Elon Musk Gave $20 Million to Misleading Anti-Abortion Group

12.6.24

Click to skip ahead: In the States, news from Oklahoma, Idaho, Texas, and New Hampshire. Mortality Crisis digs into Texas while Stats & Studies takes a critical look at an Indiana survey. In the Nation, a look at two terrible men. Ballot Measures details the attacks against Missouri’s Amendment 3, a portent of things to come across the country.

---

In the States

Oklahoma Republicans are trying to revive a law that would make it harder for doctors to give women life-saving care. House Bill 1008, introduced by Rep. Jim Olsen, would make providing an abortion a felony and mandate that doctors “prioritize preserving both the life of the pregnant woman and the life of the baby.”

We’ve seen what that looks like in practice—it could mean anything from delaying vital care to forcing women into c-sections rather than safer and easier abortions.

The bill is a slightly edited version of another law that was passed in 2022 and later struck down by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. That version of the legislation mandated that women’s lives only be saved in a “medical emergency.” Thankfully, the Court ruled that doctors didn’t need to wait for an emergency to give patients an abortion to protect their life.

As you may know, Oklahoma has been leading the charge on anti-abortion policies—both proposed and passed—so I’ll be paying close attention to the state in the coming months.

Meanwhile, we got a second federal ruling on an Idaho abortion law. Just a few days after the Ninth Circuit allowed Idaho to enforce parts of its so-called ‘abortion trafficking’ law, the same appeals court ruled that Republican Attorney General Raúl Labrador can’t prosecute doctors who refer patients out of state for an abortion. (The fact that this is even a conversation is terrifying.)

Some background: In an April 2023 letter to Republican Rep. Brent Crane, Labrador wrote that the state’s law “prohibits an Idaho medical provider from either referring a woman across state lines to access abortion services or prescribing abortion pills for the woman to pick up across state lines.”

Doctors sued over the guidance, and the AG tried to soften his statement in response—but he didn’t disavow it. And when a judge blocked Labrador from prosecuting doctors who refer patients for out-of-state abortions, he appealed the injunction. In other words, he wanted the option to target providers who helped people get care outside of Idaho.

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling here, like their decision over Idaho’s ‘abortion trafficking’ law, was centered around free speech. The judges found that the doctors suing over Labrador’s guidance “established a likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment claim.”

Labrador’s office says that they’re considering appealing once again. It’s almost as if he’s desperate to target doctors!

For more on both rulings, listen to yesterday’s episode of the “Idaho Matters” podcast from Boise State Public Radio (embedded below).

City officials in San Antonio, Texas want to put funding for out-of-state abortion travel back into their reproductive justice fund. The city council had earmarked $500,000 to help abortion-seekers, but after an anti-abortion backlash decided to put the money towards initiatives for birth control and sex education. Since then, councilmembers have signed a memo advocating for another $100,000 to be spent on logistical support (like travel and lodging) for those seeking out-of-state care.

From councilmember Melissa Cabello Havrda:

“San Antonio took an important step forward with the passage of the Reproductive Justice Fund, but we still have more work to do. While I’m encouraged by the progress, I know the fight for comprehensive reproductive health care, including support for abortion travel, is far from over.”

As I’ve noted previously, local efforts to protect abortion rights have become increasingly important—especially as anti-abortion activists hone in on local fights themselves.

Finally, I’m glad to see that a few media outlets have picked up on the fact that New Hampshire Republicans are proposing an ‘abortion trafficking’ bill—with identical language to Idaho’s law that prohibits the “harboring, transporting or recruiting” of a minor for the purpose of getting an abortion. In the wake of Abortion, Every Day’s coverage earlier this week, both Meidas News and Jezebel have published articles about the legislation.

This is exactly why I publish the newsletter—the hope is to find things others don’t notice, contextualize it, and make sure it gets national media attention. That’s also why it’s so important to support independent feminist media. Hint, hint.

Quick hits:

• How a clinic on the Missouri-Kansas border is handling the shifting abortion rights landscape;

• More out-of-state patients are traveling to Colorado for abortions;

• WyoFile talks to Wellspring Health Access about the positive court ruling in Wyoming;

• And a former Florida state senator is calling on the legislature to repeal the state’s 6-week abortion ban.

Mortality Crisis

Let’s talk about the latest in the attacks on maternal death data. Last week, Texas’ maternal mortality board announced that it wouldn’t be analyzing data from 2022 and 2023, the first two years after the state enacted a total abortion ban. (The news came soon after ProPublica published multiple stories of Texas women being killed by the state’s abortion ban.)

Yesterday, Austin American-Statesman columnist Bridget Grumet pointed out something else vital: the reports that the committee will be issuing won’t be complete.

“[G]oing forward, the committee will no longer review all cases of maternal complications and deaths, but a representative sample….instead of finding ways to examine the full impact—by bringing more researchers on board, for instance—Texas is paring back its reviews.”

As Grumet notes, you would think that state leaders would want more of this work—not less. But in the face of national backlash, Texas politicians and committee members insist that the decision to forgo analyzing perhaps the most important years in maternal mortality data has nothing to do with politics.

Committee chair and OBGYN Dr. Carla Ortique said that skipping those two years was a “coincidence.” And Chris Van Deusen from the state health department said the same, telling the Houston Chronicle, “Nobody tried to steer anything in this direction.”

But that’s hard to believe, especially given the appointment of anti-abortion extremist Ingrid Skop to the committee. Skewing and hiding data is already playing a huge role in anti-abortion strategy, and we can expect to see a lot more of it.

Related: While Texas’ maternal mortality committee scales back its reporting and women are killed by abortion bans, OBGYNs and other reproductive health care providers are leaving the state. If you missed The New Yorker’s piece on “The Texas OBGYN Exodus,” you should read it today. Reporter Stephania Taladrid spoke to the Texas Standard about her investigation, sharing how the law is impacting doctors’ ability to their job.

Consider, for example, that one provider relayed how the state’s ‘bounty hunter’ mandate—which allows citizens to sue those suspected of “aiding and abetting an abortion” with the promise of a $10,000 reward—has resulted in nurses threatening him for ending the pregnancies of women whose lives were at risk. Nightmare.

Stats & Studies

A bit of a complaint in this section today: Ball State University’s 2024 Hoosier Survey is out this week, tracking where Indiana voters are at on vital political issues. Unsurprisingly, Hoosiers want abortion to be legal; the survey found, for example, that 66% of voters support abortion during the first trimester.

But that’s actually the wrong way to ask people about their support for abortion rights. I’ve written about this many, many times before, but it really is quite important. Too many surveys and polls ask voters when they believe abortion should be restricted rather than if they believe abortion should be restricted. By doing so, pollsters are relying on Republican framing—framing that presupposes Americans will want some kind of abortion restriction.

But when polls ask voters whether or not they want the government to regulate abortion at all, the answer is overwhelming: 81% of Americans don’t want the government involved in abortion at all.

So when we see polls like this latest one out of Indiana, it gives folks the wrong impression about how voters really feel about abortion. In turn, that gives Republicans ammunition to pretend as if the anti-abortion policies they’re passing aren’t so far away from what voters actually want.

It doesn’t help, either, when publications neglect to mention just how overwhelming support for abortion rights is. Take this section in the IndyStar’s coverage of the poll:

“The 2024 Hoosier Survey found that more than 80% of respondents believe abortion should be legal when there are threats to the mother’s life, if rape or incest caused the pregnancy or if there is a lethal fetal anomaly. That support reflects Indiana’s near-total abortion ban that was signed into law in 2022 and went into effect last year.” (Emphasis mine)

Sorry, but the idea that this poll or any other supports the state’s near-total ban is absurd–even if you’re just talking about so-called exceptions.

---

For a deep dive on how Americans really feel about abortion read below:

New Poll: Americans Support Abortion Throughout Pregnancy

---

In the Nation

Do you remember how Republicans created a super PAC invoking Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s name to fool voters into thinking that Donald Trump supported abortion rights? I sure do! Well, it turns out RBG PAC was funded entirely by Elon Musk.

The billionaire fuckboy gave $20 million to the group as part of the quarter billion he spent to help elect Trump—and that $20 million was the only funding that RBG PAC pulled in.

The group released a series of absolutely shameless ads that paint Trump as pro-choice and insist he wouldn’t sign a federal abortion ban. One ad, for example, featured a woman saying she cares about the “freedom to choose” and that Trump does too. RBG PAC also used Ginsburg’s name and image in their branding; their Twitter bio, for example, reads: “RBG believed abortion laws should be decided by the states, not the federal gov't. Trump also doesn't support a federal abortion ban. Great minds think alike.”

As you can imagine, Ginsburg’s family was not exactly thrilled. Her granddaughter (and abortion rights lawyer) Clara Spera called it “nothing short of appalling.”

Speaking of the world’s worst men, I’ve tried to avoid writing about Trump’s defense secretary pick Pete Hegseth, but this is getting ridiculous. We already knew that Republicans don’t find rape, sexual abuse or misogyny to be disqualifying factors in political leaders—but to hear them call the allegations against Hegseth a “side issue” is just beyond the pale.

Rep. Chip Roy said, “You know look, we’ve all had some indiscretions in our past and things like that, every human has.” And here’s what Sen. Cynthia Lummis told NBC News:

“Again, they’re throwing disparaging remarks at someone who has earned a great deal of credibility. Are soldiers sometimes wild childs? Yeah, that can happen.”

Apparently ‘boys will be boys,’ even when they’re grown men! Remember, this is a man whose own mother called “an abuser of women.” Mother Jones has a full list of the allegations against Hegseth if you can stomach it.

Quick hits:

• The Associated Press explains what maternal mortality committees do, and why there’s controversy surrounding certain state committees;

• NPR on “microfeminism;”

• The Los Angeles Times with a call for Democrats to repeal the Comstock Act;

• And The Guardian on how Trump’s election and the climate crisis is causing Americans to rethink having children.

Ballot Measures

Missouri Amendment 3 went into effect today, protecting abortion rights in the state constitution. But that doesn’t mean that abortion patients can get care quite yet. Remember, the state’s ban isn’t automatically repealed; pro-choice activists are suing to overturn it.

Abortion providers were hoping that Jackson County Circuit Judge Jerri Zhang would issue a ruling today blocking the ban while that legal challenge makes its way through the courts. But the ruling didn’t come, and providers—along with their patients—have been left waiting.

Kansas City NPR reports that while Planned Parenthood clinics had originally planned on starting take appointments for abortion medication today, they’ve announced that they’re not scheduling anything until they hear back from the judge.

In the meantime, the organization says they have staff ready to start seeing patients in Kansas City, St. Louis and Columbia, and that they’re ensuring clinics are stocked with abortion medication.

And even though voters passed Amendment 3 a few weeks ago, Missouri Republicans are doing anything they can to restrict abortion rights anyway. Their argument is that while they can’t ban abortion outright, some restrictions are still constitutional. And as I reported earlier this week, the state’s GOP leadership is relying heavily on the idea that most abortions are ‘coerced’ in order to push through hurdles to care that they’re framing as protections.

Solicitor General Josh Divine, for example, claimed this week that the reason no individual women are listed as plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging the state’s ban is because women don’t really want abortions once they’re given information about what abortions really are. (I will never get over the obnoxious and infantilizing argument that women don’t really understand that abortions end a pregnancy, and that the state needs to explain it to them.) From Divine:

“It’s against their moral beliefs. But they’re being pressured, often by an abusive partner, by parents, things of that nature, so what we’re trying to do is we’re trying to create a situation where those women can in fact make the choice that they want to do, and we know most of the time that’s childbirth.”

I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it a thousand more times if I need to: We’re going to see language about ‘coercion’ and this lie that most women are pressured into abortions everywhere. Make sure you’re keeping an eye out.

Missouri isn’t the only state where abortion rights activists are suing to repeal a ban. Now that Arizona voters have passed Proposition 139, enshrining abortion rights in the state constitution, pro-choicers are suing to overturn the state’s 15-week ban.

The good news here is that Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs and Attorney General Kris Mayes have made clear that they won’t prosecute doctors who provide abortions after 15 weeks as the legal challenge makes its way through the courts—freeing up providers to start giving care now.

Gov. Hobbs said in a statement, “Arizonans made it clear that they support reproductive freedom.”

For more information, check out the Center for Reproductive Rights, who brought the suit on behalf of Arizona health care providers.

---

Please remember that Abortion, Every Day is an independent publication that needs your help. I can’t publish the newsletter without paying supporters; so if you’ve been holding off on upgrading your subscription.please make the jump today. If you’re already a subscriber and want to give more, you can donate to AED here.