Thank you Grace for your work. It's hard to live in Houston Texas. I am grateful I live in Houston at least. I'm embarrased to say I live in Texas the belly of the beast. All I can do is stay positive. I am a bright blue dot 🔵in a very red state. People who can pro-create need to be celebrated on regulated. 👩
Indeed. There are a great many other good reasons to keep Space Command here (I live in Colorado Springs), starting with the fact that Trump chose Huntsville against the advice of military leaders in order to punish Colorado for voting blue in 2018. But yes, full reproductive health care is among those issues. That, unfortunately, is not a selling point in the Republican held House.
It would be neat if AED would publish a guide to using more precise or effective language when writing/talking about abortion such as saying fetus instead of baby or unborn child, saying ban instead of consensus, saying pregnant person vs pregnant woman (I like saying pregnant adult, teenager, or child to emphasize the scope of the issue and avoid anti-trans bigotry), anti-abortion instead of pro-life, etc. I find language like “pregnancy is too complicated to legislate” to be really helpful too.
I might be projecting but I think readers would dig it. I would at least. I see a lot of external writings that use anti-abortion activists’ preferred language. Sometimes I find it hard to recognize **how submersed I was in that worldview**.
"What I found particularly grating in today’s news was the way that the media covered the latest abortion polling. We know that Americans support abortion—why are mainstream outlets lending credence to the anti-choice talking point that voters want restrictions?" Polls are notoriously unreliable and depend a lot on precisely what question is asked. One way around the problem is to compare polls results over time where the question is asked is exactly the same. Another way is to write the questions carefully. It would be expensive but one work around to get a more meaningful poll would be for League of Women Voters or some other organization that is perceived as not biased to commission a poll with in-depth information provided as a background for questions and carefull and specific questions. The political part of me would also like to see the polling population geared to what is helpful. For example, how about a sample that is limited to people registered to vote, and registered as independents in swing states. It could include questions about voting propensity: e.g. did they vote in 2020, 2022, and do they intend to vote in 2024. It would take a while to set such a poll up but there is plenty of time before the 2024 election goes into full swing. The results would, I hope, stengthen the backbone of Democratic politicians in putting abortion rights front and center. Asking the poll questions both with and without providing the background info would also show how much education remains to be done.
Keep in mind that the far right has decided that the League of Women Voters is “biased” toward Democrats. They’re refusing to participate in any debates run by the organization in 2024.
Agree with everything, except that nowadays there is no such thing as an organization that is perceived as not biased. Abortion is by far Democrats' top issue but yes they need to figure out which messages resonate the most with which target voter groups, and where more education would improve the results. Because unfortunately we can't get every voter to read this newsletter every day.
The TN article is valuable because it humanizes doctors who remember and foretells what can come. I wish we had a fund for young doctors who have medical school debt but want to get abortion training. They are needed.
How about requiring personal reproductive health records along with mental health records of each & every anti- abortion advocate in congress, federal & state to be made public. Include their domestic strife & incidents of violence, especially against women, which multiply daily. If they’re not pure as the driven snow, ban them from voting on women’s health. Restrict their freedoms unilaterally.
They don't seem to understand that fetuses tend to die when their mothers do. Or they do and just don't care. Fetuses are just legal fictions that vanish as soon as they're no longer useful.
The “REAL women sacrifice everything for their babies/families” concept runs deep deep deep. Also we have terrible sex ed. Most people have no idea about pregnancy. I find it amazing the polls are so pro-choice when half of America probably thinks a 6-week fetus looks like a miniature two-year old.
I read a piece last night discussing the abortion ban in Texas. It was making the point that bans are unpopular, and quoted a poll which said that in Texas, 80% of people agreed there should be an exception to the ban to save the life of the pregnant person.
I wanted to know who the hell the 20% were who opposed abortion even to save the woman’s life.
I know from discussions decades ago that while the Catholic Church technically allowed abortion to save the life of the mother, it was frowned upon to do it, because a *real* woman would be willing to die to save the life of her child. The implication was that women who chose their own life over that of the fetus were heartless, cruel, unnatural women.
Yeah. From my own conservative upbringing I think the women would be encouraged to put their faith (and safety) in God’s hand and distrust their doctors. I’ve seen cases of doctors “being wrong” held up as exemplars as why you can’t trust them. When I feel optimistic and kind, I think wow these people really acknowledge our own human frailty and limitations and trust in a Benevolent afterlife. When I feel cynical I think... not nice things.
I hate follow her on Twitter. She is trying very hard to get women to renounce any birth control. She basically said to only have sex in marriage when you would welcome a pregnancy. Lmao. That approach has never worked. I also doubt her husband and she practice what she preaches. I don’t think she wants a Duggar style family. She likes running her organization too much.
It’s just appalling. Returning to 12 children families would definitely close down the opportunities for women to do anything but stay home and care for children.
And telling husbands they can only have sex when they want to have a child would, I’m afraid to say, increase the rates of marital rape exponentially.
My great grandmother had 13 kids. Any sane person doesn’t want to return to that lifestyle that wore out and killed women earlier. And the right wing women that push it online like their careers and don’t want the huge family either. Hypocrites such like Schlafly was.
My great grandmother had 18 pregnancies and 15 live births. She died at 45, I assume, from exhaustion.
People not only don’t want families that size, they can’t afford them. How the hell do you help that many children with college or post high school training? Do we return to the days when we had 8 kids sharing a bedroom? How do you even feed a dozen kids?
You certainly don’t have time to spend with each child individually- and the older kids - let’s be honest, the older daughters - end up with the lions share of the housework, and raise the younger kids. I suppose the right sees that as good training for what *all* women will be expected to spend their lives doing.
The goal of civilization, I thought, was to make life better for people in general, not to make it worse.
I just read an article on Yahoo about a young doctor who attended medical school in Texas but had to come to California to get the training she needed for abortion care. She came here, to the San Francisco Bay Area, and says that the area was "saturated with trainees." There were so many young doctors needing training and not enough spots for them. She had the financial means to go to Mexico City for training (she said it cost a couple of thousand dollars). Despite California being a sanctuary state for abortion access, doctors are also being turned into medical refugees because the state simply doesn't have the means to train everyone who needs to be trained. Did those politicians who passed the anti-abortion laws expect this consequence? I'm sure they--and those liars with the anti-abortion groups--would deny it, but it makes me wonder. One way to make sure pregnancy and childbirth are even more lethal is to, well, make sure there are no doctors. The cruelty is the point, as we've been saying over and over.
Ignorance. So much is ignorance & it won’t affect them, so selfishness too. The doctor who regrets his vote because he didn’t understand the ramifications. He never thought about the ramifications because he is a member of the party who has become all about about control and “sticking together” to gain & keep that control. Even when they do know better they are holding their nose, as if that will make it ok.
All these Planned Parenthood shutting down will have significant issues in other health care areas when counties don’t provide affordable mammograms, Pap smears, std testing, etc. It’s coming.
I don’t think they want to increase maternal deaths - not directly. It’s more that if they can ban abortion , and prevent doctors from knowing how to perform them, there can’t be any abortions. The increased number of deaths isn’t the goal, it’s just a bonus.
If/when there is I'm sure Jessica and Grace will find it and we'll read it here first. I'm surprised we don't have at least one specific death to attribute to Dobbs yet, but it will happen eventually. There is likely an increase in maternal mortality, but it will probably take some extra research to demonstrate Dobbs as a causing factor, as opposed to just the general rotten state of health care in America for those who are disadvantaged.
For sure, Jessica and Grace will have it when available, but I thought I may have missed it. It’s hard for me to believe there haven’t been deaths with all the near misses we’ve already heard about.
What’s the minute mark for the discussion about banning IUDs on the Kirk podcast episode? As someone who happily has an IUD, I was alarmed when I read that part and promptly listened to the interview but didn’t catch it. Maybe I tuned out (it’s easy to do when it comes to either of those characters) and missed it.
Good catch! I mixed up my notes and the IUD-abortifacient conversation came from another podcast episode from the weekend. I issued a correction. Thank you!
I don't know how these ladies listen and read anti-abortion crap all day and not pull out their hair. It's so enraging just reading the news they put out let alone what they must be researching to compile it. But bless them for doing it.
We need to stop calling it 'fetal personhood' and call it 'fetal coverture'. This is a term coined by Caren Myers Morrison in Virginia law review and I feel it better encapsulates the intent of anti-abortion. By arguing fetuses are people, the state is saying the pregnant are their chattel. This violates the 5th, 13th and 14th amendments. The state is taking private property (pregnant bodies) for public use with fetuses acting as wards of the state. By asserting fetuses have these rights is to assert the pregnant do not have these rights and that fetuses have special privileges to other people's bodies that literally no one else has. To use the term 'fetal personhood' is to give credence to the arguments that women are less than people. They're not even chattel. They're public property of the state.
State Abortion Bans: Pregnancy as a New Form of Coverture
I read that piece last week, and it’s right on the money. But - we’ve got a *lot* of messaging to to turn fetal coverture into anything more than inside baseball terminology. Outside of the legal realm, and historians of feminism, no one has any idea what it means.
Sadly, many of these people won’t see any issue with it being labeled coverture as they are the same people who are all, “wives submit to yours husbands,” garbage. So it’s not a new or shocking concept, but one that’s already wholly embraced by the devout.
I agree, Broce. I don’t want to use a word like ‘coverture’ for messaging purposes. The points are legitimate but I’m not sure how compelling in terms of changing attitudes. At the very least the concept needs to be simplified using accessible language.
Laura, there isn’t a better term, IMO. But is not a concept that is easily understood without first having an understanding of the history of coverture in the law. When I first read the article, it clicked strongly with me, because I already understood coverture. Just reading the term itself automatically conveyed the rest of what she wrote about before I read the rest of the piece.
That’s part of the problem with messaging in the left in general - we think in nuance, and not in sound bites. But sound bites are what sells to the masses. That’s why the “they’re killing baybeez” message got so much traction to being with. It’s simple, and easily understood. Explaining the minutiae of fetal development is much more difficult to pop into a headline, or a 45 second news story on television.
I honestly don’t know how we spread the understanding, except to keep plugging away. Like I’ve said all along, it took the right fifty years to overturn Roe, and similar patience may be required to eliminate Dobbs, and encode abortion rights into the law.
They literally want to being coverture back. They can't make women legally invisible under their husbands anymore so they're trying to do it by making their uteruses public property.
Jessica and Grace and their legal sources are looking at it. If I were trying to argue against it I'd probably say some variation of parental responsibility. Idk what that would do to the argument.
Idk maybe I should ask my cousin who's a lawyer to do me a big favor and read it and tell me what the strengths and weaknesses of it as a legal argument are and how to find a party who would be interested in it.
I wouldn't be sure how to start; I'd need a specific plan before taking an action. It needs to be read by the right lawyers, and figuring out who that is and how to get them interested would be the task. Because the goal is for someone to advance the arguments in a legal filing. One problem is it might be too big of an idea, that most lawyers might be more comfortable sticking with the minutiae they know. Having a case before a favorable judge or court would be a good prerequisite, although it ought to be of general interest to anyone practicing in this area anyway. It's an argument you use when you want to make the case for a categorical right to abortion, rather than some narrow case against one specific aspect of a restriction in a law. It's how you overturn Dobbs, but because that decision is so recent it might take a brave lawyer and brave judge to make that challenge. That's why I wonder if state courts aren't the place it should go first. Have to find the right case, and the right lawyer, so better to find someone who knows how to identify those things. I don't have enough knowledge and expertise to know where to go with it, and yeah it just gets lost if everyone is herding cats. Would need to do more research on what's going on with the cases in Wisconsin, and identity particular parties who would file briefs to advance the argument. And then what to do to get them to listen?
I'm right with you. I have no idea where to take it or how to make the case on why they should take it. Was trying to write this book to do that but it's just too big of a project with zero experience with what I want to do with it.
Having the truth with us gives us hope. The problem is we don't know how bad things will have to get before the average person, the median person, can no longer resign themself to this tyranny, and finds the will and the strength to fight it. The fascists in Japan and Germany wreaked great destruction on the world before they were pushed back, before the majority was willing to wage war on them, occuring only when it had found there were no other options remaining.
I was at the capitol protests in Iowa on Tuesday, and it was heartbreaking. We always knew this is what they would try, but it's still infuriating that it has happened. Thank you so much for your coverage. The majority of Iowans support abortion rights, but the GOP doesn't care. She campaigned on this issue, and it was always her intent. They truly do not care what their constituents think.
Way to go, Grace!
Thank you Grace for your work. It's hard to live in Houston Texas. I am grateful I live in Houston at least. I'm embarrased to say I live in Texas the belly of the beast. All I can do is stay positive. I am a bright blue dot 🔵in a very red state. People who can pro-create need to be celebrated on regulated. 👩
NOT regulated...oops typo
Right, but I’m worried the damage will be hidden.
It's time to start moving military bases out of red states. Certainly the headquarters of Space Command should permanently be in Colorado.
Indeed. There are a great many other good reasons to keep Space Command here (I live in Colorado Springs), starting with the fact that Trump chose Huntsville against the advice of military leaders in order to punish Colorado for voting blue in 2018. But yes, full reproductive health care is among those issues. That, unfortunately, is not a selling point in the Republican held House.
(Me too!)
Thankfully the Republicans only have the house.
For now.
If you're a White Nationalist who ISN'T a racist, you're doing it wrong.
It would be neat if AED would publish a guide to using more precise or effective language when writing/talking about abortion such as saying fetus instead of baby or unborn child, saying ban instead of consensus, saying pregnant person vs pregnant woman (I like saying pregnant adult, teenager, or child to emphasize the scope of the issue and avoid anti-trans bigotry), anti-abortion instead of pro-life, etc. I find language like “pregnancy is too complicated to legislate” to be really helpful too.
I might be projecting but I think readers would dig it. I would at least. I see a lot of external writings that use anti-abortion activists’ preferred language. Sometimes I find it hard to recognize **how submersed I was in that worldview**.
This is helpful feedback! Thank you!
"What I found particularly grating in today’s news was the way that the media covered the latest abortion polling. We know that Americans support abortion—why are mainstream outlets lending credence to the anti-choice talking point that voters want restrictions?" Polls are notoriously unreliable and depend a lot on precisely what question is asked. One way around the problem is to compare polls results over time where the question is asked is exactly the same. Another way is to write the questions carefully. It would be expensive but one work around to get a more meaningful poll would be for League of Women Voters or some other organization that is perceived as not biased to commission a poll with in-depth information provided as a background for questions and carefull and specific questions. The political part of me would also like to see the polling population geared to what is helpful. For example, how about a sample that is limited to people registered to vote, and registered as independents in swing states. It could include questions about voting propensity: e.g. did they vote in 2020, 2022, and do they intend to vote in 2024. It would take a while to set such a poll up but there is plenty of time before the 2024 election goes into full swing. The results would, I hope, stengthen the backbone of Democratic politicians in putting abortion rights front and center. Asking the poll questions both with and without providing the background info would also show how much education remains to be done.
Keep in mind that the far right has decided that the League of Women Voters is “biased” toward Democrats. They’re refusing to participate in any debates run by the organization in 2024.
Agree with everything, except that nowadays there is no such thing as an organization that is perceived as not biased. Abortion is by far Democrats' top issue but yes they need to figure out which messages resonate the most with which target voter groups, and where more education would improve the results. Because unfortunately we can't get every voter to read this newsletter every day.
Good job Grace, thanks.
The TN article is valuable because it humanizes doctors who remember and foretells what can come. I wish we had a fund for young doctors who have medical school debt but want to get abortion training. They are needed.
How about requiring personal reproductive health records along with mental health records of each & every anti- abortion advocate in congress, federal & state to be made public. Include their domestic strife & incidents of violence, especially against women, which multiply daily. If they’re not pure as the driven snow, ban them from voting on women’s health. Restrict their freedoms unilaterally.
I cannot stand that Rose creature. She cares nothing about women. Just fetuses.
Does she really care about fetuses? In my experience that concern is questionable.
They don't seem to understand that fetuses tend to die when their mothers do. Or they do and just don't care. Fetuses are just legal fictions that vanish as soon as they're no longer useful.
The “REAL women sacrifice everything for their babies/families” concept runs deep deep deep. Also we have terrible sex ed. Most people have no idea about pregnancy. I find it amazing the polls are so pro-choice when half of America probably thinks a 6-week fetus looks like a miniature two-year old.
I read a piece last night discussing the abortion ban in Texas. It was making the point that bans are unpopular, and quoted a poll which said that in Texas, 80% of people agreed there should be an exception to the ban to save the life of the pregnant person.
I wanted to know who the hell the 20% were who opposed abortion even to save the woman’s life.
I know from discussions decades ago that while the Catholic Church technically allowed abortion to save the life of the mother, it was frowned upon to do it, because a *real* woman would be willing to die to save the life of her child. The implication was that women who chose their own life over that of the fetus were heartless, cruel, unnatural women.
Yeah. From my own conservative upbringing I think the women would be encouraged to put their faith (and safety) in God’s hand and distrust their doctors. I’ve seen cases of doctors “being wrong” held up as exemplars as why you can’t trust them. When I feel optimistic and kind, I think wow these people really acknowledge our own human frailty and limitations and trust in a Benevolent afterlife. When I feel cynical I think... not nice things.
Yeah, imagine if they knew the truth.
She is a very creepy woman. Clearly has some kind of breeding fetish she wants to impose on the whole country.
I hate follow her on Twitter. She is trying very hard to get women to renounce any birth control. She basically said to only have sex in marriage when you would welcome a pregnancy. Lmao. That approach has never worked. I also doubt her husband and she practice what she preaches. I don’t think she wants a Duggar style family. She likes running her organization too much.
I think this is the woman who said she wanted to keep her oldest daughters home to take care of the younger ones. Super creepy breeding cult.
It’s just appalling. Returning to 12 children families would definitely close down the opportunities for women to do anything but stay home and care for children.
And telling husbands they can only have sex when they want to have a child would, I’m afraid to say, increase the rates of marital rape exponentially.
My great grandmother had 13 kids. Any sane person doesn’t want to return to that lifestyle that wore out and killed women earlier. And the right wing women that push it online like their careers and don’t want the huge family either. Hypocrites such like Schlafly was.
My great grandmother had 18 pregnancies and 15 live births. She died at 45, I assume, from exhaustion.
People not only don’t want families that size, they can’t afford them. How the hell do you help that many children with college or post high school training? Do we return to the days when we had 8 kids sharing a bedroom? How do you even feed a dozen kids?
You certainly don’t have time to spend with each child individually- and the older kids - let’s be honest, the older daughters - end up with the lions share of the housework, and raise the younger kids. I suppose the right sees that as good training for what *all* women will be expected to spend their lives doing.
The goal of civilization, I thought, was to make life better for people in general, not to make it worse.
Apparently making life better for people is "defying god" 🤷
I just read an article on Yahoo about a young doctor who attended medical school in Texas but had to come to California to get the training she needed for abortion care. She came here, to the San Francisco Bay Area, and says that the area was "saturated with trainees." There were so many young doctors needing training and not enough spots for them. She had the financial means to go to Mexico City for training (she said it cost a couple of thousand dollars). Despite California being a sanctuary state for abortion access, doctors are also being turned into medical refugees because the state simply doesn't have the means to train everyone who needs to be trained. Did those politicians who passed the anti-abortion laws expect this consequence? I'm sure they--and those liars with the anti-abortion groups--would deny it, but it makes me wonder. One way to make sure pregnancy and childbirth are even more lethal is to, well, make sure there are no doctors. The cruelty is the point, as we've been saying over and over.
Ignorance. So much is ignorance & it won’t affect them, so selfishness too. The doctor who regrets his vote because he didn’t understand the ramifications. He never thought about the ramifications because he is a member of the party who has become all about about control and “sticking together” to gain & keep that control. Even when they do know better they are holding their nose, as if that will make it ok.
All these Planned Parenthood shutting down will have significant issues in other health care areas when counties don’t provide affordable mammograms, Pap smears, std testing, etc. It’s coming.
I don’t think they want to increase maternal deaths - not directly. It’s more that if they can ban abortion , and prevent doctors from knowing how to perform them, there can’t be any abortions. The increased number of deaths isn’t the goal, it’s just a bonus.
I think they see women as disposable. They simply don’t care what happens to women.
Yes, the goal is to force obstetrics and gynecology to replace medical practice with (their) religious practice.
They want women to go back to giving birth in their homes where their suffering and deaths can be quietly ignored.
Speaking of deaths: Is there hard data on maternal deaths due to Dobbs?
If/when there is I'm sure Jessica and Grace will find it and we'll read it here first. I'm surprised we don't have at least one specific death to attribute to Dobbs yet, but it will happen eventually. There is likely an increase in maternal mortality, but it will probably take some extra research to demonstrate Dobbs as a causing factor, as opposed to just the general rotten state of health care in America for those who are disadvantaged.
For sure, Jessica and Grace will have it when available, but I thought I may have missed it. It’s hard for me to believe there haven’t been deaths with all the near misses we’ve already heard about.
What’s the minute mark for the discussion about banning IUDs on the Kirk podcast episode? As someone who happily has an IUD, I was alarmed when I read that part and promptly listened to the interview but didn’t catch it. Maybe I tuned out (it’s easy to do when it comes to either of those characters) and missed it.
Good catch! I mixed up my notes and the IUD-abortifacient conversation came from another podcast episode from the weekend. I issued a correction. Thank you!
I don't know how these ladies listen and read anti-abortion crap all day and not pull out their hair. It's so enraging just reading the news they put out let alone what they must be researching to compile it. But bless them for doing it.
Our evolution into Gilead continues apace, thanks to the Republicans......
We need to stop calling it 'fetal personhood' and call it 'fetal coverture'. This is a term coined by Caren Myers Morrison in Virginia law review and I feel it better encapsulates the intent of anti-abortion. By arguing fetuses are people, the state is saying the pregnant are their chattel. This violates the 5th, 13th and 14th amendments. The state is taking private property (pregnant bodies) for public use with fetuses acting as wards of the state. By asserting fetuses have these rights is to assert the pregnant do not have these rights and that fetuses have special privileges to other people's bodies that literally no one else has. To use the term 'fetal personhood' is to give credence to the arguments that women are less than people. They're not even chattel. They're public property of the state.
State Abortion Bans: Pregnancy as a New Form of Coverture
https://virginialawreview.org/articles/state-abortion-bans-pregnancy-as-a-new-form-of-coverture/
Laura,
I read that piece last week, and it’s right on the money. But - we’ve got a *lot* of messaging to to turn fetal coverture into anything more than inside baseball terminology. Outside of the legal realm, and historians of feminism, no one has any idea what it means.
How do we change that?
Sadly, many of these people won’t see any issue with it being labeled coverture as they are the same people who are all, “wives submit to yours husbands,” garbage. So it’s not a new or shocking concept, but one that’s already wholly embraced by the devout.
Oh definitely. The question is just whether it has value as a legal argument, as we try to (re)establish rights.
I agree, Broce. I don’t want to use a word like ‘coverture’ for messaging purposes. The points are legitimate but I’m not sure how compelling in terms of changing attitudes. At the very least the concept needs to be simplified using accessible language.
There's really no other word to describe it. I know it's quite an antiquated word but what other word is there in modern terminology?
Laura, there isn’t a better term, IMO. But is not a concept that is easily understood without first having an understanding of the history of coverture in the law. When I first read the article, it clicked strongly with me, because I already understood coverture. Just reading the term itself automatically conveyed the rest of what she wrote about before I read the rest of the piece.
That’s part of the problem with messaging in the left in general - we think in nuance, and not in sound bites. But sound bites are what sells to the masses. That’s why the “they’re killing baybeez” message got so much traction to being with. It’s simple, and easily understood. Explaining the minutiae of fetal development is much more difficult to pop into a headline, or a 45 second news story on television.
I honestly don’t know how we spread the understanding, except to keep plugging away. Like I’ve said all along, it took the right fifty years to overturn Roe, and similar patience may be required to eliminate Dobbs, and encode abortion rights into the law.
They literally want to being coverture back. They can't make women legally invisible under their husbands anymore so they're trying to do it by making their uteruses public property.
Jessica and Grace and their legal sources are looking at it. If I were trying to argue against it I'd probably say some variation of parental responsibility. Idk what that would do to the argument.
I just emailed Jessica about it and tried to make my case but haven't heard back. Think we should start here at least.
It's a legal argument. I'd like to know what other lawyers think of it. They're the ones who need to see it first.
Were you able to talk to the ACLU there yet? I remember you were talking about it.
Idk maybe I should ask my cousin who's a lawyer to do me a big favor and read it and tell me what the strengths and weaknesses of it as a legal argument are and how to find a party who would be interested in it.
I wouldn't be sure how to start; I'd need a specific plan before taking an action. It needs to be read by the right lawyers, and figuring out who that is and how to get them interested would be the task. Because the goal is for someone to advance the arguments in a legal filing. One problem is it might be too big of an idea, that most lawyers might be more comfortable sticking with the minutiae they know. Having a case before a favorable judge or court would be a good prerequisite, although it ought to be of general interest to anyone practicing in this area anyway. It's an argument you use when you want to make the case for a categorical right to abortion, rather than some narrow case against one specific aspect of a restriction in a law. It's how you overturn Dobbs, but because that decision is so recent it might take a brave lawyer and brave judge to make that challenge. That's why I wonder if state courts aren't the place it should go first. Have to find the right case, and the right lawyer, so better to find someone who knows how to identify those things. I don't have enough knowledge and expertise to know where to go with it, and yeah it just gets lost if everyone is herding cats. Would need to do more research on what's going on with the cases in Wisconsin, and identity particular parties who would file briefs to advance the argument. And then what to do to get them to listen?
I'm right with you. I have no idea where to take it or how to make the case on why they should take it. Was trying to write this book to do that but it's just too big of a project with zero experience with what I want to do with it.
Thanks for sharing. I found that article really interesting.
Gives me hope
Having the truth with us gives us hope. The problem is we don't know how bad things will have to get before the average person, the median person, can no longer resign themself to this tyranny, and finds the will and the strength to fight it. The fascists in Japan and Germany wreaked great destruction on the world before they were pushed back, before the majority was willing to wage war on them, occuring only when it had found there were no other options remaining.
Let's hope it doesn't come to those extremes.
Ask me on Wednesday November 6th 2024.
I was at the capitol protests in Iowa on Tuesday, and it was heartbreaking. We always knew this is what they would try, but it's still infuriating that it has happened. Thank you so much for your coverage. The majority of Iowans support abortion rights, but the GOP doesn't care. She campaigned on this issue, and it was always her intent. They truly do not care what their constituents think.