Veteran state senator Merv Riepe came down with what he called “signer’s remorse” at the last minute. Although he was among the Republican lawmakers who had pushed the bill, he ultimately decided not to support it. And so he knocked her down. He had realized – he explained to the anger of his companions – that prohibiting abortion beyond six weeks of gestation was excessive, since at that time it is not easy for a woman to even know that she is pregnant.
The 80-year-old MP, a former manager at Ralston hospital, first tabled a compromise amendment that would have placed the new ban at 12 weeks and added any fetal abnormality incompatible with life to the list of exceptions. His co-religionists in the Chamber said no. He then warned them of the signals that voters across the country were sending since last June the Supreme Court annulled the right in question in general.
To illustrate the counterproductive effect of a resounding rejection of abortion after that controversial sentence, Riepe gave his own case as an example. If in the primaries held shortly before the sentence, in May, he prevailed against three other contenders with 45% of the votes and an advantage of 27 points over the second, in the legislative elections in November that difference was reduced to five points. And his defense of the veto on abortion had everything to do with it, he admitted… As in fact happened in the United States as a whole, where the analysis of the electoral results revealed the high price that the right wing paid for its commitment to restrict or veto a right defended by the majority of citizens (more than 60%, according to the latest polls).
“In an ideal world, all children would have the opportunity to live and prosper,†Riepe told the state Senate floor on Thursday. “However,” he said, “we must recognize that we do not live in a utopian society and we do face challenges that make it difficult to achieve that ideal.” Saying which, he abstained from his party project and caused it to decay. So for now, abortion in the state will remain legal up to 20 weeks.
The same thing that happened in Nebraska on the same Thursday, in essence, in South Carolina. There were three Republican senators who, joining their only two fellow Democrats in a 46-member chamber, revolted against a proposal by local Grand Old Party bosses to prevent a near-total ban on abortion. The exceptions would have been limited to cases of rape or incest, fatal anomalies confirmed by two doctors, and risk of death or serious illness for the pregnant woman.
The rebellion in the southern state took the turn of a gender conflict. Especially when Republican Sen. Sandy Senn accused her caucus chief, Shane Massey, of leading the state “off a cliff” over reproductive rights. And she added: “The only thing we can do when all of you men on the camera keep metaphorically slapping women on the abortion issue is to slap them back with our words.”
Currently, 14 states in the country have laws in force that prohibit or restrict the free interruption of pregnancy to the maximum. The Supreme Court ruling that annulled the right gave rise to a battery of state legislative projects. Not a few are pending judicial or political dispute. But the Republican party is increasingly pressured to advance its campaign on the matter. Now, the defeats conceded in Nebraska and South Carolina due to insubordination by some of their own may be a lesson they must study. There is a year and a half left for the final exam of this course. It will be on November 5, 2024, the day of the presidential elections.