I just subscribed to the newsletter. I created an app with 22 of the sneakiest Republican Abortion Ban trick in this free app using Jessica's research. The same info is also converted the ban tricks into a 12 minute podcast in both English and Spanish.
I think they're telling reporters their job is to collect the spin from each "side" and print it. And then they wonder why they have a hard time getting and keeping subscribers.
I feel so seen. I desperately want to pay for better journalism and media sources. NYT and WaPo political and abortion coverage in particular make me sad (and angry).
It's pretty obvious to me that the Republicans direct their messaging at people who have no idea how abortion care is actually used. For the most part - and obviously the more barriers you throw up in front of care, the more people get their appointment later than they want to - whatever they define as their 'limit', the abortions performed after that line will be for health and life of the mother, or health and life of the fetus. These will be the medical horror stories. And if they were pressed on those, they would probably start talking about 'exceptions'. So they really just want to reassure their voters that they are going to stop all of those elective abortions performed at 35 weeks. 🙄 And that is the bigger problem with politics and government nowadays. Decisions are made based on 'facts' that are nonsense. Until we can find a way to once again inhabit the same realities, we may as well cut the country in two and at least let each half destroy itself in its own way.
As their spokes-ghoul Kellyanne Conway stated: they like to call outright lies "Alternative facts" and yes you have called it exactly right. Simple-thinking people, want simple, black and white explanations, so they can feel good about keeping the "other" down. Their minds often can't grasp nuance.
The problem is it can be a race to the bottom. When there's no plausible alternative, when your only political opposition is a terrorist death cult, there's nothing to keep your own side anchored to truth either. I think the sensible people are still broadly in control of the Democratic party, but it's not hard to imagine otherwise.
Republicans in this instance are directing their messaging at people who don’t want to be “bothered” by politics. These people call themselves independent or apolitical. They would prefer to get a mouth full of root canals to reading this newsletter.
This messaging gives these specific people an excuse to say, “What’s the big deal? I don’t have to care about this.” And they stay home. Or they vote for the status quo/incumbent because why rock the boat? It is tailored for people who don’t want to think or be bothered. Which is still a freaking ton of Americans.
And it puts the left in the position of shrieking THIS IS WHY YOU SHOULD CARE. They set us up to come across as lecturing elitists who are hyperbolic and shrill. And somehow the left needs to reduce this to a meme about men and the Roman Empire, or Taylor Swift’s latest boyfriend, to get a response that’s not, “Wow. You people are whacked.” (I sound like an ass, but this frustrates me so so so so much.)
No, you're exactly right; it's a very good point. When I ponder what the hell is wrong with the world (as I often do), here's something that occurred to me: In ancient times, what you knew was mostly only what you saw with your own eyes and, maybe, if a visitor came to your community and they were trustworthy, something they told you. Then the printing press was invented, (and more people learned to read), and suddenly it was easier to spread information. Then came radio and tv, and travel became much easier and more common. And finally the internet put the world at our fingertips. For a moment it seemed possible that we could know everything we needed to know to make good decisions. But that moment was brief because the technology makes it exceedingly easy to spread misinformation and disinformation, that preys on our biases. It's hard to draw water when the well is that polluted. So now people either believe things that aren't true, or they don't trust anything they're told at all unless they see it with their own eyes. We're all the way back where we started many centuries ago. This is a problem.
In that environment, it begins to seem hopeless to persuade with well-informed arguments about what's going to happen if we institute a given policy. Until the voters have personal experience of the effects, or encounter someone else who has, it's going to fall on deaf ears. This affects both sides of the political divide; it's just that we have different blind spots.
Given that, the best way, and maybe the only way, to convince anyone how bad these policies are, and why they should care, is to have real life horror stories with real people, and lots of them at that. I would rather the warnings worked; it would spare so much suffering. But you're right; they don't like our tone. So instead we have to very calmly share stories of women who almost died, or had their whole lives otherwise upended and shattered, and we have to just stick to those facts, rather than trying to be "smart", because no one likes a know-it-all.
This can't be a good way to govern, because it means we have to try out every bad idea before we can rule it out. I really don't want to have to do that with the 'idea' of fascist dictatorship, but here we are.
Look at Poland for example, eight years of repression before they overthrew their "authoritarian overlords" and they have years of cleansing that well before them. And the foolish elders who pine for the authoritarians to return to power are always a threat.
Poland had a good vote on Sunday, but yes there's a LOT of damage to undo. I'm not sure what would happen if the U.S. went off the cliff and the authoritarians took power. It would be very very hard for other countries to disentangle from the dollar, so I'm not sure how much outside pressure could be imposed. We're "too big to fail", so if we do the consequences are much worse and have major impacts on the rest of the world.
Yes, they did and I am feeling very positive towards their future, now if Turkey could oust Erdogan, and Hungary that douche Orban, it would be a great start. Also the Mandarin Menace could eat one too many "hamberders" and pop ,off the mortal coil, we'd all be better off for it.
To clarify: Louisiana held its "jungle primary" last Saturday. All candidates are on the ballot, and if any candidate wins more than 50% of the vote, they win the election. If no candidate wins over 50% of the vote, then the two top vote-getters advance to a face-to-face runoff in November 18 (which is called a "general election").
Lindsey Cheek, the candidate for Attorney General, did more than "throw her hat in the ring": she came in second and advanced to the runoff against Liz Murrill, who was Solicitor General under Jeff Landry (who unfortunately just won outright the election for governor). Murrill got 45% of the vote, and Cheek got about 23%, so things don't look terribly good right now.
I’ve seen very little analysis of what this vote means nationally, if it means anything. (I live in SC, so I grasp too well the realities in some places.) We aren’t comparing apples and apples, but do you think this result bodes ill for the OH referendum or the VA races?
I would concur with what he said. When Southern Democrats were still a thing a couple decades ago, Louisiana could still be competitive; Cajun country in particular was willing to support Democrats for a long time. But nowadays voting in Louisiana is more or less just a racial census, and I exaggerate only slightly.
I don't think it means much. The race wasn't fought on abortion, and the Dem candidate did very little campaigning. The outcome is typical of a low-turnout state election (which this was, unfortunately) where you have one Democratic candidate and a bunch of republicans. The republicans prevent each other from reaching 50%+1, and the Democrat consolidates the democratic votes to get between 20% and 40% depending on the race. Murrill campaigned on how "tough" she was (all her ads had at least one man vouching for how tough she was, or featured endorsements from "sheriffs"), her toting a gun or shooting at targets, and saying she will be tough on crime and protect the 2nd Amendment. There was one ad where she's talking to a pregnant woman and tries to claim credit for "abortion is now illegal in Louisiana", even though she had nothing to do with passing the laws, and very little to do with the cases themselves (she may have helped write an amicus brief or two at Jeff Landry's direction).
So this wasn't a proxy for abortion; votes that are specifically about abortion, or are seen as proxies for it (like OH Prop 1 in the summer, or Judge Janet's election in Wisconsin) attract considerable bipartisan support. Statewide AG in a race dominated by republicans trying to "out-tough" each other on fighting crime and carrying guns isn't going to tell you much about how such a vote would go here, let alone in Ohio.
Thanks again Jessica for giving us the dire but important information. I'm saddened but not surprised by whats happening in Alabama. The only way I can read this newsletter without going "crazy" is to embrace change. NOT accept it, but know I must relax into it to get centered so I can be productive and do my advocacy work. AND focus on self care. I appreciate what you and Grace do. Very grateful for you both. ❤❣ FYI I also appreciate the comments and the connection I get from all of you who post. It helps and one does not feel alone in all of this chaos. :-)
Do we have any sense on how these lies are actually working in Ohio and Virginia? Or will we only know after the election happens? With the August turnout in Ohio, it's hard for me to believe many Ohioans are falling for this bullshit, but I'm sure people stayed home who may be motivated by this lie. While we can't rely on the national media to do jack shit, people on the ground can call this out. Do you know if this is part of our door-knocking campaign? Has anyone on the left made ads to counter this blatant lying?
abolitionists. What struck me was that all the people in the picture from the second article, except for one, looked perfectly normal. I was expecting anything but normal. Is it just me, or are the 2 boys 👬 on the left by the hedge taking a piss?😏
It's not just you. They don't look super normal to me though, with those maxi denim skirts and matching green fetus shirts. Not casting shade on the denim skirts, as I have one like that. Being dressed alike just seems a little cultish.
Thanks for the heads-up about the argument that anti-abortion groups are making that it is not necessary to vote for issue 1 since it largely leaves Ohio law unchanged. The argument is difficult to understand. Moreover, I think it can back-fire; I think a lot of people would be happy with the idea that Issue 1 is in fact not ushering in some radical change; it really is keeping the current rules in place and making sure the legislature cannot change them. FYI, I wrote an explainer about Issue 1, anyone is free to comment on it in Medium and I am happy to make revisions if needed. https://vthuronyi.medium.com/ohio-issue-1-abortion-rights-explainer-8ca85b119886
I just subscribed to the newsletter. I created an app with 22 of the sneakiest Republican Abortion Ban trick in this free app using Jessica's research. The same info is also converted the ban tricks into a 12 minute podcast in both English and Spanish.
Blog: https://thedemlabs.org/2023/10/19/republican-abortion-ban-playbookapp-podcast-in-english-and-spanish/
App: https://go.glideapps.com/play/o4DVn3r9wXEDlg89hSaK
English podcast https://soundcloud.com/user-810206840/how-to-ban-abortions-english?in=user-810206840/sets/republican-abortion-ban-playbook&si=c3340b926e0347918491f3eafca18201&utm_source=clipboard&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=social_sharing
Spanish podcast https://soundcloud.com/user-810206840/how-to-ban-abortions-spanish?in=user-810206840/sets/republican-abortion-ban-playbook&si=f6132485fce1437296413575c0062d3b&utm_source=clipboard&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=social_sharing
I just want reporters to ask followup questions. Like be curious for once. Damn it.
1. Do you support limits on abortion?
2. How do you think banning that group from being able to access abortion will help society and if so how?
3. What would you say to a person who was in this ... situation?
4. Viewers here are examples of those situations happening in America right now.
I think they're telling reporters their job is to collect the spin from each "side" and print it. And then they wonder why they have a hard time getting and keeping subscribers.
I feel so seen. I desperately want to pay for better journalism and media sources. NYT and WaPo political and abortion coverage in particular make me sad (and angry).
It's pretty obvious to me that the Republicans direct their messaging at people who have no idea how abortion care is actually used. For the most part - and obviously the more barriers you throw up in front of care, the more people get their appointment later than they want to - whatever they define as their 'limit', the abortions performed after that line will be for health and life of the mother, or health and life of the fetus. These will be the medical horror stories. And if they were pressed on those, they would probably start talking about 'exceptions'. So they really just want to reassure their voters that they are going to stop all of those elective abortions performed at 35 weeks. 🙄 And that is the bigger problem with politics and government nowadays. Decisions are made based on 'facts' that are nonsense. Until we can find a way to once again inhabit the same realities, we may as well cut the country in two and at least let each half destroy itself in its own way.
As their spokes-ghoul Kellyanne Conway stated: they like to call outright lies "Alternative facts" and yes you have called it exactly right. Simple-thinking people, want simple, black and white explanations, so they can feel good about keeping the "other" down. Their minds often can't grasp nuance.
The problem is it can be a race to the bottom. When there's no plausible alternative, when your only political opposition is a terrorist death cult, there's nothing to keep your own side anchored to truth either. I think the sensible people are still broadly in control of the Democratic party, but it's not hard to imagine otherwise.
Republicans in this instance are directing their messaging at people who don’t want to be “bothered” by politics. These people call themselves independent or apolitical. They would prefer to get a mouth full of root canals to reading this newsletter.
This messaging gives these specific people an excuse to say, “What’s the big deal? I don’t have to care about this.” And they stay home. Or they vote for the status quo/incumbent because why rock the boat? It is tailored for people who don’t want to think or be bothered. Which is still a freaking ton of Americans.
And it puts the left in the position of shrieking THIS IS WHY YOU SHOULD CARE. They set us up to come across as lecturing elitists who are hyperbolic and shrill. And somehow the left needs to reduce this to a meme about men and the Roman Empire, or Taylor Swift’s latest boyfriend, to get a response that’s not, “Wow. You people are whacked.” (I sound like an ass, but this frustrates me so so so so much.)
No, you're exactly right; it's a very good point. When I ponder what the hell is wrong with the world (as I often do), here's something that occurred to me: In ancient times, what you knew was mostly only what you saw with your own eyes and, maybe, if a visitor came to your community and they were trustworthy, something they told you. Then the printing press was invented, (and more people learned to read), and suddenly it was easier to spread information. Then came radio and tv, and travel became much easier and more common. And finally the internet put the world at our fingertips. For a moment it seemed possible that we could know everything we needed to know to make good decisions. But that moment was brief because the technology makes it exceedingly easy to spread misinformation and disinformation, that preys on our biases. It's hard to draw water when the well is that polluted. So now people either believe things that aren't true, or they don't trust anything they're told at all unless they see it with their own eyes. We're all the way back where we started many centuries ago. This is a problem.
In that environment, it begins to seem hopeless to persuade with well-informed arguments about what's going to happen if we institute a given policy. Until the voters have personal experience of the effects, or encounter someone else who has, it's going to fall on deaf ears. This affects both sides of the political divide; it's just that we have different blind spots.
Given that, the best way, and maybe the only way, to convince anyone how bad these policies are, and why they should care, is to have real life horror stories with real people, and lots of them at that. I would rather the warnings worked; it would spare so much suffering. But you're right; they don't like our tone. So instead we have to very calmly share stories of women who almost died, or had their whole lives otherwise upended and shattered, and we have to just stick to those facts, rather than trying to be "smart", because no one likes a know-it-all.
This can't be a good way to govern, because it means we have to try out every bad idea before we can rule it out. I really don't want to have to do that with the 'idea' of fascist dictatorship, but here we are.
Look at Poland for example, eight years of repression before they overthrew their "authoritarian overlords" and they have years of cleansing that well before them. And the foolish elders who pine for the authoritarians to return to power are always a threat.
Poland had a good vote on Sunday, but yes there's a LOT of damage to undo. I'm not sure what would happen if the U.S. went off the cliff and the authoritarians took power. It would be very very hard for other countries to disentangle from the dollar, so I'm not sure how much outside pressure could be imposed. We're "too big to fail", so if we do the consequences are much worse and have major impacts on the rest of the world.
Yes, they did and I am feeling very positive towards their future, now if Turkey could oust Erdogan, and Hungary that douche Orban, it would be a great start. Also the Mandarin Menace could eat one too many "hamberders" and pop ,off the mortal coil, we'd all be better off for it.
Andra, I enjoy all your comments!! Yes definitely a lifeline ❤️🌷
To clarify: Louisiana held its "jungle primary" last Saturday. All candidates are on the ballot, and if any candidate wins more than 50% of the vote, they win the election. If no candidate wins over 50% of the vote, then the two top vote-getters advance to a face-to-face runoff in November 18 (which is called a "general election").
Lindsey Cheek, the candidate for Attorney General, did more than "throw her hat in the ring": she came in second and advanced to the runoff against Liz Murrill, who was Solicitor General under Jeff Landry (who unfortunately just won outright the election for governor). Murrill got 45% of the vote, and Cheek got about 23%, so things don't look terribly good right now.
(I live in Louisiana)
I’ve seen very little analysis of what this vote means nationally, if it means anything. (I live in SC, so I grasp too well the realities in some places.) We aren’t comparing apples and apples, but do you think this result bodes ill for the OH referendum or the VA races?
I would concur with what he said. When Southern Democrats were still a thing a couple decades ago, Louisiana could still be competitive; Cajun country in particular was willing to support Democrats for a long time. But nowadays voting in Louisiana is more or less just a racial census, and I exaggerate only slightly.
I don't think it means much. The race wasn't fought on abortion, and the Dem candidate did very little campaigning. The outcome is typical of a low-turnout state election (which this was, unfortunately) where you have one Democratic candidate and a bunch of republicans. The republicans prevent each other from reaching 50%+1, and the Democrat consolidates the democratic votes to get between 20% and 40% depending on the race. Murrill campaigned on how "tough" she was (all her ads had at least one man vouching for how tough she was, or featured endorsements from "sheriffs"), her toting a gun or shooting at targets, and saying she will be tough on crime and protect the 2nd Amendment. There was one ad where she's talking to a pregnant woman and tries to claim credit for "abortion is now illegal in Louisiana", even though she had nothing to do with passing the laws, and very little to do with the cases themselves (she may have helped write an amicus brief or two at Jeff Landry's direction).
So this wasn't a proxy for abortion; votes that are specifically about abortion, or are seen as proxies for it (like OH Prop 1 in the summer, or Judge Janet's election in Wisconsin) attract considerable bipartisan support. Statewide AG in a race dominated by republicans trying to "out-tough" each other on fighting crime and carrying guns isn't going to tell you much about how such a vote would go here, let alone in Ohio.
There’s almost no good news in the world today. ☹️🤬🤯
Thanks again Jessica for giving us the dire but important information. I'm saddened but not surprised by whats happening in Alabama. The only way I can read this newsletter without going "crazy" is to embrace change. NOT accept it, but know I must relax into it to get centered so I can be productive and do my advocacy work. AND focus on self care. I appreciate what you and Grace do. Very grateful for you both. ❤❣ FYI I also appreciate the comments and the connection I get from all of you who post. It helps and one does not feel alone in all of this chaos. :-)
I sometimes feel like I comment too much, but I value this community. You’re right. It is a lifeline. I’m grateful for this space and everyone in it.
Iowa is a tough place to be happy.
Do we have any sense on how these lies are actually working in Ohio and Virginia? Or will we only know after the election happens? With the August turnout in Ohio, it's hard for me to believe many Ohioans are falling for this bullshit, but I'm sure people stayed home who may be motivated by this lie. While we can't rely on the national media to do jack shit, people on the ground can call this out. Do you know if this is part of our door-knocking campaign? Has anyone on the left made ads to counter this blatant lying?
abolitionists. What struck me was that all the people in the picture from the second article, except for one, looked perfectly normal. I was expecting anything but normal. Is it just me, or are the 2 boys 👬 on the left by the hedge taking a piss?😏
It's not just you. They don't look super normal to me though, with those maxi denim skirts and matching green fetus shirts. Not casting shade on the denim skirts, as I have one like that. Being dressed alike just seems a little cultish.
Thanks for the heads-up about the argument that anti-abortion groups are making that it is not necessary to vote for issue 1 since it largely leaves Ohio law unchanged. The argument is difficult to understand. Moreover, I think it can back-fire; I think a lot of people would be happy with the idea that Issue 1 is in fact not ushering in some radical change; it really is keeping the current rules in place and making sure the legislature cannot change them. FYI, I wrote an explainer about Issue 1, anyone is free to comment on it in Medium and I am happy to make revisions if needed. https://vthuronyi.medium.com/ohio-issue-1-abortion-rights-explainer-8ca85b119886