – Merrin is termed out) was likely spurred to demand the TRO by OHRA launching a $743,000 TV ad blitz to help Stephens’ supporters fend off primary challenges.
Also, this ongoing intraparty strife A. isn’t confined to just one chamber, and B. is resulting in legislative and real-world fallout.
After Senate Republicans recently passed a “surprise spending proposal,” allocating $1.4 billion for community projects across the state, the House is just, like, ignoring it.
Why though?
Because Senate President Matt Huffman is termed out of the upper chamber this year, he’s running for the state House, and he’s made no secret of his intention to challenge Stephens for the speakership next January, that’s why.
Consequently, Stephens and Huffman have been fighting about pretty much everything since last fall.
As one Democratic senator put it, “The House hates the Senate; the Senate hates the House.”
The Senate is also ignoring a House spending bill that passed in early February.
And many items in these spending bills are time sensitive — like projects to build schools.
But maybe things will smooth out a bit for Ohio Republicans after the primaries are behind them?
Or maybe they’ll get worse, I dunno.
While Democrats don’t have a meaningful shot at flipping the Ohio House any time soon, it’ll be super interesting to see how this GOP infighting impacts primary election outcomes – who will be the dominant faction next year, conservatives or ultra-MAGA-conservatives?
Also, maybe all this drama will give Democrats an opportunity to flip a couple of seats?
Eh, I’m not holding my breath, but hope springs and all that.
Welp!
That’s a wrap for this week.
As always, I appreciate you hanging in!
And I appreciate you.
So take care of yourself out there.
You’re important.
We need you.
Is the question who one could nominate who is a *currently-serving* legislative leader that could have a political style named after them?