CA Cops Are Sharing License Plate Info With Anti-Choice States

7.4.24

Click to skip ahead: Attacks on Speech looks at how Twitter is quashing speech on abortion. I have Ballot Measure Updates on Nebraska and Arizona. In the States, news from Idaho, Michigan, California and more. Stats & Studies finds that medication abortion without ultrasounds are safe. In the Nation, some quick hits. In 2024, a fight is brewing over the abortion plank in the Republican party platform. Finally, a segment on how Black women are faring since Dobbs in Care Denied.

---

Attacks on Speech

I know, I know: I shouldn’t expect any better from Twitter, but this story about Elon Musk attacking Vice President Kamala Harris on abortion is about more than just one social media company. And the increasing anti-abortion attacks on speech and truth should have all of us worried.

The short version is that Harris tweeted, correctly, that “Donald Trump would ban abortion nationwide.” Musk replied, “He clearly said he would not do so in the debate.” He later accused Harris of lying and had Twitter (sorry, I won’t call it ‘X’) add a community note to her tweet reading, “President Trump has repeatedly said he will not sign a national abortion ban.”

Since when does what Trump say mean jack shit about what he’d actually do? Besides, even if Trump didn’t sign a national abortion ban (which is unlikely), we know that he plans to pass a backdoor ban using the Comstock Act. It’s vital that we’re able to tell the truth about that, and let voters know.

But to Musk, the only truth that matters is the one he believes. What happens next? Will he ban reporters who point out that Trump is likely to pass a national ban? Will any abortion rights tweet come with a ‘community note’?

I ran into this issue myself not too long ago: When I posted images of what early abortion looks like, Twitter added a ‘community note’ claiming my statement was false and that the images had been “debunked.” That wasn’t true.

Misinformation is one of the anti-abortion movement’s most powerful tools. If we can’t fight back against it, we’re in real trouble.

Ballot Measure Updates

About two minutes after I sent yesterday’s newsletter, I saw the terrific news: Nebraska abortion rights activists have collected enough signatures to get abortion on the ballot in November!

Protect Our Rights delivered over 207k signatures to the secretary of state’s office, more than any ballot measure in Nebraska’s history. From campaign manager Allie Berry:

“It’s clear that Nebraskans believe that patients, families, and doctors should be in charge of making their most personal healthcare decisions when pregnant about abortion, not politicians.”

Here’s the bad news: It looks like the fake ‘pro-choice’ measure launched by anti-abortion groups will also be on the ballot. ‘Protect Women & Children’ was started by conservatives hoping to trick voters by using feminist-sounding language and a similar-sounding campaign name. The anti-abortion activists collecting signatures have been telling Nebraska voters that they’re supporting a ‘pro-choice’ petition, even though the amendment would actually enshrine the state’s 12-week ban into the state constitution.

In fact, a good deal of voters have complained to the secretary of state’s office, trying to get their name taken off the fake ballot measure. (This local television segment talks to some of the folks who were misled.)

It’s a tactic I’ve been warning about for a while: Republicans know they can’t win on the merits, and they know voters overwhelmingly want abortion to be legal. So instead of making their case against abortion, they’re trying to trick pro-choice voters.

It’s also worth noting that while Nebraska’s real abortion rights amendment was funded by individual citizens and abortion rights groups, the fake measure was almost entirely bankrolled by a small group of Republican multimillionaires. One of those funders is U.S. Sen. Pete Ricketts, who also uses pro-choice language to push the anti-abortion amendment, saying it exists “to be able to give Nebraskans a choice—do you want out of state abortion lobby law or law we passed in Nebraska, give people a choice.”

Arizona abortion rights activists also delivered a historic number of signatures yesterday, with Arizona for Abortion Access gathering over 820k signatures to put abortion on the ballot in November. They delivered the petitions yesterday, and I’ve gotta say, I love seeing the images of all those boxes being loaded onto trucks to be delivered to the secretary of state’s office.

As I told you earlier this week, Arizona anti-abortion groups are responding by telling voters that abortion is already legal and ‘safe’, so they shouldn’t bother voting for the amendment. But if you want to see all the anti-abortion hits, check out yesterday’s press conference from the ‘It Goes Too Far' campaign.

The group repeats all the messaging we’ve been talking about for months—messaging, I might add, that has been wildly unsuccessful thus far.

In addition to claiming that Arizona’s abortion law is “settled,” anti-abortion activist Dawn Grove drops the exact talking point I warned about just yesterday; she claims that the pro-choice amendment’s language on ‘health care providers’ would allow pretty much anyone to perform abortions:

“It takes out the doctor from ‘doctor-patient relationship.’ Literally, the abortion amendment says ‘health care professionals,’ which under Arizona law is interpreted as chiropractors, dentists, veterinarians, nurses. It could be any number of health care professionals.”

I’m genuinely curious to see whatever polling they have that’s telling them this kind of messaging will work with voters. Because to me, it just sounds desperate.

In the States

ACLU Michigan announced today that it’s filing a suit to challenge the state’s ban on Medicaid coverage for abortion, arguing that it violates the new amendment protecting abortion rights in the state constitution. The group also argues, rightly, that the ban discriminates against people with low-incomes, who have to pay for abortion care while those with private insurance are covered. From their statement:

“The ban results in financial hardship for those with limited income, as well as infringes on their family-planning decisions, coercing some people into carrying pregnancies to term against their will.”

In response, anti-abortion groups went on the attack, calling the ACLU “abortion-obsessed” and accusing them of forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions. I, for one, would love my tax dollars to go to abortion.

Slate’s “What’s Next” podcast speaks to an Idaho OBGYN about what it’s been like since Roe was overturned, and how impossible it is to give patients proper care. It’s about as horrifying as you could imagine. What makes the interview especially important, of course, is how Idaho has been at the center of the legal fight over emergency abortion care:

Finally, some abortion-privacy news from California: A report from by the Sacramento County Grand Jury found that drivers in the state probably don’t realize that their cars “are being tracked by an intricate network of stationary and mobile cameras.” The report is part of a broader fight over automated license plate recognition systems (ALPRs) that collect drivers’ information.

How does this relate to abortion rights? Well, as you know if you’ve been reading the newsletter for a while, some counties share this ALPR data with law enforcement agencies in other states—including states that criminalize abortion. I’m sure you can imagine why this would be such a problem.

While California Attorney General Rob Bonta has issued guidance prohibiting the sharing of this information, civil liberties groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have pointed out that cops keep doing it regardless.

And despite indignant statements from the Sacramento County Sheriff's Office claiming that they’re not doing anything illegal or immoral, this grand jury report found that by sharing data with anti-choice states, the sheriff’s office and the Sacramento Police Department “unreasonably risked the aiding of potential prosecution by the home-state of women who traveled to California to seek or receive healthcare services.”

Just a reminder that living in a state where abortion is legal doesn’t mean that abortion patients are necessarily protected.

Quick hits:

• Minnesota has become an abortion rights safe haven in the midwest;

• There are barriers to abortion care even in pro-choice states like Massachusetts;

• Connecticut has seen a 150% increase in people coming from out-of-state for abortions;

• And CBS News asks whether abortion rights can sway conservative voters in California.

Stats & Studies

A new study finds that patients who obtain abortion medication by mail without getting an ultrasound first do just as well as patients who get the medication in-person, with an exam.

The research, from Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), at the University of California, San Francisco and published in JAMA, is just more evidence of what abortion rights advocates have been screaming from the rooftops: abortion medication is safe, and attempts to paint it as otherwise aren’t based in reality.

Research like this is also incredibly important in a moment when so many patients are using abortion medication to circumvent state bans. While a large number of women are traveling out-of-state for care, we know that two-thirds of abortions are medication abortions and that about 8,000 patients a month who live in states with bans are having pills shipped to them from providers in states with shield laws. From UCSF professor and study author Lauren J. Ralph:

“Patient history-based models of medication abortion care without ultrasound and via telehealth offer a safe, effective and urgently needed way to overcome logistical and geographic obstacles to accessing abortion today.”

At this point, there are many, many studies showing how safe and effective abortion medication is. But given the constant legal attacks—and the fake science anti-abortion groups are so desperate to push—the more research we have, the better.

In the Nation

• NPR on how the end of Roe is reshaping the medical workforce;

• Ms. magazine publishes pictures of some of their favorite protest signs from the Dobbs anniversary;

• Bloomberg on how Republicans’ abortion bans are backfiring politically;

• Four anti-abortion activists were sentenced under the FACE Act for their role in blocking access to a Tennessee clinic;

• And right-wing media outlets are trying to convince voters that Donald Trump wouldn’t sign a national abortion ban. (Good luck with that.)

“Lawmakers must understand that extremist attacks on our civil rights and freedoms are directly tied to the fight for reproductive justice. Personal autonomy—a pillar of democracy—is a major factor in how Black voters are planning to show up at the polls.” -Regina Davis Moss, president of In Our Own Voice: National Black Women's Reproductive Justice Agenda.

2024

Anti-abortion groups are very worried that Donald Trump will water down the Republican party platform on abortion. The New York Times reports that a group of high-profile conservative leaders have sent Trump a letter, urging him to “make clear that you do not intend to weaken the pro-life plank.”

They’re right to be concerned: Their letter came the same week that Trump’s campaign released a memo notifying platform committee members that they’ll be changing and shortening the document:

"Publishing an unnecessarily verbose treatise will provide more fuel for our opponent's fire of misinformation and misrepresentation to voters. It is with that recognition that we will present a streamlined platform in line with President Trump's principled and popular vision for America's future.”

POLITICO reports that the Trump campaign has also blocked two anti-abortion activists from the RNC platform committee, and that other delegates have said they’d been stopped by Trump operatives from getting seats on the committee.

Given how badly Republicans have been losing on abortion rights—and how the disgraced former president has been working so hard to appear ‘moderate’ on the issue—it makes sense that his advisers would want to change the platform. Doing so could win Trump the votes he’s most desperate for: women who supported him in 2016, but declined to do the same in 2020.

It’s unclear what kind of changes Trump’s advisors would make to the platform, but anti-abortion groups seem most worried about the call for a federal ban—something the platform has included for years, but Trump claims to oppose. (We know that’s nonsense.)

I’ll have more on the platform soon, because anti-abortion activists are doubling down on language that reveals quite a lot about their growing extremism. So be on the lookout for a column from me next week. In the meantime, the platform committee has its first meeting on July 7th, and I’ll update you as I find out more.

Care Denied

PBS NewsHour has a segment about how the end of Roe has disproportionately impacted Black women, and everyone really should watch. I know hearing these stories over and over again is so difficult, but as I say often: I truly do believe that the least we can do is bear witness to the suffering bans are causing. The segment also looks at some of the incredible organizers working to reduce harm in their communities—so make sure to watch until the end.

---