Pain-capable abortion limit faces painful future

WASHINGTON—Congress will take a stance next week on whether federal law should protect unborn babies who feel pain.

On Tuesday, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., scheduled a floor vote for the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. If passed, the bill would outlaw abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy—where studies show children begin to feel pain.

The House passed similar legislation two years ago but it hit a roadblock in the Senate. Enough pro-life lawmakers sit in the House to pass it again next week, but its chances in the Senate have not improved. Even without support in the upper chamber, the bill’s backers say it’s worth pursuing.

“I welcome every member of the House and the Senate to unite together and say that when children can feel pain, when you can see their noses and ears, when you can hear their heartbeats and feel their movement—at the very least we can all agree these children should be protected,” McCarthy said at a press conference earlier this week.

McCarthy said he’s started courting senators and has seen some interest in taking up the bill if the House advances it. He told me he encountered no delay in scheduling a House vote: “It was regular order all the way through.”

Republicans outnumber Democrats in the Senate 52-48, well short of the 60 votes they would need to end debate and force floor action.

In 2015, pro-abortion Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine voted with Democrats to block the bill, and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, decided not to vote at all. Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia was the only Democrat to support the pro-life bill.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, told me she expects nothing has changed for Collins and Murkowski but insisted it’s important for constituents to see their representatives take a public stance on the issue.

Grassroots pro-life activists already are on the ground in states across the country canvassing for the bill, and Dannenfelser claims Democrats in red states will feel the pressure.

Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., claimed during her campaign in 2012 she opposed late-term abortion, but she voted against the pain-capable bill three years later.

“Maybe between then and now she has grown,” Dannenfelser said.

Regardless of the outcome, McCarthy said Congress should vote on the bill because it seeks to protect life.

Twenty states have passed similar laws to block late-term abortions. As prenatal care and medical technology continue to improve, many more babies are able to survive after being born close to the 20-week mark.

Delivered at exactly 20 weeks, Micah Pickering had eyes fused shut and brittle bones but he survived. His mother spent four months by his side in the neonatal intensive care unit.

Micah, now a healthy 5-year-old, joined his parents, McCarthy, and other pro-life advocates at a press conference this week announcing the vote. He offered a living example of the life the pain-capable bill seeks to protect.

GOP goes all in for tax reform

Republicans spent most of 2017 fighting over how to repeal and replace Obamacare. With that effort stalled indefinitely, GOP leaders only want to talk about one thing: tax reform.

On Wednesday, Americans got their closest look yet at what Trump-era tax reform would look like, and the proposal already has a much better outlook than healthcare.

Republican leaders in the House and Senate have been working with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and national economic adviser Gary Cohn on a tax reform plan for months. This week, they released a nine-page outline and pitched it to the country.

President Donald Trump served as the salesman, unveiling the proposal during a speech in Indiana on Wednesday.

“These tax cuts are significant,” Trump said. “There’s never been tax cuts like what we’re talking about.”

The summary report paints with broad strokes. The current tax system has seven individual tax brackets that range from 10 percent to 39.6 percent, based on income. Republicans want to reduce that to three brackets: 12 percent, 25 percent, and 35 percent.

The wealthiest Americans would pay 4.6 percent less tax and the poorest would have a 2 percent bump. But Republicans justify that by increasing the individual standard deduction from $6,350 to $12,000, or $24,000 for married couples.

“These changes simplify tax filing and effectively create a larger ‘zero tax bracket’ by eliminating taxes on the first $24,000 of income earned by a married couple and $12,000 earned by a single individual,” states the report.

Next, the framework proposes creating a maximum tax rate of 25 percent for small and family-owned businesses, while reducing the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent.

The proposal also would eliminate the estate tax—often called the “death tax.” Federal estate taxes start at 40 percent on individual estates larger than $5.49 million, or $11 million for married couples. But this tax affects few Americans. According to IRS data, only about 1-in-500 deaths result in any estate tax liability.

GOP lawmakers left Washington on Wednesday to huddle about the tax plan, and most liked what they saw—including party members who are usually difficult to please, namely, those in the House Freedom Caucus.

Shortly after the Wednesday retreat, the Freedom Caucus released a statement pledging support for the plan, a significant development since that same group of lawmakers gave Republican leaders fits over the healthcare effort earlier this year.

“#TaxReform GOP planning event was best and most collaborative session in 1 year here,” Freedom Caucus member Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, tweeted. “Expect a few changes, but bold, pro-growth, pro-family.”

But Republicans have yet to write the tax reform legislation. They also haven’t released some of the most crucial details, including what income levels fall into which tax bracket and how the GOP plans to make up lost revenue while cutting rates.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget predicted the plan could create a $2.2 trillion net cut in federal revenue. Some moderate Republicans have already stated they could not support a plan that would allow a $1.5 trillion cut or greater over the next decade. That’s a lot of math to figure out.

Lawmakers first have to write a budget resolution that would allow the subsequent tax legislation to pass in the Senate through reconciliation. Then, House and Senate committees can start drafting a detailed tax plan. —E.W.

The intractable filibuster

The Republican failure to coalesce around healthcare legislation this week prompted a familiar refrain: Eliminate the Senate filibuster.

President Donald Trump has been the filibuster’s strongest opponent in recent months because, according to him, arcane Senate rules are blocking his agenda.

“Get rid of Filibuster Rule!” the president tweeted Wednesday.

This week, I caught up with the filibuster’s second-biggest critic, Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz. Franks is the House sponsor of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which probably won’t get a Senate vote, thanks to the filibuster rule.

The Senate filibuster is not part of the U.S. Constitution, but it still weighs heavily on lawmakers. Senate rules make the upper chamber unique and allow the minority party an opportunity to influence legislation. Some Republicans fear ditching the filibuster rule would set bad precedent for the future, particularly if Democrats ever regain majority control. Historically, senators only deployed the filibuster about once a year. But since 1970, its use has exploded. From 1970 through 2016, lawmakers have used it to block legislation 1,700 times.

“The Senate rules have made it almost impossible for a unified Republican government to do anything of true Republican persuasion,” Franks told me. “The president seems to understand that.”

Republicans control the Senate and could end the filibuster rule if they wanted to, but they have shown little interest. In April, 61 senators (including 29 Republicans) signed a letter vowing to uphold the rule.

Franks finds such reticence unacceptable, particularly when it means his pro-life bill may never reach the Senate floor.

“It is going to be time for the senators to stand up and tell America that the United States Senate cannot protect pain-capable babies because their arcane rules are more important,” he told me. “If they can do that in good conscience, you might as well board the doors up on this place.” —E.W.

Refugee resettlement hits all-time low

President Donald Trump on Wednesday set U.S. refugee intake to its lowest level ever, dropping the cap to 45,000 for next year. By law, the president determines how many refugees can resettle in the United States. Resettlement agencies urged the Trump administration not to set the number below 75,000. President Barack Obama put the limit at 110,000 for 2017, but Trump changed that soon after taking office. The refugee cap has never dipped below 50,000. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are not happy with the new limit, and they lambasted the Trump administration for the way it handled the process.

Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said they didn’t have a meeting with the State Department until Wednesday afternoon, hours before the new limit was set. “It is simply unacceptable to read in the press that the administration had reached its decision on the refugee cap before the mandated meeting with Congress had even been scheduled,” they said in a statement. “Congress and the law require real engagement on this important subject. An eleventh-hour meeting to check a legal box is not sufficient.” —E.W.

Corker calls it quits

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., surprised his colleagues this week by announcing he will not seek reelection in 2018. In a statement released Tuesday, the 65-year-old senator said he never planned to serve more than two terms, and after much reflection he decided to stick to that plan. Corker joined the Senate in 2006 after serving four years as the mayor of Chattanooga, Tenn. He now leads the influential Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Corker has increasingly been at odds with President Donald Trump. The Tennessee lawmaker didn’t say that’s why he wants to leave Washington, but he hinted in his statement that his retirement ensures his independence: “I also believe the most important public service I have to offer our country could well occur over the next 15 months, and I want to be able to do that as thoughtfully and independently as I did the first 10 years and nine months of my Senate career.” Rumors are swirling about who would vie for Corker’s Senate seat. The senator mentioned former NFL and University of Tennessee quarterback Peyton Manning as a possible contender, but Manning quickly shot down that speculation. “I certainly have an interest in politics and in our country,” Manning told WGFX-FM Wednesday. “I just have zero interest in being a politician.” —E.W.