Abortion, Every Day (4.9.24)

Arizona, Florida & 2024

Click to skip ahead: More on Trump’s abortion announcement and Biden’s response in 2024. In the States, news from Arizona, Florida, Virginia and more. Conservative Language Watch looks at the fight over ‘healthcare provider’ in Florida. In the Nation, GOP leaders on Trump’s announcement and the latest on the EMTALA case. In Ballot Measure Updates, some news on Montana and Ohio.

---

2024

If you missed Donald Trump’s abortion ‘announcement’ yesterday, the short version is that he’s trying to wash his hands of the issue by saying abortion should be up to the states. He knows abortion is a loser for the GOP—and if there’s anything Trump hates, it’s losing.

---

If you didn’t get a chance to read it, here’s my analysis from yesterday:

Trump's Abortion Announcement

---

CNN notes that the disgraced former president has been waffling behind the scenes for months, and The Washington Post reports that anti-abortion advisors like Kellyanne Conway and Sen. Lindsey Graham tried to talk Trump out of yesterday’s announcement.

They not only told him that his stance meant he’d be supporting the states that allow ‘abortions up until birth’, but that he’d also be implicitly supporting the states whose bans he thinks are too restrictive—like Florida’s and Arizona’s.

Indeed, a Biden campaign spokesperson didn’t waste any time before tweeting that Trump was “endorsing every single abortion ban in the states, including abortion bans with no exceptions…and he’s bragging about his role in creating this hellscape.”

The response from anti-abortion groups and other Republicans has been mixed. While groups like Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America made clear that they’re focused on defeating President Joe Biden, they also took a couple of hits at Trump. SBA president Marjorie Dannenfelser, for example, said the group is “deeply disappointed.” Sen. Lindsey Graham also spoke up, saying he “respectfully” disagrees and that he’s going to push ahead with federal legislation. (Because Trump takes criticism so well, he lashed out at the pair in a series of posts on Truth Social.)

Former vice president Mike Pence, who has said he’s not endorsing Trump, called Trump’s stance a “slap in the face to millions of pro-life Americans.”

Others, however, aren’t so worried. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, for example, told The Washington Post that he was confident that Trump would still sign a federal ban: “I take the president’s statement with a comma, not a period.”

And POLITICO spoke to anti-abortion activists that said they didn’t view his announcement “as an indication that he has ruled out using administrative levers to curb abortion during his second term, such as through enforcement of the federal Comstock Act.”

Republicans–especially those running this November—were secretly (and sometimes not-so-secretly) pleased with Trump’s abortion stance. Axios reports that one swing-district House Republican said it was “maybe the most helpful thing he's done in a while.”

Related: NBC News, Axios, WaPo and CNN have all published timelines of Trump’s abortion position. It’s sort of funny, because we all know that he doesn’t give a shit about the issue. Like everything else, Trump just says what’s politically useful on abortion at any given time. That’s the point of the timelines, of course, but I wish they would just say that outright.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration is still going all in on abortion rights—tying Trump to what’s happening in Florida, and using his announcement as an opportunity to remind voters that the post-Roe horror show is all thanks to the former president.

Nowhere was this more evident than in the latest Biden-Harris campaign ad featuring Amanda Zurawski, who nearly died of sepsis in Texas after being denied an abortion. I’ve seen a lot of powerful ads about abortion in the last months, but this one absolutely blew me away.

In the States

The big state news today, of course, is that Arizona’s Supreme Court ruled to allow the enforcement of an 1864 total abortion ban—a law that was written before women had the right to vote, and before Arizona was even a state. Read my analysis here:

Breaking: Arizona to Enforce 1864 Ban

Meanwhile, Florida abortion rights activists and clinics are preparing for the 6-week ban to take effect, a law that they say is going to cause a public health crisis. Laura Goodhue of Planned Parenthood of South, East and North Florida says, “Unfortunately, they’re still going to be a lot of people who need abortion care after six weeks, which is before most people even know that they’re pregnant.” (Meanwhile, Florida House Speaker Rep. Paul Renner continues to call the 6-week ban a ‘compromise’.)

Also out of Florida: A reproductive rights expert tells WUSF that the state may see patients heading to Latin America for abortion care because the state has a population of people with connections and cultural roots in the region.

In Virginia, Gov. Glenn Youngkin signed some middle-of-the-night vetoes to prevent abortion protections from going into effect—including a bill that would have prohibited the extradition of abortion providers and patients to states where ending a pregnancy is illegal. Here’s Democratic Sen. Barbara Favola, who introduced the legislation:

“You can imagine a woman who had to cobble together money to leave her state and then take time off from work, come to Virginia alone, scared. We should be able to provide that woman the peace of mind that she won't be extradited.” 

Shield laws, passed in multiple states, have become a vital part of abortion care post-Roe—they allow providers in pro-choice states to ship abortion medication without fear of extradition or prosecution. (The New York Times published a terrific piece on these laws and the doctors using them back in February.)

But wait, that’s not all! Let’s look at the other ‘pro-life’ moves Youngkin made. Not only did the Republican governor veto paid family medical leave for Virginians, he ended funding for abortions due to fatal fetal abnormality. Jamie Lockhart, executive director of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia said, “This is just extremely cruel and discriminatory.”

As you know, anti-choice activists have been honing in on nonviable pregnancies—working to stop exceptions for lethal abnormalities and implementing policies that would pressure or force women to carry doomed pregnancies to term.

Quick hits:

• Private companies say Idaho’s abortion ban is bad for business;

• Slate gets into the legal nitty gritty of the religious exemptions ruling in Indiana;

• More on the failed effort to enshrine abortion rights in the Maine constitution;

• New Jersey is advancing legislation to protect abortion medication;

• And North Dakota’s Republican delegates rejected a resolution this week pushing for the criminalization of abortion patients, which I guess we’re supposed to be grateful for?

Conservative Language Watch

As Florida voters get closer to weighing in on a pro-choice ballot measure, a new talking point is making the rounds: talking about the definition of ‘healthcare provider’ in the proposed amendment.

Now, this is something several justices on the Florida Supreme Court flagged in their ruling last week. They wrote, “‘health’ and ‘healthcare provider’ have obviously broad and undefined boundaries which are seemingly unlimited without the benefit of a technical, legal analysis.”

Anti-abortion lawmakers and activists clearly got the memo, and are running with it. House Speaker Paul Renner, for example, said in an interview that ‘healthcare provider’ isn’t properly defined in the ballot measure:

“Is that a receptionist at the abortion clinic? Is that a tattoo artist? It doesn't say. It's certainly not a physician, as other amendments in other states have provided. So you're not even talking to a doctor to make that determination on what could be something that's risky to the mother at a late stage in pregnancy.”

Mat Staver, founder of the conservative legal organization/hate group Liberty Counsel, said something virtually identical this week:

“What the amendment’s ballot summary doesn’t say is that the term ‘health care provider,’ the person who could prescribe a post-viability abortion for ‘health’ reasons, includes nearly 60 professions, including tattoo artists and massage therapists.”

So I guess we know what anti-choice campaign ads are going to look like in Florida: Images of a huge, scary tattoo artist and a voice over that says, “This is who will be able to give your child an abortion under Amendment 4.” I’m calling it right now.

In the Nation

Senate Republican campaign chief Steve Daines spoke to the conservative publication the National Review about Trump’s abortion announcement, and how he wants to convince GOP candidates to “follow Trump’s lead” in stating their abortion positions outright. “It’s important that voters know where the candidates stand, and to not run away from the issue,” Daines said. (I’d argue that Trump’s announcement was actually very much running away from the issue, but sure.)

The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) has had their work cut out for them recently, as candidates struggle to come with an abortion message that resonates with voters—many of whom are furious over abortion bans.

Daines says that Republican candidates have to “paint the contrast between placing reasonable limits on late-term abortions with exceptions for rape, incest, and life and the mother” and Democrats’ supposedly-extremist ‘abortion til birth’ position. That advice isn’t a surprise, but it also hasn’t worked. American’st aren’t buying it.

Vox has a good explainer up today about the new abortion case headed to the Supreme Court. Moyle v. the United States has to do with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires hospitals to give life-saving and stabilizing emergency care, including abortions. The short version is that Republicans don’t want the federal government forcing them to save women’s lives with abortions, the longer legal version is a bit more complicated.

Finally, SBA president Marjorie Dannenfelser is doing the rounds on conservative media talking about why she’s disappointed with Trump’s abortion stance. She told Fox News this week, “where you live shouldn’t determine whether you live,” which really could be a pro-choice mantra considering the nightmare stories coming out of states with abortion bans.

Quick hits:

• Ms. magazine looks at the Republican AGs attacking abortion rights;

• ELLE magazine asks whether abortion is a national security issue;

• The Grio on abortion criminalization;

• And The Conversation on how fetal personhood laws could could nullify a pregnant patient’s wishes for end-of-life care.

Ballot Measure Updates

It looks like Montana’s Secretary of State finally adhered to the state Supreme Court’s order to allow a pro-choice measure to move forward. That means abortion rights advocates in the state will be able to start collecting signatures for their proposed amendment.

The coalition behind the amendment, Montanans Securing Reproductive Rights, says, “Montana voters deserve to make their voices heard on this critical issue, and today marks an important step in moving forward.”

As has been the case pretty much anywhere there’s been a pro-choice measure, Republicans in Montana have been trying to delay or stop the amendment from getting anywhere near voters. And while abortion is legal in Montana—and protected in the state constitution—Republicans in the state have been working overtime to strip away access any way they can. So pro-choice activists are hoping an extra lawyer of protection will help stave off any substantive restrictions.

Lawsuits continue on in Ohio to repeal the state’s abortion ban and restrictions. In the wake of Issue 1, which enshrined abortion rights in the state constitution, pro-choice groups are working to make sure that Ohio’s legislation adheres to the new amendment.

That hasn’t stopped Republicans from trying to pass restrictions regardless—like this bill that would punish local governments that support abortion directly or indirectly, “including travel and donations to entities that support, promote, or provide abortion.” (They’re always trying to find ways to target abortion funds!) Any money that’s diverted from local governments would go to crisis pregnancy centers.