I agree so much. NARAL was last effective/had any influence in 1992 with "Who Decides" and Bill Clinton as the candidate after PP v. Casey. The pro-choice groups don't have any influence in the primaries as this piece discusses. They don't have the money or the grassroots to knock on doors and phone/text/whatever or have people on the ground and not in DC who are always ready for reporters to call for a quote about local, lived experience. Labor has all of that in every election and they're always there. NARAL and the like should consider really investing in and building robust affiliates in primary states (and other states that they've shortchanged over the years) that can do all of that rather than just focusing on the national level after it's too late, and then not really at all.
It'd be nice, or something, if every Presidential cycle there were coveted pro-choice endorsements in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada and wherever else that came with: lots of money, free paid media for a lesser-known candidate, and volunteers. I've long given up on the national groups and just give to candidates locally. Someday the national groups can get over whatever they need to get over and focus on being an influence in the primaries. Loved this piece.
I’d like to see dems publicly debating each other on policy positions or holding live Q&As about why other party ideas are not reality based or productive (eg don’t debate climate change). I think it could be interesting and educational. Media seems to need conflict in order to show anything. Everything is Jerry Springer now but maybe worse?
We have a house in Guatemala. Having multiple parties doesn’t resolve anything—in fact, it often makes things worse down there, as many of our friends have told us.
My understanding of Medicaid is that states choose from an array of services and abortion is one of the choices. The last time I checked New Mexico covered abortion in their Medicaid plan. So, it’s an option, but a state has to decide if it is covered. Has that changed?
I was so ticked off at Biden last night, as he listed Trump's deficiencies, shared here:
"This is a guy who told us to put bleach in our arms to deal with COVID, with a million-- over a million people died. This is a guy who talks about wantin' to get rid of the healthcare provision we put in place. This is a guy who wants to give the power back to big pharma to be able to charge exorbitant prices for drugs. This is a guy who wants to undo every single thing I've done, every single-- every single thing."
Where is a denouncement of Trump killing a woman's right to an abortion? I have yet to hear him say the damn word! But this was THE place where he should have STARTED with, "This is a guy who brags about killing Roe v Wade, stripping away a woman's right to an abortion, with no exceptions."
At that moment, I had a deep disdain for Biden. Women are going to push him over the finish line because the alternative is so horrific to contemplate in terms of abortion rights, or even access to birth control. And there are a lot of men who support a woman's right to choose, who will also be voting to restore abortion rights.
His ignoring this large swath of supporters on this issue is a slap in the face. Damn, I hate not having a better choice! He thinks putting Kamala out there is good enough. But he has now had two huge platforms on which he could have hammered Trump on abortion, and he didn't take them. Big fail.
Nevertheless, I'll vote for him, because not voting for Biden is a vote from Trump.
My “theory of the case” is that this election will be decided by women voting for their bodily autonomy, so the question should be who can make that argument most effectively and get the vote out. Biden had an easy question and he managed to strike out on one pitch. Restore Roe is thin gruel indeed, especially the way he described it. Harris is a trained, skillful advocate who could tie Trump in knots. Let her have at it!
Well, we're not out of the woods if Biden wins the popular vote but not the Electoral College, or for that matter if he wins both and groups of people with assault weapons and poor impulse control attempt to impose a heckler's veto.
Yes, there is SO much baked into our systems and procedures that have nothing to do with the Constitution or what we all think of as American democracy — and the duplicity doubles down when it comes to abortion. There is much that is wrong. And yet, nothing is as wrong as what will happen if Trump gets in. That, unfortunately, sucks away much of the oxygen that should be resuscitating a real conversation around abortion.
An excellent appraisal of the political crisis we are facing.
Here is the problem and here is the political dividing line, "Our loyalty must be to people who need abortions." I don't question your sincerity about insisting on the right to an abortion. But this is careless language. The right to abortion must be based on supporting women who want an abortion, not just for women who need one. We shouldn't care whether she needs it or not, just that she wants one. And if you doubt that or will not grant it on that alone, then you also question her right to birth control and sex outside of reproduction or any privacy at all regarding her sexual experience.
Women who really need an abortion are typically happily married and were, until they needed an abortion, looking forward to child birth. To suggest that a woman who is accidentally pregnant "needs" an abortion is to suggest that she really wants to start raising kids from this accident regardless of her purposes. It is to impose a moral order on her or on everybody else participating in some social order that finds such child rearing undesirable or impossible.
The Democrat Party is weak on abortion because it is run by those who support a moral order that does not recognize that women want abortions because they become pregnant accidentally or though understandable negligence. The sad fact is that they are not too different from those in the Republican Party. In some cases, they are the exact same people playing both sides. The Two Party System is just one party masquerading as two.
Having had 4 pregnancies with birth control that is 95% effective, it doesn't matter to me what your marital status is. If you 'need' an abortion, whether it is a medically based need or a mental health one, you should have access.
This is my point. Who decides what "need" is? And who should decide and whose business is it any way? If a woman seeks an abortion, nobody should imagine they have any interest in it besides making sure she can get one, no questions asked. Even just suggesting that there might be some reason anyone else should be concerned about why she wants an abortion impinges on her mental health. If that's what you are concerned about, then you have to start there.
Our loyalty should be to women who want abortions, not need abortions. If we start there, it follows naturally that women who need them, really need them, can get them without any problems.
Nobody is injured when a woman gets an abortion, there are no fantasy unborn children involved. There is nobody but the woman to worry about. A woman who had been looking forward to her pregnancy as if it were a child is suffering disappointment. Posing it as a tragedy impinges further on her mental health. Again, she wants an abortion because she really needs it. That is just obvious and nobody should be sticking there nose in.
Agreed I think talking about the most tragic cases is essential, but it needs to be one pillar of the strategy, not the whole deal.
Politicians have to persuade people exactly the framing you describe: that all people get to decide at any point what happens to their body: no forced touching/sex, no forced violence, no forced pregnancy, no forced birth, no forced surgeries, no forced blood or organ donations, even no forced vaccinations — and I am very pro vaccine!. But your body is yours and government should stay away.
I felt like we had a lot of policy debates in 2020. This time around, Pres. Biden is the sitting president. Parties nearly ALWAYS nominate their incumbent presidents without running real primaries.
I can tell you exactly what the problem with primaries is. PEOPLE don't give a shit. The amount of people like us who are committed to following the news and staying informed and actually voting in primaries is ridiculously small.
People aren't just busy dealing with their own lives, they are checked out completely. The Internet came and silo-ed people into their own preferred bubbles and now we can't even reach them. They only see the stuff they want to see, no one answers their phone anymore because it's 95% scams, the algorithm chooses what people see whether it's true or not. There aren't any overall shared experiences anymore.
It's the biggest problem you, me, the Democratic party, the government, everyone who cares about facts and reality have. It astounds me when I talk to random people and they have nooooo ideaaaaa what's going on. A lot of people's brains struggle to sit through a long discussion of in-the-weeds policy since it's been conditioned to absorb info in 1 minute or less chunks. I don't know how to fix it.
I truthfully felt as if I were an invisible citizen after that debate. Am aware 90 minutes can’t cover all politics. The issues that so very impact my future and my body, reproductive rights, climate change, children and families, and advocacy for DEI barely registered a sentence or two of reasonably coherent consideration.
The time to have questioned was during primaries. Why it didn’t happen only the future will tell us. Ship has sailed. We are voting for a blue administration with whatever topper it comes with. This election is far too important. Vote blue no matter who.
Some of the talk about Biden's age and fitness is coming from the GOP, and Moscow disinformation campaigns.
But, talk is also coming from people who have contact with the White House, and who have seen that Biden has slowed down. Learning that Biden functions best between 10am and 4pm isn't exactly a ringing endorsement.
Getting back on topic, I agree that more discussion of candidates ' positions on abortion and reproductive health would be good.
I doubt that Biden, a lifelong Catholic, was ever going to speak out more forcefully on the subject of abortion.
I agree so much. NARAL was last effective/had any influence in 1992 with "Who Decides" and Bill Clinton as the candidate after PP v. Casey. The pro-choice groups don't have any influence in the primaries as this piece discusses. They don't have the money or the grassroots to knock on doors and phone/text/whatever or have people on the ground and not in DC who are always ready for reporters to call for a quote about local, lived experience. Labor has all of that in every election and they're always there. NARAL and the like should consider really investing in and building robust affiliates in primary states (and other states that they've shortchanged over the years) that can do all of that rather than just focusing on the national level after it's too late, and then not really at all.
It'd be nice, or something, if every Presidential cycle there were coveted pro-choice endorsements in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada and wherever else that came with: lots of money, free paid media for a lesser-known candidate, and volunteers. I've long given up on the national groups and just give to candidates locally. Someday the national groups can get over whatever they need to get over and focus on being an influence in the primaries. Loved this piece.
I’d like to see dems publicly debating each other on policy positions or holding live Q&As about why other party ideas are not reality based or productive (eg don’t debate climate change). I think it could be interesting and educational. Media seems to need conflict in order to show anything. Everything is Jerry Springer now but maybe worse?
We have a house in Guatemala. Having multiple parties doesn’t resolve anything—in fact, it often makes things worse down there, as many of our friends have told us.
My understanding of Medicaid is that states choose from an array of services and abortion is one of the choices. The last time I checked New Mexico covered abortion in their Medicaid plan. So, it’s an option, but a state has to decide if it is covered. Has that changed?
I was so ticked off at Biden last night, as he listed Trump's deficiencies, shared here:
"This is a guy who told us to put bleach in our arms to deal with COVID, with a million-- over a million people died. This is a guy who talks about wantin' to get rid of the healthcare provision we put in place. This is a guy who wants to give the power back to big pharma to be able to charge exorbitant prices for drugs. This is a guy who wants to undo every single thing I've done, every single-- every single thing."
Where is a denouncement of Trump killing a woman's right to an abortion? I have yet to hear him say the damn word! But this was THE place where he should have STARTED with, "This is a guy who brags about killing Roe v Wade, stripping away a woman's right to an abortion, with no exceptions."
At that moment, I had a deep disdain for Biden. Women are going to push him over the finish line because the alternative is so horrific to contemplate in terms of abortion rights, or even access to birth control. And there are a lot of men who support a woman's right to choose, who will also be voting to restore abortion rights.
His ignoring this large swath of supporters on this issue is a slap in the face. Damn, I hate not having a better choice! He thinks putting Kamala out there is good enough. But he has now had two huge platforms on which he could have hammered Trump on abortion, and he didn't take them. Big fail.
Nevertheless, I'll vote for him, because not voting for Biden is a vote from Trump.
Can we please have a national primary election day? I am tired of other states deciding who the candidates will be before I get my turn!
My “theory of the case” is that this election will be decided by women voting for their bodily autonomy, so the question should be who can make that argument most effectively and get the vote out. Biden had an easy question and he managed to strike out on one pitch. Restore Roe is thin gruel indeed, especially the way he described it. Harris is a trained, skillful advocate who could tie Trump in knots. Let her have at it!
Well, we're not out of the woods if Biden wins the popular vote but not the Electoral College, or for that matter if he wins both and groups of people with assault weapons and poor impulse control attempt to impose a heckler's veto.
Yes, there is SO much baked into our systems and procedures that have nothing to do with the Constitution or what we all think of as American democracy — and the duplicity doubles down when it comes to abortion. There is much that is wrong. And yet, nothing is as wrong as what will happen if Trump gets in. That, unfortunately, sucks away much of the oxygen that should be resuscitating a real conversation around abortion.
An excellent appraisal of the political crisis we are facing.
Here is the problem and here is the political dividing line, "Our loyalty must be to people who need abortions." I don't question your sincerity about insisting on the right to an abortion. But this is careless language. The right to abortion must be based on supporting women who want an abortion, not just for women who need one. We shouldn't care whether she needs it or not, just that she wants one. And if you doubt that or will not grant it on that alone, then you also question her right to birth control and sex outside of reproduction or any privacy at all regarding her sexual experience.
Women who really need an abortion are typically happily married and were, until they needed an abortion, looking forward to child birth. To suggest that a woman who is accidentally pregnant "needs" an abortion is to suggest that she really wants to start raising kids from this accident regardless of her purposes. It is to impose a moral order on her or on everybody else participating in some social order that finds such child rearing undesirable or impossible.
The Democrat Party is weak on abortion because it is run by those who support a moral order that does not recognize that women want abortions because they become pregnant accidentally or though understandable negligence. The sad fact is that they are not too different from those in the Republican Party. In some cases, they are the exact same people playing both sides. The Two Party System is just one party masquerading as two.
Having had 4 pregnancies with birth control that is 95% effective, it doesn't matter to me what your marital status is. If you 'need' an abortion, whether it is a medically based need or a mental health one, you should have access.
This is my point. Who decides what "need" is? And who should decide and whose business is it any way? If a woman seeks an abortion, nobody should imagine they have any interest in it besides making sure she can get one, no questions asked. Even just suggesting that there might be some reason anyone else should be concerned about why she wants an abortion impinges on her mental health. If that's what you are concerned about, then you have to start there.
Our loyalty should be to women who want abortions, not need abortions. If we start there, it follows naturally that women who need them, really need them, can get them without any problems.
Nobody is injured when a woman gets an abortion, there are no fantasy unborn children involved. There is nobody but the woman to worry about. A woman who had been looking forward to her pregnancy as if it were a child is suffering disappointment. Posing it as a tragedy impinges further on her mental health. Again, she wants an abortion because she really needs it. That is just obvious and nobody should be sticking there nose in.
Agreed I think talking about the most tragic cases is essential, but it needs to be one pillar of the strategy, not the whole deal.
Politicians have to persuade people exactly the framing you describe: that all people get to decide at any point what happens to their body: no forced touching/sex, no forced violence, no forced pregnancy, no forced birth, no forced surgeries, no forced blood or organ donations, even no forced vaccinations — and I am very pro vaccine!. But your body is yours and government should stay away.
I felt like we had a lot of policy debates in 2020. This time around, Pres. Biden is the sitting president. Parties nearly ALWAYS nominate their incumbent presidents without running real primaries.
Great article
I can tell you exactly what the problem with primaries is. PEOPLE don't give a shit. The amount of people like us who are committed to following the news and staying informed and actually voting in primaries is ridiculously small.
People aren't just busy dealing with their own lives, they are checked out completely. The Internet came and silo-ed people into their own preferred bubbles and now we can't even reach them. They only see the stuff they want to see, no one answers their phone anymore because it's 95% scams, the algorithm chooses what people see whether it's true or not. There aren't any overall shared experiences anymore.
It's the biggest problem you, me, the Democratic party, the government, everyone who cares about facts and reality have. It astounds me when I talk to random people and they have nooooo ideaaaaa what's going on. A lot of people's brains struggle to sit through a long discussion of in-the-weeds policy since it's been conditioned to absorb info in 1 minute or less chunks. I don't know how to fix it.
I truthfully felt as if I were an invisible citizen after that debate. Am aware 90 minutes can’t cover all politics. The issues that so very impact my future and my body, reproductive rights, climate change, children and families, and advocacy for DEI barely registered a sentence or two of reasonably coherent consideration.
The time to have questioned was during primaries. Why it didn’t happen only the future will tell us. Ship has sailed. We are voting for a blue administration with whatever topper it comes with. This election is far too important. Vote blue no matter who.
All this Biden too old crap is coming from a basement with wifi in Moscow.
Some of the talk about Biden's age and fitness is coming from the GOP, and Moscow disinformation campaigns.
But, talk is also coming from people who have contact with the White House, and who have seen that Biden has slowed down. Learning that Biden functions best between 10am and 4pm isn't exactly a ringing endorsement.
Getting back on topic, I agree that more discussion of candidates ' positions on abortion and reproductive health would be good.
I doubt that Biden, a lifelong Catholic, was ever going to speak out more forcefully on the subject of abortion.