This week, the House Freedom Caucus took an official
position to refuse backing spending bills that continue any funding to Planned
Parenthood, an organization providing women’s health services, including—a
politically polarizing topic—abortions.
The caucus, a conservative group of GOP House representatives, has
continued to grow in membership and currently boasts more than 42 members (Fuller
2015). The increasing support for
the HFC, when combined with its commitment to defund Planned Parenthood, could
create issues in the House if it tries to pass a CR (continuing resolution) to
keep the government funded as it has been over the past year. With so many Republicans likely to vote
against such a resolution because it would mean continuing the funding of
Planned Parenthood, the GOP will likely need support from Democrats to achieve
this goal (Fuller 2015). And,
considering that the government’s fiscal year ends September 30th,
this is an immediate issue in Congress.
There are a few interesting aspects of this issue that I will
explore a bit further. First,
Senators have also been speaking up in favor of defunding Planned
Parenthood—notably Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rand Paul (R-KY)—but the GOP leadership
(in both the House and Senate) has been advising that they concede on the issue
(McCrimmon & Hallerman 2015).
Yet, despite the party leaders’ discouragement, neither Paul nor Cruz
show any signs of backing down.
The situation brings to mind first the concept the two Congresses: these
Senators are very publically advertising their opposition to potential
provisions in lawmaking, thus blending both their appeal to their constituents
with their work as lawmakers. This
is important when considering that both of these Senators are also 2016
Presidential candidates who are actively campaigning. Which constituents are actually the targets of this
publicization? While ordinarily
Senators would be trying to continue to woo the constituents of their own
districts as a means to gaining reelection (which I’m sure is still working
here, considering Paul and Cruz both hail from conservative states), it seems
that they are now focused more on the nationwide pool of pro-life
conservatives. This, in turn,
highlights the rise of partisan politics in Congress since the 1960s/70s: the
decision of whether or not to support Planned Parenthood, rooted in the debate
over abortion rights, largely splits along party lines. Even the notion that House Republicans
must now concern themselves with getting Democrats on board with a potential CR,
to make up for the likely loss of votes from members of the HFC, reveals the
partisan state of Congress. It
takes added effort to bridge the divide between Republicans and Democrats, a
feat far more difficult than it would likely have been fifty years ago.
Lastly, given that President Obama is expected to veto any
bills that defund Planned Parenthood, Jeff Sessions (R-AL) is quoted saying the
following: “If you acquiesce and acknowledge the president is correct then
Congress has no power whatsoever over the purse” (Dennis 2015). This is a significant thought because
it brings to light the delicate distribution of powers of the executive and
legislative branches—while Congress is tasked with handling budgets and
finance, the President’s veto power gives him some input. While Sessions seems to interpret the
latter as an infringement on Congress’ powers, it is also a means of checking
the power of Congress. Ultimately, although the President’s veto of a bill to
defund PP would be within his powers as granted under the Constitution, it is
interesting that members of the opposing party in Congress see this action as
an attempt to strip them of their own powers.
Sources:
Fuller, Matt. 10 September 2015. “Freedom
Caucus to Oppose Any Spending Bill With Planned Parenthood Money.” Roll Call.
Dennis, Steven. 10 September 2015. “Cornyn
Rejects House Freedom Caucus Shutdown Threat Over Planned Parenthood.” Roll
Call.
McCrimmon, Ryan and Tamar Hallerman. 10 September 2015. “Cruz and Paul Rally Against Planned Parenthood
Funding.” Roll Call.
3 comments:
First of all, I thought you were spot on with your analysis of the two Congresses in relation to the actions of Senator Cruz and Paul. This is an issue that intricately plays a role in National government and the nation as a constituency. In refusing to pass a budget that doesn't defund Planned Parenthood, Cruz and Paul might be appealing to their home state constituencies, but more likely they are targeting pro-life voters that will rally support for the two in the Republican race for the Presidency. In this case, one responsibility of lawmakers outweighs the other. But as a growing group of lawmakers refuse to support a budget that funds Planned Parenthood the government is facing another shutdown. Senator Cruz and Senator Paul are willing to sacrifice the functionality of the government in order to stand by their own pro-life ideology as well as that of their national constituencies. What do you think this means for Senators and Representatives in terms of their two roles in Congress? Is it possible to constantly meet both responsibilities. How can one work as a lawmaker if it goes against the wants of their constituency? These are questions that apply in this situation of a possible defunding of Planned Parenthood or a shutdown of government as a result, but they also apply more broadly to all issues that face Congress.
What a fantastic analysis! The use of the two Congresses in regards to the Senators and highlighting the strain between the legislative branch and the executive branch were well explored. Over the years, the executive has become the more propionate branch for getting stuff done in U.S. President Obama is most likely going to veto any bills regarding defunding Planned Parenthood. The potential and threat of a government shutdown over something that's completely within the executive's powers is honestly, a bit laughable. I'm sure that the American public would become even more dissatisfied with Congress if they were to do this again. What do you think is going to happen to Congress after this happens? What would this reveal about Congress? What does Congress's current functionality reveal about it? These are definitely interesting questions to think about in regards to the strained relationship between the legislative and executive branches and the two Congresses in general.
Not only is it possible that Ted Cruz and Rand Paul are using this situation to “woo the constituents of their own districts” as well as impress the pro-life conservatives, but they are also getting quite a lot of media attention regarding the issue. And if there is one thing that we have learned from the presidential election so far it is that all media (good or bad) is useful in a campaign- as seen by the high ratings Donald Trump has obtained. Despite the advice that Cruz and Paul have received on conceding on the issue, they continue to stand up for what they believe is in their best interest- whether it be because they wish to impress a certain group of people, because they truly believe in the cause they are fighting for, or it puts their names out there as contenders for the presidential election.
Recognizing that Obama would veto a bill that defunded Planned Parenthood should encourage those fighting it to compromise more than they originally intended. Stubbornness only prolongs the process (which I suppose presidential candidates could use to their public advantage). While I understand how members of the opposing party could accuse the vetoing of a bill as a hindrance on their own powers (making them settle on things they would not originally in order to please one part of government), I believe that the system of checks and balances works in the way that it should- encouraging all members of government to communicate and compromise on opinions regarding all issues.
Post a Comment