I hear you. But we have representatives that allegedly hear the people and vote for us. Seems more of a state issue and now I as a constituency I have to fight with the state government. Not SCOTUS. That’s how I see it and the SCOTUS knows this. 🤨
Great reporting. Catching up on AED. Thanks for sharing the link on the VP. That was powerful. Also Mary Ziegler comment is spot on. “ When the state’s interest in fetal life clashes with real health threats faced by women, patients will always find themselves on the losing side,” she says.”
I send loving kindness to all those who are suffering from abortion bans. 💕💕
Biden consistently uses pro-choice language when asked about abortion...he never equivocates. I’m perfectly fine with VP Harris taking the lead on this question. I know the President has the bully pulpit and all that but it’s better that the elderly white man defer to the younger, well-spoken woman on this particular topic. I love it when men stand up for us but I’d rather see women speaking up for us
Good morning, Jessica. I’m a follower, reader, and sometime commenter of/on Abortion Everyday. I am wondering if you’d publish to Substack your suggestions for end-of-year contributions to particularly good organizations working to provide abortion access and care. Thanks!
You know -- I've been wondering why someone(s) doesn't sue their state when they're not being allowed to hold a referendum on abortion; if I understand correctly -- and I don't have the text to check for sure -- Dobbs tossed the ball back to the states, saying that they were the ones who could decide the issue of reproductive healthcare. No longer would there be a protective federal umbrella, ensuring some level of that regardless of where you lived. If that's the case, and a state refuses to bring the issue to the voters of their state, then they're not fulfilling the intent of the ruling and SCOTUS should smack them down and require them to do so ... ???
I live in Texas also. Am wondering if someone will bring suit against the state because the SCOTUS has 'ruled' that abortion rights/not are up to the states. It follows logically that if the citizens of the state are not given the opportunity to decide those rights, it's not following the letter of their finding ...
Well, states are required to hold elections for offices, but it's completely up to a state and its own constitution whether they have referendums (on anything) or not. Some states have those provisions and some don't. As with most things, the elected representatives are getting to decide the issue, and the problem in these states is the voters have elected representatives who don't share their view on abortion rights. If no one who is pro-choice ever voted Republican, we wouldn't have this problem.
You're right, of course, but I think the law is that states have the abilities to decide when and where elections are conducted (primarily); the federal government/DOJ and SCOTUS have stepped in at times when there were actions by states re elections that negatively impacted their citizens' voting rights. Those legal decisions didn't depend on which party dominated the legislature. I don't see that this is any different, at least in principle. There's probably a legal argument that allows legislatures to decide issues about voting, but I'm kind of surprised they'd stand against something like this.
The DOJ could step in if there's an act of Congress (such as the voting rights act, in your example) or a court decision to enforce (Brown v. Board of Education, for example). And SCOTUS can in theory pretty much order anything it wants, if it finds a basis for it in the constitution. But neither of those apply unfortunately. The Dobbs ruling didn't find any rights in the constitution, meaning that all of this was just for the elected branches of government to decide under their normal procedures, the way they do for everything else. Congress should be able to pass legislation regarding abortion, depending on the source of power it relies on (commerce clause?) but that would require one party to control both houses and the White House, or a bipartisan coalition. In the absence of that conservatives try to argue for the enforcement of ancient legislation like Comstock. It's really just a complete failure of a system of government when something as fundamental as bodily autonomy is not protected. We can make good arguments that it is, but the supreme court gets the final say on what the constitution means.
Well, I know you're right. But. I'm 75 yo and I've lived long enough to see cycles of all kinds, so I'm hoping that this extremist SCOTUS and overall preference, it seems, by millions of people for authoritarianism are cycles that will turn around. How fast that happens and what 'turn around' will bring us is of course completely unknown.
I think it's definitely a cycle and I think it will turn around. But. I'm not sure what has to happen before it turns. It may be that people need to experience, again (because we went through this in WWII), how bad authoritarianism and fascism are, before we can work towards liberty and democracy and, really, social cohesion again. And it's not just a problem here; voters in Europe are sour too. So yes, I don't know how bad it has to get before momentum changes.
I don't like to/often post this opinion because it's negative; but I agree with you. The fact is that people simply don't change thoughts, beliefs, or behaviors until and unless they have no other choice. And that comes about often through negative experience. I guess it's a continuation of my naivety that most people are good at heart, but I believe that many MAGA or MAGA-adjacent people simply can't imagine what life will be like if they get what they want.
"What Happened to Kate Cox is Tragic, and Totally Expected" by Greer Donley (NYT Opinion section Dec. 20) is well argued. Donley concludes "This problem cannot be solved with clearer language; it is a problem intrinsic to the Dobbs ruling that allowed the complicated experience of pregnancy into the courtroom. The only way forward is to protect abortion, no matter the reason -- to refuse the play the game of 'good abortion' versus 'bad abortion. What happened to Kate Cox and so many patients like her is a symptom of a broken law that cannot be fixed."
I am 74 and found If/When/How's action page singularly unhelpful. I was able to email the Ohio governor and leave a phone message for the information officer in the Trumbull County Prosecutor's office, and I will send $ to the GoFundMe, but there's just a lot of hashtags and tiny url things and other things I don't understand. Can someone translate this for me? I know how I used to use twitter, but what exactly, am I looking for on twitter (now X) in order to be able to send a message? Can someone rewrite this thing, preferably in your newsletter, for the technologically challenged? I have a google group of 27 women my age ready to take action if they knew what to do so your effort would be multiplied.
I am following you because this comment sparked an idea about bringing your generation and the technically gifted younger generation together. (I’m in between & not greatly technically savy either). More later. Thank you for your active participation. We could all learn from your generation. You have valuable experience & knowledge from pre-Roe that connects dots to where we are headed until we stop it - again. You also have time and it would be wise for those building websites to understand your need for specific instructions and explanations about the use of social media. There has to be a way to provide these instructions in a format targeted towards those who need it, but doesn’t clog up all website pages for those who do not.
I don't share the concerns about Biden failing to take a more active role on abortion. I think Biden would not be a reliable narrator on the issue and that he'd be prone to some big gaffes due to his Catholic faith. Though I'm not an especial fan of Harris, she's eloquent and forceful on the subject. Of course, forced birth affects men, too, but the brunt is borne by women, and as a female, she's qualified to speak on behalf of the 51% in a way no man could be.
A word about polls - while it's terrific that there's broad support for women's self determination, our human rights should not be based on approval from the masses. The 1960's civil rights activists would never have won the battle with that criteria. Determining what course to take with a pregnancy is a right for all, not a privilege for some.
It would be nice if Biden could decide within himself how strongly he feels about abortion for rape, incest, the Kate Cox’s, or even the rising maternal death in TX with other states to follow. Beliefs he can frame simplistically, bluntly and framed without further discussions needed. You bring up really good points, and I agree Harris will be forceful on this issue. I still think it’s important for Biden to at least find a lane where he can feel comfortable supporting choice. It could be as simple & important as stating over & over he will appoint another pro-choice Supreme Court justice and one that will not lie about their support for women to make healthcare decisions with their doctor. Young people need a “leader” and Harris is #2, not #1. Young people need to believe Biden has their back to get them to the voting booth. He can’t hide from this issue.
Yes, we would still have slavery in the south if we based things on what some would vote for. Sometimes you have to drag the patriarchal misogynists, kicking and screaming, into the current day of human rights for all, not just them!
I feel it is a good strategy for the VP to take the lead. Biden supports the right to bodily autonomy BUT too many old male misogynistics have been talking about pro life and enacting laws and making judicial decisions. Go Kamala 👏
It never fails to frustrate me when conservatives co-opt progressive or leftist language and ideas to further their own sinister purposes. It often demonstrates flaws in those ideas if they can so easily be co-opted that way. Talk of greedy industry exploiting people doesn't tend towards constructive solving of problems, but rather towards rising tempers. But if it's effective on the left, the conservatives are going to try it too. It's the same with claiming persecution and victimhood to ask for preferential treatment (conservatives have mastered this), and giving feelings more importance than facts (conservatives are getting really good at this too). If it can be used maliciously by the other side that's a clue we should be careful with it. Illiberalism is a problem across the political spectrum, even as I think it's quite a bit worse on the right.
They are co-opting progressive language to muddy what it means to scores of Americans who don’t pay attention. It makes it harder for liberals to use those terms to pack a punch.
Yes, that's definitely what happens. I get off topic (who, me? :) but I think it's worth trying to use and express ideas that are harder to co-opt. In this country in this era liberals and progressives are allied, but I personally favor liberalism because it tries to achieve good outcomes with as much freedom and as little coercion as possible. That can encompass a wide range of policy, but the left can test its limits, and I think if conservatives can make easy use of something there might be a lot of illiberal in it.
Freedom of speech protects a lot of repugnant things, but it's not supposed to protect harassment, threats, or fraud. If only the courts would enforce that consistently.
I’m not surprised that the majority of people in abortion ban states like TN have no idea how these laws are designed to work. So many Americans don’t care until they are impacted.
That, and the fact that Americans can be poorly informed in general. Most media don't do the job of educating the citizenry, and they're fragmented in this era anyway. Someone has to take the responsibility of (figuring out a way of) telling the people what's going on if we're going to keep a democracy.
I spent much of today marking up Project 2025 and translating it for the average person (which will be very different from mainstream media coverage.) But I honestly don’t expect many people to care. I’m sure part of that comes from how frustrating it is to read blatant statements mainstream outlets (and many liberals) speed bump past without comment or thought, while I’m hyperventilating over what it means.
Thank you for doing this project Andra. I think it will be VERY useful for Dem campaigns up and down ballot, as well as many organizations/associations who run ads during campaigns. I find your comments thoughtful, insightful & well written and believe you could be a one stop shop, just as I view Jessica & Grace as a one stop shop for the abortion issue.
DNC, DCCC & many campaigns have oppo research teams concentrating on opponents/those running for office. Because the Dem party is diverse and their districts are diverse, it seems they tend to put a lot of emphasis on local issues. Understandable. But, the Rs have a master plan and there are parts of that plan that affect every single district. Abortion is just one issue. I think your work will be helpful to many.
I think it will be of great service to many people, and I hope it finds its audience. They're telling us exactly what they plan to do to us, and we need to understand it and get the message out. I haven't dug into it myself so it will be very helpful to me (as much as I don't need more things to worry about :) but if I'm going to worry anyway it's better to be as informed as I can be.)
I hear you. But we have representatives that allegedly hear the people and vote for us. Seems more of a state issue and now I as a constituency I have to fight with the state government. Not SCOTUS. That’s how I see it and the SCOTUS knows this. 🤨
Great reporting. Catching up on AED. Thanks for sharing the link on the VP. That was powerful. Also Mary Ziegler comment is spot on. “ When the state’s interest in fetal life clashes with real health threats faced by women, patients will always find themselves on the losing side,” she says.”
I send loving kindness to all those who are suffering from abortion bans. 💕💕
Biden consistently uses pro-choice language when asked about abortion...he never equivocates. I’m perfectly fine with VP Harris taking the lead on this question. I know the President has the bully pulpit and all that but it’s better that the elderly white man defer to the younger, well-spoken woman on this particular topic. I love it when men stand up for us but I’d rather see women speaking up for us
Well said. A strong woman in a position of power speaking on bodily autonomy. I love this.
Good morning, Jessica. I’m a follower, reader, and sometime commenter of/on Abortion Everyday. I am wondering if you’d publish to Substack your suggestions for end-of-year contributions to particularly good organizations working to provide abortion access and care. Thanks!
You know -- I've been wondering why someone(s) doesn't sue their state when they're not being allowed to hold a referendum on abortion; if I understand correctly -- and I don't have the text to check for sure -- Dobbs tossed the ball back to the states, saying that they were the ones who could decide the issue of reproductive healthcare. No longer would there be a protective federal umbrella, ensuring some level of that regardless of where you lived. If that's the case, and a state refuses to bring the issue to the voters of their state, then they're not fulfilling the intent of the ruling and SCOTUS should smack them down and require them to do so ... ???
I live in Texas and we can not have a referendum. The state House and Senate have to vote on it. 😢
I live in Texas also. Am wondering if someone will bring suit against the state because the SCOTUS has 'ruled' that abortion rights/not are up to the states. It follows logically that if the citizens of the state are not given the opportunity to decide those rights, it's not following the letter of their finding ...
Well, states are required to hold elections for offices, but it's completely up to a state and its own constitution whether they have referendums (on anything) or not. Some states have those provisions and some don't. As with most things, the elected representatives are getting to decide the issue, and the problem in these states is the voters have elected representatives who don't share their view on abortion rights. If no one who is pro-choice ever voted Republican, we wouldn't have this problem.
You're right, of course, but I think the law is that states have the abilities to decide when and where elections are conducted (primarily); the federal government/DOJ and SCOTUS have stepped in at times when there were actions by states re elections that negatively impacted their citizens' voting rights. Those legal decisions didn't depend on which party dominated the legislature. I don't see that this is any different, at least in principle. There's probably a legal argument that allows legislatures to decide issues about voting, but I'm kind of surprised they'd stand against something like this.
The DOJ could step in if there's an act of Congress (such as the voting rights act, in your example) or a court decision to enforce (Brown v. Board of Education, for example). And SCOTUS can in theory pretty much order anything it wants, if it finds a basis for it in the constitution. But neither of those apply unfortunately. The Dobbs ruling didn't find any rights in the constitution, meaning that all of this was just for the elected branches of government to decide under their normal procedures, the way they do for everything else. Congress should be able to pass legislation regarding abortion, depending on the source of power it relies on (commerce clause?) but that would require one party to control both houses and the White House, or a bipartisan coalition. In the absence of that conservatives try to argue for the enforcement of ancient legislation like Comstock. It's really just a complete failure of a system of government when something as fundamental as bodily autonomy is not protected. We can make good arguments that it is, but the supreme court gets the final say on what the constitution means.
Well, I know you're right. But. I'm 75 yo and I've lived long enough to see cycles of all kinds, so I'm hoping that this extremist SCOTUS and overall preference, it seems, by millions of people for authoritarianism are cycles that will turn around. How fast that happens and what 'turn around' will bring us is of course completely unknown.
I think it's definitely a cycle and I think it will turn around. But. I'm not sure what has to happen before it turns. It may be that people need to experience, again (because we went through this in WWII), how bad authoritarianism and fascism are, before we can work towards liberty and democracy and, really, social cohesion again. And it's not just a problem here; voters in Europe are sour too. So yes, I don't know how bad it has to get before momentum changes.
I don't like to/often post this opinion because it's negative; but I agree with you. The fact is that people simply don't change thoughts, beliefs, or behaviors until and unless they have no other choice. And that comes about often through negative experience. I guess it's a continuation of my naivety that most people are good at heart, but I believe that many MAGA or MAGA-adjacent people simply can't imagine what life will be like if they get what they want.
"What Happened to Kate Cox is Tragic, and Totally Expected" by Greer Donley (NYT Opinion section Dec. 20) is well argued. Donley concludes "This problem cannot be solved with clearer language; it is a problem intrinsic to the Dobbs ruling that allowed the complicated experience of pregnancy into the courtroom. The only way forward is to protect abortion, no matter the reason -- to refuse the play the game of 'good abortion' versus 'bad abortion. What happened to Kate Cox and so many patients like her is a symptom of a broken law that cannot be fixed."
I am 74 and found If/When/How's action page singularly unhelpful. I was able to email the Ohio governor and leave a phone message for the information officer in the Trumbull County Prosecutor's office, and I will send $ to the GoFundMe, but there's just a lot of hashtags and tiny url things and other things I don't understand. Can someone translate this for me? I know how I used to use twitter, but what exactly, am I looking for on twitter (now X) in order to be able to send a message? Can someone rewrite this thing, preferably in your newsletter, for the technologically challenged? I have a google group of 27 women my age ready to take action if they knew what to do so your effort would be multiplied.
I am following you because this comment sparked an idea about bringing your generation and the technically gifted younger generation together. (I’m in between & not greatly technically savy either). More later. Thank you for your active participation. We could all learn from your generation. You have valuable experience & knowledge from pre-Roe that connects dots to where we are headed until we stop it - again. You also have time and it would be wise for those building websites to understand your need for specific instructions and explanations about the use of social media. There has to be a way to provide these instructions in a format targeted towards those who need it, but doesn’t clog up all website pages for those who do not.
Thank you
I don't share the concerns about Biden failing to take a more active role on abortion. I think Biden would not be a reliable narrator on the issue and that he'd be prone to some big gaffes due to his Catholic faith. Though I'm not an especial fan of Harris, she's eloquent and forceful on the subject. Of course, forced birth affects men, too, but the brunt is borne by women, and as a female, she's qualified to speak on behalf of the 51% in a way no man could be.
A word about polls - while it's terrific that there's broad support for women's self determination, our human rights should not be based on approval from the masses. The 1960's civil rights activists would never have won the battle with that criteria. Determining what course to take with a pregnancy is a right for all, not a privilege for some.
It would be nice if Biden could decide within himself how strongly he feels about abortion for rape, incest, the Kate Cox’s, or even the rising maternal death in TX with other states to follow. Beliefs he can frame simplistically, bluntly and framed without further discussions needed. You bring up really good points, and I agree Harris will be forceful on this issue. I still think it’s important for Biden to at least find a lane where he can feel comfortable supporting choice. It could be as simple & important as stating over & over he will appoint another pro-choice Supreme Court justice and one that will not lie about their support for women to make healthcare decisions with their doctor. Young people need a “leader” and Harris is #2, not #1. Young people need to believe Biden has their back to get them to the voting booth. He can’t hide from this issue.
I agree with the VP taking the lead. She is more forceful and credible.
And damn right about polls. Basic human rights should not depend on polling.
Yes, we would still have slavery in the south if we based things on what some would vote for. Sometimes you have to drag the patriarchal misogynists, kicking and screaming, into the current day of human rights for all, not just them!
I feel it is a good strategy for the VP to take the lead. Biden supports the right to bodily autonomy BUT too many old male misogynistics have been talking about pro life and enacting laws and making judicial decisions. Go Kamala 👏
It never fails to frustrate me when conservatives co-opt progressive or leftist language and ideas to further their own sinister purposes. It often demonstrates flaws in those ideas if they can so easily be co-opted that way. Talk of greedy industry exploiting people doesn't tend towards constructive solving of problems, but rather towards rising tempers. But if it's effective on the left, the conservatives are going to try it too. It's the same with claiming persecution and victimhood to ask for preferential treatment (conservatives have mastered this), and giving feelings more importance than facts (conservatives are getting really good at this too). If it can be used maliciously by the other side that's a clue we should be careful with it. Illiberalism is a problem across the political spectrum, even as I think it's quite a bit worse on the right.
They are co-opting progressive language to muddy what it means to scores of Americans who don’t pay attention. It makes it harder for liberals to use those terms to pack a punch.
🎯Bingo! see CRT, Black Lives Matter (too), and "Woke", they tell their audience they mean the opposite, of what they actually mean.
Yes, that's definitely what happens. I get off topic (who, me? :) but I think it's worth trying to use and express ideas that are harder to co-opt. In this country in this era liberals and progressives are allied, but I personally favor liberalism because it tries to achieve good outcomes with as much freedom and as little coercion as possible. That can encompass a wide range of policy, but the left can test its limits, and I think if conservatives can make easy use of something there might be a lot of illiberal in it.
Haha DeWine’s VM is full. Good.
Freedom of speech protects a lot of repugnant things, but it's not supposed to protect harassment, threats, or fraud. If only the courts would enforce that consistently.
Yes Musk doesn't get that, either.
I know, it’s a lot to keep track of—that’s why I’m here!) Jessica's words, and I think we’re all grateful that she is 😺.
I’m not surprised that the majority of people in abortion ban states like TN have no idea how these laws are designed to work. So many Americans don’t care until they are impacted.
Sadly, this is so true, for instance the Reagans didn't care about AIDS, until their friend Rock Hudson was dying from it.
That, and the fact that Americans can be poorly informed in general. Most media don't do the job of educating the citizenry, and they're fragmented in this era anyway. Someone has to take the responsibility of (figuring out a way of) telling the people what's going on if we're going to keep a democracy.
I spent much of today marking up Project 2025 and translating it for the average person (which will be very different from mainstream media coverage.) But I honestly don’t expect many people to care. I’m sure part of that comes from how frustrating it is to read blatant statements mainstream outlets (and many liberals) speed bump past without comment or thought, while I’m hyperventilating over what it means.
Anyway, I’m launching my Substack in January.
Thank you for doing this project Andra. I think it will be VERY useful for Dem campaigns up and down ballot, as well as many organizations/associations who run ads during campaigns. I find your comments thoughtful, insightful & well written and believe you could be a one stop shop, just as I view Jessica & Grace as a one stop shop for the abortion issue.
DNC, DCCC & many campaigns have oppo research teams concentrating on opponents/those running for office. Because the Dem party is diverse and their districts are diverse, it seems they tend to put a lot of emphasis on local issues. Understandable. But, the Rs have a master plan and there are parts of that plan that affect every single district. Abortion is just one issue. I think your work will be helpful to many.
I think it will be of great service to many people, and I hope it finds its audience. They're telling us exactly what they plan to do to us, and we need to understand it and get the message out. I haven't dug into it myself so it will be very helpful to me (as much as I don't need more things to worry about :) but if I'm going to worry anyway it's better to be as informed as I can be.)
Can't wait to read it 😍