By
NBC News noted this week that Republicans were already struggling to coalesce around a message on abortion rights ahead of the 2024 elections, but “a recent Alabama Supreme Court decision finding that embryos created through in vitro fertilization are considered children has put them in a new bind.”
Politico had a related report, adding, “The long tail of the Dobbs ruling just keeps whipping Republicans with thorny political consequences.”
For some, however, the challenge is especially acute. Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, for example, is auditioning to be Donald Trump’s running mate, and he’s hit the campaign trail in support of the former president. At his latest press conference, the Republican was asked whether he agreed with the Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling.
“Well, I haven’t studied the issue,” the senator replied.
To be sure, this is a standard dodge for any politician. Scott is no doubt aware of how controversial the decision in Alabama is, but he doesn’t want to alienate those in the GOP base who agree with it. Simply feigning ignorance was the easy call.
But the idea that the senator hasn’t “studied the issue” is problematic.
If Scott was arguing that he hasn’t studied the Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling, that’s understandable, though he wouldn’t have to become an expert in the case to say whether or not he agrees with a court concluding that frozen embryos are people.
But if the Republican was suggesting he hasn’t studied the broader issue, there’s some compelling evidence to the contrary. In fact, as recently as 2021, several GOP senators co-sponsored a federal “personhood” bill — Sen. Rand Paul’s “Life at Conception Act” — which was designed to grant personhood rights at the moment of conception.
The legislation, which did not receive a vote and was never seriously considered, faced ample opposition, including from those who raised an obvious point: The consequences of such a law would, among other things, effectively ban in vitro fertilization.
If Tim Scott hasn’t “studied the issue,” why did he co-sponsor federal legislation that would’ve had the same effects as the Alabama Supreme Court ruling that he doesn’t want to talk about?