Penna Dexter

A couple of weeks ago, Senator Lindsey Graham introduced a bill restricting abortion to the first 15 weeks of pregnancy. This action drew mixed reactions from pro-lifers. In an op-ed for Politico, Rich Lowry began by declaring: “Boy, did Lindsey Graham step in it.”

Mr. Lowry titled his piece: “In Defense of Lindsey Graham.”  In it, he explains why the senator was right to propose what amounts to “a consensus GOP position” on abortion. The House has effectively begged for a national response. Within weeks of the announcement of the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe, the House passed — for the second time — the Women’s Health Protection Act. If enacted, this law would go further than Roe in wiping out every state-level restriction on abortion, every conceivable limit.

Still many politically savvy pro-lifers wondered: why bring this up now with polls showing abortion is a political loser? And besides — shouldn’t abortion policy be left to the states?

Indeed, since May, when the opinion overturning Roe v. Wade was leaked to the press, pro-life politicians, journalists, and activists had been explaining that the decision would not immediately ban abortions. Instead, the end of Roe would mean that the issue of abortion — whether to allow it, limit it, or ban it — would be a state responsibility. As Rich Lowey points out, “It is there that opponents of abortion are most likely to actually pass restrictions.”

This national response does not preclude state action. Senator Graham says, “It allows states to do what they would choose to do. But at 15 weeks, we want to draw a line for America.”

While a 15-week ban “falls painfully short” — 95 percent of abortions are performed earlier in pregnancy — Mr. Lowrey says the GOP needs to “find an incrementalist position on abortion where it can plant its flag, and then focus its fire on the vulnerabilities of the other side.”

Pro-lifers must now walk through the door the Supreme Court opened.