Kamala Harris to propose federal restrictions on state anti-abortion laws
As new laws restricting abortion in Southern and Midwestern states have put abortion back in the national spotlight, Kamala Harris is proposing a new plan that would use the power of the federal government to make it harder for states to limit abortion rights.
Her proposal, which the California senator and presidential hopeful will present at a nationally televised town hall on MSNBC Tuesday night, would require states and localities with a history of anti-abortion legislation to get clearance from the federal Department of Justice before any new abortion laws or regulations go into effect.
States would be subject to the requirement if they have a history of passing laws that were found to have violated the Roe v. Wade decision in the preceding 25 years, according to a campaign official. It would shift the burden to the states to prove to the federal government that any new policy doesn’t go against the decision.
The requirement would mirror the Voting Rights Act, which for decades required a group of mostly Southern states and counties to get federal approval before enacting any changes to election law. Dozens of state and local election law changes were blocked under the Voting Rights Act after the Department of Justice found that they violated the law.
Under Harris’ plan, the DOJ would be required to review abortion laws and make public determinations on them, and health care providers would be able to challenge DOJ approval of state law in federal court, in order to prevent future presidential administrations from watering down the requirements.
Harris’ plan would require Congressional approval — for example, in the form of an Abortion Rights Act. It would be exceedingly unlikely to pass the Republican-controlled Senate.
The plan could also face questions about its constitutionality. In 2013, the Supreme Court struck down key parts of the Voting Rights Act, concluding that it exceeded Congress’ power over the states — a decision met with condemnation by Harris and many other Democratic officials. A slim majority of the justices concluded that the act’s reliance on decades-old violations of voting rights to justify restrictions on specific states was unconstitutional. But they did not rule on the requirement itself, which is known as preclearance.
Harris’ proposal comes in the wake of states like Alabama, Georgia and Ohio passing laws in recent weeks that would be some of the strongest abortion bans in the country if they went into effect. Many legal observers see them as a legal strategy pushing for the Supreme Court’s new conservative majority to overrule Roe v. Wade.