Abortion, Every Day (10.10.23)

Florida AG wants to keep voters from having a say on abortion

In the States, Florida Republicans reveal their plan to prevent voters from having a say on abortion rights, good news out of Wisconsin & more. In Anti-Abortion Language Watch, a look at Virginia Republicans’ rhetorical tricks. A few quick hits In the Nation. In a new, but necessary, section—Can We Not?—I flag a very bad abortion take. In 2024, the latest in Republican panic on abortion rights. And in Today’s Must-Read, an article that gives us a glimpse at what a post-Roe America might look like.

---

In the States

Last week, I told you that there was some fear in Florida that the state Supreme Court would reject the pro-choice ballot measure working its way towards voters. (The Court, which has to approve the amendment’s language before it can move forward, is stacked with Ron DeSantis appointees.) Yesterday, it became evident just how well-founded that fear is: Republican Attorney General Ashley Moody filed a challenge against the ballot measure with Florida’s Supreme Court, claiming that the initiative “does not satisfy the legal requirements for ballot placement.”

Now, we knew something like this was coming: The GOP is well aware that when Americans have a direct say on abortion, abortion wins. So in every state considering a ballot measure, Republicans are doing anything they can to stop the amendments from getting to voters. (And if they need to undermine democracy in the process, so be it.) As Senate Democratic Leader Lauren Book said in response to Moody’s filing, “The DeSantis administration is afraid to allow abortion access to be decided by voters because they know they will lose—plain and simple.”

All of which is to say, Moody’s attempt to stymie the measure isn’t surprising. What is a surprise however, is how she’s trying to do it: She argues that by including restrictions after ‘viability’—which isn’t a clear medical standard—the amendment would mislead voters. That’s right, the language that pro-choicers have been including in ballot measures as a way to pre-empt conservative attacks is now being wielded against us.

Moody detailed her challenge in an op-ed a few days ago, arguing that pro-choice activists know that ‘viability’ has multiple meanings—and that they’re using the language to deliberately lie to voters about what their amendment would really do.

Here’s the thing: ‘viability’ is an arbitrary standard. That’s why there’s been infighting in the pro-choice movement over the term. The groups taking an incremental approach to restoring abortion rights are proposing ballot measures with restrictions after ‘viability’ to avoid accusations that they support abortion “up until birth.” But as I’ve pointed out many times before, conservatives will make this claim regardless of what our policies say.

And so what Moody is doing right now is actually sort of brilliant: She’s using the fact that ‘viability’ is not a real medical standard to claim that pro-choicers are being deceptive. She even quotes the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) on viability, who note that it’s “frequently misrepresented or misinterpreted based on ideological principles,” which “perpetuates incorrect and unscientific understandings of medical terms.” Moody writes:

“Yet, this initiative’s sponsor chose to utilize that frequently misrepresented and misinterpreted term. That choice was not a mistake…The sponsor has gone so far attempting to deceive Floridians as to not post any information on its website on what it means by viability and when the right to abortion, which it is attempting to enshrine in our Constitution, ends.”

To me, this is just another reminder of how dangerous it is to allow Republicans to frame the debate on abortion. In better Florida news, here’s a piece on how college students in the state are helping to organize around the pro-choice amendment.

The Daily Montanan has more on the attack against a Planned Parenthood clinic in Helena, Montana. Democratic Rep. Zooey Zephyr wrote about the connection between the shooting and Republicans’ inflammatory and dangerous rhetoric on Twitter, noting, “Every political figure who drums up fear around abortion, sex ed., etc., is fanning the flames of real violence.”

And while Planned Parenthood of Montana spokesperson Mary Sullivan told reporters she didn’t want “to speculate on the exact motivations” of the shooter, she also said, “anti-abortion rhetoric and misinformation and talking about reproductive and sexual health care in a way that is stigmatizing or false is really dangerous.” She pointed to the fact that Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen recently falsely accused the group of abetting human trafficking: “Your average person might take those words at their face value and go with that.”

In related news: Since Roe was overturned, Montana has had a 22% rise in abortions, largely because of out-of-state patients coming to seek care.

Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin is making a million dollar bet against abortion rights. The Republican, who is pushing for a 15-week abortion ban, has his PAC launching a $1.4 million ad campaign across the state dedicated to abortion. The PAC says the jump in funding is an effort to counter Democrats’ messages about the GOP’s anti-abortion extremism, and to claim that Democrats want abortion ‘up until birth’.

That strategy of going on offense is making anti-abortion groups really happy; they’re suggesting that Republicans in other states look to Virginia as a model for how to talk about abortion. A representative from Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, for example, told The Atlantic this week that “candidates across this country should take note of how Republicans in Virginia are leading on the issue of life by going on offense and exposing the left’s radical abortion agenda.”

Democrats, however, aren’t so sure that the GOP’s strategy is going to work. Democratic state Sen. Scott Surovell tells the Richmond Times Dispatch that he thinks the new ads on abortion “will blow up in their faces.” He points out, “Every poll I’ve seen says Virginians don’t think the law should be changed.” (More on what’s happening in Virginia in Anti-Abortion Language Watch below.)

Protesters on both sides of the abortion issue have been rallying in Ohio ahead of a vote that could restore and protect abortion rights in the state. The Akron Beacon Journal reports on one of those rallies, “Bans Off Akron,” where Beth Vild—who painted her pregnant belly with the word ‘CHOICE”—spoke to the crowd:

“Please make people go to the polls. I’m having a girl. She needs you. Your children need you. Your grandchildren need you.”

Please remember: Today is the last day to register to vote in Ohio, and early voting begins tomorrow. For background on Republicans’ efforts to quash the pro-choice ballot measure, click here.

Speaking of ballot measure fights, NPR has more on the amendments being proposed in Missouri—including some from a Republican strategist claiming to seek a ‘compromise’. Jamie Corley says that her initiatives, some of which would protect abortion only up to 12 weeks of pregnancy, are more likely to pass than the ones proposed by pro-choice groups. But Dr. Colleen McNicholas, chief medical officer with Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri, says, “there are a whole host of reasons why folks might need abortion access after 12 weeks of pregnancy.”

“Bottom line,” McNicholas says, “the government should not be the one who's making a decision about when somebody should be able to continue, or not, a pregnancy.” THANK YOU.

Some good news out of Wisconsin today: Republicans have been threatening to impeach newly-seated state Supreme Court Justice Janet Protasiewicz if she didn’t recuse herself from abortion-related cases. But The Washington Post reports that State Assembly Speaker Robin Vos—who was leading the charge—may be backing off. Really hope that’s the case.

The move to pass an anti-abortion ordinance in the border town of Quincy, Illinois, continues on this week. After months of discussing the possibility of the ordinance, which would be in violation of state law protecting abortion rights, the mandate now appears on the Quincy City Council’s agenda for the first time. As you know, this is part of a broader conservative strategy targeting small towns in pro-choice states.

More in pro-choice state news: New Jersey Democrats are still hitting the state GOP on abortion in campaign ads. Because, as Jackie Cornell, executive director of Planned Parenthood Action Fund of New Jersey, points out—even pro-choice states aren’t safe:

“If pro-reproductive health majorities don’t hold in the Legislature, you might see this whittling away of access. In year one, they take away funding, then year two, something else. They can do it very incrementally, and you wake up in a few short years and the landscape can look radically different.”

“People think because they live in an urban community that they’re safe…that they will always have abortion providers and have them be accessible.”

~Dr. Sarah Wallett, Planned Parenthood of Michigan, in an article on abortion access in pro-choice states

Finally, some good news in Kansas: A protest planned by a Roman Catholic diocese in Kansas has been canceled after a judge put the city permit for rally on hold. The demonstration would have allowed the group to close the street in front of Trust Women clinic in Wichita, blocking the entrance to the building. (Which, of course, was the point.)

Quick hits:

• Kari Lake, who plans to run for U.S. Senate after losing her bid for Arizona governor, went from calling abortion the “ultimate sin” to saying she won’t endorse a national abortion ban;

• Bloomberg Law on California’s new abortion rights protections, and Ms. magazine on the state’s lawsuit over abortion ‘reversal’;

• And a column in opposition to Arkansas’ “monument to the unborn” reminds readers about the women who lost their lives before Roe:

“Those women, and millions like them, have consequently become disposable, their own narratives worthy only of being cut out and flushed away, never to see the light of day in this world, never to be remembered.”

Anti-Abortion Language Watch

I told you last week about Virginia Republican Sen. Siobhan Dunnavant, who released an ad that claimed the 15-week abortion ban she supports “is not a ban.” Dunnavant is doubling down this week, telling the Virginia Mercury that she “looked up ‘ban’ on Webster’s dictionary.”

“It says prohibited, or none…it just simply doesn’t apply to my position,” she said. As you know, the move to do away with the word ‘ban’ did not come from individual politicians looking up words in the dictionary, but a campaign from powerful, well-funded anti-abortion organizations seeking to trick Americans about how extreme they are.

And that strategy may be working. Please check out the way that the Virginia Mercury, a “nonprofit and nonpartisan” publication, reported on Dunnavant’s position:

“Facing accusations she’s inconsistent on abortion and beholden to a party whose anti-abortion stance is perfectly clear, Dunnavant is trying to respond with nuance. She’s highlighting her own proposal to keep abortion legal in roughly the first four months of pregnancy (with exceptions more lenient than what Gov. Glenn Youngkin has proposed) but restrict access beyond that point and make abortions tougher to get in later stages of pregnancy.” (Emphasis mine)

Please look at the way her support for an abortion is being framed: not only as “nuanced,” but a “proposal to keep abortion legal!” That is absolutely fucking wild and incredibly dangerous. Big thanks to Dunnavant’s opponent, Virginia Del. Schuyler VanValkenburg, for saying it like it is: “A ban is a ban. And she’s proposing a ban.”

Ryan Stitzlein, vice president of political and government relations at Reproductive Freedom for All, issued a similar takedown in The Atlantic of Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin—who has been playing down his 15-week abortion ban proposal as ‘consensus’ legislation:

“There is no such thing as a ‘consensus’ ban. It’s a nonsensical phrase. The fact of the matter is, Virginians do not want an abortion ban.”

In the Nation

• Sofia Resnick at States Newsroom outlines the consequences if the Supreme Court declines to hear the mifepristone case;

• Ms. magazine looks at the most recent Pregnancy Justice report on how pregnant people are criminalized;

• In international news, Slate on Mexico’s decision to decriminalize abortion and what that actually looks like in practice;

• And a law professor at Penn State writes about the connection between women being denied health- and life-saving abortion care and the way women aren’t believed about being in pain.

Can We Not?

I’m so over articles where the writer or “expert” positions themselves as somehow in the middle on abortion, yet it is so clear that they’re very much not. Consider this piece in The Atlantic from Claremont McKenna College professor Jon Shields (who also wrote a column for The New York Times recently about how to find a ‘compromise’ on abortion).

Shields claims, for example, that “although surveys show that the United States is much more supportive of gay rights and gender equality than it was 50 years ago, support for abortion rights has not had a similar increase.” While we have seen a big uptick in support for abortion rights since Roe was overturned, it’s true that there hasn’t been a massive increase in support similar to the numbers we’ve seen with marriage equality. Wanna know why? Because Americans have overwhelmingly supported legal access to abortion for decades! We couldn’t make the jump because we were already there.

But here’s the line that made me actually laugh out-loud:

“Other survey-based research on pro-life activists themselves finds that, compared with other Americans, their views on gender roles are only slightly more conservative.”

Sure, anti-abortion activists aren’t any more sexist than anyone else—you know, besides the whole forcing-women-into-childbirth thing! But who counts that?? (By the way, this guy has been making the same argument for 15 years and it’s still just as stale.)

2024

The Washington Post published a big piece this weekend on the Republican panic over abortion rights: From the poll showing that the term ‘pro-life’ doesn’t resonate with Americans, to loss after loss at the ballot box—conservatives are struggling with what to do next. They know they’re losing.

As you know, anti-abortion groups would have Republicans double down and go on offense—especially as their strategy of ignoring the issue or quietly removing language about abortion from their campaign websites has bombed so badly in the recent past. (As I noted earlier in the newsletter, these groups are hoping that wins in Virginia will be proof that an offensive strategy works. I’m not so sure.)

WaPo also mentions a tactic I’ve written about a few times—focusing on what Republicans call ‘the three exceptions’: rape, incest, and life of the pregnant person. We’ve heard Donald Trump name-check the ‘three exceptions’ a few times recently; the National Republican Senatorial Committee is advising candidates to do the same. And a memo circulating among Republican candidates that says “messaging that emphasizes guardrails on abortion with guaranteed exceptions is a winning position.”

You know what I’m going to say: This means it’s vital that Democrats are hammering on the fact that exceptions aren’t real. Not that they’re hard to get—but that they don’t fucking exist.

On the other side of the aisle, The Hill says that Democrats may be relying on voters’ anger over abortion bans to make up for the lack of enthusiasm over President Joe Biden. From Abhi Rohman, the communications director for the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee:

“Democrats have way more strength really across the country than people think. There’s a lot of people who were worried about the top of the ticket and President Biden and his approval numbers, of how the country views him, but Democrats who are running a center-left platform, under the Biden brand, they’re winning all over the country.” 

Today’s Must-Read

This CNN piece on women in El Salvador who were imprisoned after having stillbirths gives a chilling look at what kind of criminalization we can expect to see in a post-Roe America. In fact, it’s not so different than the kind of criminalization we’ve already seen.

Last week, I wrote about the way that conservatives will get away with prosecuting women for abortion—namely, by charging them with crimes that aren’t explicitly abortion-related. (Like ‘child endangerment’ or ‘chemical endangerment’—all outlined by Pregnancy Justice.) Re-read what I wrote here, and then check out this below, from the CNN piece:

“As international pressure mounted, the then-head of El Salvador’s Institute of Legal Medicine told reporters that the women, who became widely known as ‘The 17,’ were in prison because they were accused of infanticide, not obstetric emergencies or abortions—a point he reiterated in a recent interview with CNN.”

Like I said, absolutely chilling. We know how this is going to happen—because it already is.