Remember When Sam Bell Defeated Paul Jabour Over His Pro-Choice Bona Fides?
How Times Change!
Back in 2018, the Rhode Island Progressive Democrats decided to make their move during the midterms and put forward a whole slate to oust recalcitrant incumbents, many of whom had pretty terrible voting records in terms of reproductive rights and marriage equality. But Sen. Paul Jabour (Dist. 5-Providence), by contrast, actually had a decent record in terms of judicial reform and the race seemed pretty tight.
Then came the final debate of the campaign. In the span of ten seconds, Jabour put his foot in his mouth and ended his political career.
The question was raised about how the candidates would respond to the revocation of reproductive rights via the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v Wade, which legalized abortion nationally in 1973. Recall that this was three months after Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, the longtime swing vote for all cases involving reproductive healthcare, had announced his retirement and eventually ceded his seat to Brett Kavanaugh, who in turn voted to overturn Roe in 2022.
Jabour responded that he doubted Roe would be overturned. The contender, Progressive Democrats then-ringleader Sam Bell, made a bit of hay about the issue and his opponent’s response. People who I talked with said that the outrage at Jabour’s response was tangible, as if all the air went out of the room due to the astonishment’s intensity. How could Jabour have possibly flubbed that up?
Ultimate vote total for September 12, 2018 Democratic Primary: 3,710
Sam Bell: 1,639
Paul Jabour: 1,463
Nicholas Autiello: 608
And then the other shoe dropped:
In spite of the full-court mobilization of pro-choice and gun control activists like The Womxn Project (TWP), despite living in a District that arguably elected him precisely because of this issue, Sam Bell figured out who butters his bread. Not only did he vote Yea for the judicial confirmation of Michael McCaffrey, he delivered a gushing speech that was underwritten with a small hint of scolding. “At a certain point, I think we have to give people credit for changing,” he said.
Unless His Eminence is embracing the Royal “We” for pronouns, who exactly does Sen. Bell think he is talking to in a plural form? Does anyone else have concerns about public officials referring to themselves with the first person plural pronoun like that?
Over more than a decade, Sam Bell and his likeminded ilk have played fast-and-quick in the name of cheap political gimmicks and gains like this. The condescension and audacity of Bell’s tone, shoo-shoo-ing all those pesky womenfolk, reeks to the heavens.
For a long time now, many non-Providence residents have taken one look at Sam Bell’s schtick and said “Is this guy serious?”
Apparently not…
Sam Zurier not only did not offer a gushing speech for his former State Senate colleague, he was one of the few who voted Nay on McCaffrey’s confirmation.
What does it say when you spend over a decade calling yourself the Lord of Ten Thousand Progressive Years, the Rhode Island Democratic Party’s Kwisatz Haderach, and end up to the right of Sen. Zurier on a judicial vote where reproductive freedom (of all things) is such a big issue?
It means Hallmark cards are in order. “Congratulations, you truly are a Rhode Island Democrat!”
I honestly understand there is a very slim likelihood that now-Judge McCaffrey will ever hear a case seeking to overturn the Rhode Island State Constitutional protection of reproductive rights. The job is pretty clearly meant for him to string out the years until he can retire with a state pension.
But then again, that probably is along the lines of what Paul Jabour was thinking when he performed that public abortion on his political career.
A lot of liberal and progressive jurists and policymakers like Jabour (and remember, as a lawyer and politician, he was both whilst serving in office) probably thought Justice Kennedy only decided to retire because Trump had suckered convinced him that precedents like Roe would not be overturned on his watch. In basic logical terms, no Supreme Court Justice would willingly turn their seat over to someone they absolutely knew would overturn their legacy, right? Why spend decades on the bench, reach the summit of your vocation as a jurist, dedicate years to authoring some of the most important Court decisions of the era, just to watch your successor dismantle that legacy in the span of five years?
Is it possible to imagine Judge McCaffrey being on the bench with a case related to parental consent/disclosure for reproductive or gender-confirming healthcare rights? The latter is actually a hot-button issue for transphobic voters and the former is historically one of the initial wedges used to erode unlimited reproductive healthcare access, even when confronted with instances of incest or rape. The anti-choice lobby has a well-known playbook they will seek to replicate locally, something not worth underestimating.
And as for Sam Bell?
Welcome to holding your elected officials accountable for their vote!