House Republican women ducking questions about what comes next after Rove v Wade dismantling

According to a report from the Washington Post, for the most part, House Republican women have little interest in 0speaking with them about what comes next for women in America now that the Supreme Court has effectively overturned Roe v. Wade.

During an appearance on CNN on Sunday morning, Gov. Kristi Noem (R-SD) danced around the issue of a ten-year-old rape victim in Ohio who is being denied an abortion and questions like that are beginning to dog female lawmakers as they make plans for Novembers's midterms.

According to the Post's Marianna Sotomayor, the offices of a substantial number of female Republicans didn't even bother to return her calls asking for comment.

With 32 Republican women already seated in the House, Sotomayor wrote, "... if Republicans retake the House in this year’s midterm elections, they will likely need the backing of a key group of lawmakers to enact any new antiabortion legislation: the women in the House Republican conference."

One female lawmaker, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) who has revealed that she was the victim of a sexual assault, was more than willing to address the post-Roe political atmosphere, stating, "I can imagine that in a Republican-controlled Congress you’ll see some guardrails put in, but I don’t think it would be an extremity. I think it would just be guardrails, making sure we have exceptions in there."

One House member admitted that she would rather see the states decide, with Sotomayor writing, "Asked whether she would support a federal ban on abortion, freshman Rep. Beth Van Duyne (R-Tex.) said it’s a decision that 'belongs in the states.' Pressed on whether she supports exceptions in the case of rape and incest, she again pointed to state lawmakers’ acting based on what their constituents say is the best course of action."

The Post report adds, "But, of the roughly dozen House Republican women who spoke to The Washington Post about current plans, few wanted to discuss the possible legislative implications of the recent Supreme Court decision. Nineteen offices did not respond to requests for interviews."

You can read more here.