I look forward to your info on abortions later in pregnancy. I need facts to counter this argument when I hear it. Is this really a problem - are women getting abortions for non-medical reasons late in pregnancy? How many are there really and why? I think I know the answer, this is all BS, but a summary with numbers would be really useful.
Only around 1% of abortions are done in the third trimester, and the overwhelming majority are for medical reasons. There are outliers - women who didn’t have the resources to abort earlier in pregnancy, and very young girls and close to menopause women who didn’t know they were pregnant earlier. But even then, if someone walks into a clinic at 37 weeks, with no medical issue, just a desire not to be pregnant, doctors are probably just going to deliver the fetus early.
I don’t see a pro-choice R running or getting elected in a primary between now & 2024. The Ds won’t vote for them in a primary unless there is zero D candidate for the general to vote for.
Rove is in over his head and trying to come up for air while being dragged back down by SCOTUS, the far right, T & his mob of 13 running the US House, & DeSantes. Throw Santos in there too. They have gone off the cliff & gravity is pulling. I won’t take anything for granted, but there’s a lot that can happen between now & then.
Youngkin thinks Rs will take VA legislature. He’s calling for 15 week ban here, although I wouldn’t put it past him or Rs to ban it in VA if they could. Rove throwing out 10-12 weeks should be plastered all over VA!
Jessica’s point is extremely valid and the D messaging strategists need to listen to her.
Most important thing with abortion choice is to concentrate on miscarriage horror stories, birth control, OBGYN /birthing deserts in rural areas, mothers being jailed. Oh & Reveal has an article out about all women taking drugs to stay off illegal drugs are being reported to child welfare and sometimes babies are being removed unless a bunch of hurdles are met.
It’s very worthy to call out all misinformation Kristan Hawkins group (also located in VA) puts out there because it truly harms college kids. Even kids at Christian colleges have unwanted pregnancies & a lot of those mom’s would prefer their kids used birth control than got pregnant. They don’t like someone telling them which birth control either. The whole pretending my kids don’t have sex in college, is a farce to a large degree. There are many Christians who don’t save themselves for marriage & their parents didn’t either. Some do, but ….
You bring up a good point, and it reminds me of the flipside that I think gets overlooked and should also be a part of the messaging. The image of girls/women who seek abortion is far too often portrayed as an irresponsible single person who opened her legs too wide and should now be forced to suffer the consequences of her impurity/sluttiness/whatever BS.
But married/civil union couples may simply not want children and should also have the choice to end unwanted pregnancies.
Messaging is important though because the rural areas have been deep red and the new lines have changed some districts, like mine in VB, sadly. I’m helping in other areas. D strategists would be wise to seek out opinions & listen to these delegate candidates after the election because VA has that mix & they will have good input.
Dropping a plug for Elaine Luria’s Defending Democracy PAC because she is on the ground helping these pro-choice candidates and $ will help. Please consider helping her if you can.
Well, we all knew they were lying when all they said they wanted was SCOTUS to return the issue to the states. The goal has always been fetal personhood enshrined in the constitution. To believe otherwise makes one a fool.
That's why the fetal coverture arguments are so strong. They work even with fetal personhood (which to be clear is still an extraordinarily offensive idea).
There's a link to the article here. I don't know how it's been received in the legal community but it looks to me like this is the way forward because our legal system places great value on being able to trace an argument back through history, tradition, and precedent.
It's also (always) worth remembering who their audience is. It has to be pro-choice voters who have voted for Republicans in the past, the universe of voters they could plausibly attract in 2024. They're hoping that this kind of talk is enough to hold on to those people, that they're going to find this more appealing than whatever our response is. What we say to these voters might be somewhat different from what we need to say to our base. Someone who is pro-choice but has voted for Republicans is very different from a Democrat. They're probably closer to the median voter though, who would be an independent who has problems with both parties.
They're unhappy with plan b and IUDs because they consider them "abortion." There's no pleasing these people except to subject women to a life of reproductive enslavement under their husbands.
I meant they were upset with it rhetorically, not substantively. For 49 years they were happy with Republicans just promising to overturn Roe. So they can be patient so long as they think it's moving in their direction. But then they might also be feeling particularly emboldened and greedy right now, with this power rush they've been given.
Kristan Hawkins of SFLA is very emboldened currently. And I imagine the super majority R state legislatures feel very emboldened as well, but they actually care about the party.
When one is overconfident one tends to make mistakes. That's what we're hoping for, that they're like a cartoon character who has run far off a cliff but gravity hasn't affected yet.
Yes, stop letting republicans define the battle field. Let’s be clear about what the two “extremes” actually are. 1. Women allowed NO choice as to their medical care. 2. Women’s right to control their own medical care. Just like men do!
Manipulation, gaslighting, victim blaming, and all the other tools of spousal abuse, that’s the Republican playbook. In the interest of self preservation woman should just stop having any relationship with a Republican. Let them become extinct. Republican men who don’t oppose anti-abortion legislation are complicit in the abuse of women. How much more obvious do they need to be?
We had a national consensus, a national standard, a compromise already in place, which the majority of the public approved of. It was called Roe v. Wade. That's the way I would turn this talk back against them.
And this would probably be the best message for the voters in the middle, even as it sounds timid to us. I'd start with this and then we can provide more detail and education about why the protections in Roe are so absolutely necessary, by illustrating what's happening in their absence.
I think they also underestimated the relentlessness of the extremists who won’t be happy until there’s a national ban with no “exceptions” and anyone who aborts is given the death penalty.
Agree, but although that group “might” not send them $, they will vote for them. I think they aren’t as worried about that group as they are the Rs who aren’t in that group. Many sane (but not politically or medically educated on abortion) Rs never thought Roe would be overturned. They are not for a total ban. Actually they aren’t happy with the R party going so far right. That group can stay home or vote blue. It’s a way for them to appeal to this group & sound “reasonable.” But they will go for a national ban with the very first opportunity.
Yes that's the problem. WE know what Republicans will do if they win next year (and not just on this issue), and if everyone knew it, then they wouldn't be able to get the votes to win. So they will spend their whole campaign trying to convince people that they're not going to do what we know very well they are. It's so much easier to stop it before than after.
Although if their 'compromise' talk starts to upset those people, they might have a problem on their right flank, which would be a positive development; anything to sow dissension among Republicans is good. My guess though is those people aren't too concerned about this talk because they know Republicans don't really mean it.
The catch 22 for the R party will be their primaries. Far right candidates have been getting beat. The far right anti-abortion group is problematic for the party in this area. So actually the other comment made about party leaders being surprised by this far right anti-abortion group has some accuracy as it pertains to the primaries. So if they can head this off by bringing Students for Life “in line” during election season for instance, that is helpful to the party. I’m not sure that’s possible though in 2024. The head of it is basking in her power glory & claims to not care about the party. Dems should be using her as the R role model of what’s to come as she is also against IUD, Plan B, abortion pills by mail or self care administered, and essentially birth control all together.
Do we think she's our best foil? Works for me. Republicans have been very successful at picking one person and tying all Democrats to them, so we should certainly try returning the favor.
Their primaries are kind of a catch 22 for us. We want to elect Democrats, so often it's helpful to have very extreme Republicans to run against, even if they're not the ones being put up against us in the competitive races. MTG helps Democrats everywhere. On the other hand, there are lots of races that Republicans will likely win no matter what, so for the good of the country it would be better to not have the more extreme candidates winning their primaries.
So if pro-choice Republican candidates started running en masse and won a substantial number of primaries, it would be both good and bad. Good if it made progress pushing back against the anti-abortion forces, but bad if it led to wider Republican victories. It's ideal for us if their party is extreme but it's also ideal for us if their party is divided and it's hard to be both; that's the needle we're trying to thread.
That’s why we have to be very careful about who we go after. It’s easy to go after the furthest right extremists in the issue - even a lot of Republicans don’t like their position.
But going after the 15 weekers is going to require more finesse. There, I think we have to go after the ban, more than the candidate. That gives us a chance to explain why the bans are bogus and more extreme than most in the middle understand. But if we just go after the candidate, and say they’re extreme on the issue, they’re going to center that by portraying us as out of step with the middle. Right now, a lot of folks don’t understand why a 15 week ban is extreme. They don’t understand why Dems often don’t have a straight answer in where they would draw the line, and Republicans are capitalizing on that.
IMO, we should be emphasizing a return to conditions under Roe, but clearly stating that after viability, there should be no laws which prevent a doctor from providing abortion when she or he deems it medically necessary. That leaves doctors a lot of leeway - they can deem a 12 year old medically requires a 30 week abortion because she’s 12 and too young to safely give birth - but it sounds rational (because it is). We should also note that the American public liked Roe - they didn’t want it overturned in the first place.
Too many Democrats are just refusing to answer the question in a straight manner, and that leaves an opening for Republicans to scream that we want no limits, and that we want abortion right up until birth. Now, we all know that if a woman is 37 weeks pregnant, and a problem develops, a doctor will induce and deliver, but that fact is getting lost in the shouting.
In agreement on everything. I have issues with a child aborting at thirty weeks when she can just get a C-section. An abortion that late doesn't seem like it'd be any less invasive. It's cases like this that get doctors murdered as what happened with Dr. Tiller. Don't think the state should be involved in anyway but I just don't think it's worth putting doctors or parents lives at risk over the controversy. And I also just don't see the necessity of an abortion this late when pre-term births are pretty safe at thirty weeks.
Do these ‘compromises’ effect the extreme bans enacted in red states? The Texas and the Idaho and the Alabama. Will these states be compelled to allow abortion at 10 or 14 week or whatever? Or will THOSE states be allowed to claim Their states rights to keep their total bans in place?
This is one reason why the “compromise” language is so dangerous - it makes it sound like they’re proposing both a floor and a ceiling (e.g. ban after 12 weeks, protect before 12 weeks). Katie Couric should have pressed Karl Rove on this. He should be forced to admit that he really just wants the ceiling, not the floor - a new nationwide ban that every state would be forced to adhere to whether it wants to or not, with no regard for protecting people from even more draconian & extremist bans in TX, GA, etc.
They will stay the same because SCOTUS allows it. The “compromise” is for a National Ban across the board. It’s a way to force blue states to comply with what they want. The language will be vague, for a reason.
Similar to what FL legislature did with K-3 “don’t say gay bill.” They expanded it very soon after.
Decades of experience tells me that people like Rove will, in fact, tell the truth only when they are surrounded by friends--or what they consider to be allies. That's why recordings like this one are so valuable: we hear things that we would otherwise not. The same goes for private letters and papers. Thank you so much for posting this!
Karl Rove tells the truth about nothing and definitely has no friends. We needed to shut his stupid face up a long time ago. He's been making our lives hell for years! Couldn't he just get a job or another wife or something?
Rebuttal: “It’s not a “compromise.” What’s being compromised are women’s health and livelihoods.”
I look forward to your info on abortions later in pregnancy. I need facts to counter this argument when I hear it. Is this really a problem - are women getting abortions for non-medical reasons late in pregnancy? How many are there really and why? I think I know the answer, this is all BS, but a summary with numbers would be really useful.
Only around 1% of abortions are done in the third trimester, and the overwhelming majority are for medical reasons. There are outliers - women who didn’t have the resources to abort earlier in pregnancy, and very young girls and close to menopause women who didn’t know they were pregnant earlier. But even then, if someone walks into a clinic at 37 weeks, with no medical issue, just a desire not to be pregnant, doctors are probably just going to deliver the fetus early.
I don’t see a pro-choice R running or getting elected in a primary between now & 2024. The Ds won’t vote for them in a primary unless there is zero D candidate for the general to vote for.
Rove is in over his head and trying to come up for air while being dragged back down by SCOTUS, the far right, T & his mob of 13 running the US House, & DeSantes. Throw Santos in there too. They have gone off the cliff & gravity is pulling. I won’t take anything for granted, but there’s a lot that can happen between now & then.
Youngkin thinks Rs will take VA legislature. He’s calling for 15 week ban here, although I wouldn’t put it past him or Rs to ban it in VA if they could. Rove throwing out 10-12 weeks should be plastered all over VA!
Jessica’s point is extremely valid and the D messaging strategists need to listen to her.
Most important thing with abortion choice is to concentrate on miscarriage horror stories, birth control, OBGYN /birthing deserts in rural areas, mothers being jailed. Oh & Reveal has an article out about all women taking drugs to stay off illegal drugs are being reported to child welfare and sometimes babies are being removed unless a bunch of hurdles are met.
It’s very worthy to call out all misinformation Kristan Hawkins group (also located in VA) puts out there because it truly harms college kids. Even kids at Christian colleges have unwanted pregnancies & a lot of those mom’s would prefer their kids used birth control than got pregnant. They don’t like someone telling them which birth control either. The whole pretending my kids don’t have sex in college, is a farce to a large degree. There are many Christians who don’t save themselves for marriage & their parents didn’t either. Some do, but ….
You bring up a good point, and it reminds me of the flipside that I think gets overlooked and should also be a part of the messaging. The image of girls/women who seek abortion is far too often portrayed as an irresponsible single person who opened her legs too wide and should now be forced to suffer the consequences of her impurity/sluttiness/whatever BS.
But married/civil union couples may simply not want children and should also have the choice to end unwanted pregnancies.
(Raising my own hand, here)
That’s why we need to center part of our argument on the fact that 60% of women seeking abortion care are already mothers.
Virginia's legislative elections are a good test run for 2024.
Messaging is important though because the rural areas have been deep red and the new lines have changed some districts, like mine in VB, sadly. I’m helping in other areas. D strategists would be wise to seek out opinions & listen to these delegate candidates after the election because VA has that mix & they will have good input.
Dropping a plug for Elaine Luria’s Defending Democracy PAC because she is on the ground helping these pro-choice candidates and $ will help. Please consider helping her if you can.
Well, we all knew they were lying when all they said they wanted was SCOTUS to return the issue to the states. The goal has always been fetal personhood enshrined in the constitution. To believe otherwise makes one a fool.
That's why the fetal coverture arguments are so strong. They work even with fetal personhood (which to be clear is still an extraordinarily offensive idea).
What are fetal coverture arguments?
There's a link to the article here. I don't know how it's been received in the legal community but it looks to me like this is the way forward because our legal system places great value on being able to trace an argument back through history, tradition, and precedent.
https://jessica.substack.com/p/the-anti-abortion-movements-language/comment/17915530?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=l0fb9
Oh good grief, got it.
It's also (always) worth remembering who their audience is. It has to be pro-choice voters who have voted for Republicans in the past, the universe of voters they could plausibly attract in 2024. They're hoping that this kind of talk is enough to hold on to those people, that they're going to find this more appealing than whatever our response is. What we say to these voters might be somewhat different from what we need to say to our base. Someone who is pro-choice but has voted for Republicans is very different from a Democrat. They're probably closer to the median voter though, who would be an independent who has problems with both parties.
So, already the radical right is moving away from a 15 week national ban to the 10-14 week ban Rove proposed. We can expect more of this.
Perhaps the anti-abortion base was unhappy with 15 weeks as a proposal?
They know almost 93 percent of abortions are performed before the 13th week, so it wont stop that many people.
They're unhappy with plan b and IUDs because they consider them "abortion." There's no pleasing these people except to subject women to a life of reproductive enslavement under their husbands.
I meant they were upset with it rhetorically, not substantively. For 49 years they were happy with Republicans just promising to overturn Roe. So they can be patient so long as they think it's moving in their direction. But then they might also be feeling particularly emboldened and greedy right now, with this power rush they've been given.
Kristan Hawkins of SFLA is very emboldened currently. And I imagine the super majority R state legislatures feel very emboldened as well, but they actually care about the party.
The BBC recently did a profile on her and I was pleased they mentioned her group is anti contraception
When one is overconfident one tends to make mistakes. That's what we're hoping for, that they're like a cartoon character who has run far off a cliff but gravity hasn't affected yet.
Yes, stop letting republicans define the battle field. Let’s be clear about what the two “extremes” actually are. 1. Women allowed NO choice as to their medical care. 2. Women’s right to control their own medical care. Just like men do!
Manipulation, gaslighting, victim blaming, and all the other tools of spousal abuse, that’s the Republican playbook. In the interest of self preservation woman should just stop having any relationship with a Republican. Let them become extinct. Republican men who don’t oppose anti-abortion legislation are complicit in the abuse of women. How much more obvious do they need to be?
Preach
We had a national consensus, a national standard, a compromise already in place, which the majority of the public approved of. It was called Roe v. Wade. That's the way I would turn this talk back against them.
And this would probably be the best message for the voters in the middle, even as it sounds timid to us. I'd start with this and then we can provide more detail and education about why the protections in Roe are so absolutely necessary, by illustrating what's happening in their absence.
I think they also underestimated the relentlessness of the extremists who won’t be happy until there’s a national ban with no “exceptions” and anyone who aborts is given the death penalty.
Agree, but although that group “might” not send them $, they will vote for them. I think they aren’t as worried about that group as they are the Rs who aren’t in that group. Many sane (but not politically or medically educated on abortion) Rs never thought Roe would be overturned. They are not for a total ban. Actually they aren’t happy with the R party going so far right. That group can stay home or vote blue. It’s a way for them to appeal to this group & sound “reasonable.” But they will go for a national ban with the very first opportunity.
Yes that's the problem. WE know what Republicans will do if they win next year (and not just on this issue), and if everyone knew it, then they wouldn't be able to get the votes to win. So they will spend their whole campaign trying to convince people that they're not going to do what we know very well they are. It's so much easier to stop it before than after.
Although if their 'compromise' talk starts to upset those people, they might have a problem on their right flank, which would be a positive development; anything to sow dissension among Republicans is good. My guess though is those people aren't too concerned about this talk because they know Republicans don't really mean it.
They will be telling their flank “it’s the first step to a total ban when we win in 2024”
The catch 22 for the R party will be their primaries. Far right candidates have been getting beat. The far right anti-abortion group is problematic for the party in this area. So actually the other comment made about party leaders being surprised by this far right anti-abortion group has some accuracy as it pertains to the primaries. So if they can head this off by bringing Students for Life “in line” during election season for instance, that is helpful to the party. I’m not sure that’s possible though in 2024. The head of it is basking in her power glory & claims to not care about the party. Dems should be using her as the R role model of what’s to come as she is also against IUD, Plan B, abortion pills by mail or self care administered, and essentially birth control all together.
She is a true believer fanatic, she wont compromise
Do we think she's our best foil? Works for me. Republicans have been very successful at picking one person and tying all Democrats to them, so we should certainly try returning the favor.
Their primaries are kind of a catch 22 for us. We want to elect Democrats, so often it's helpful to have very extreme Republicans to run against, even if they're not the ones being put up against us in the competitive races. MTG helps Democrats everywhere. On the other hand, there are lots of races that Republicans will likely win no matter what, so for the good of the country it would be better to not have the more extreme candidates winning their primaries.
So if pro-choice Republican candidates started running en masse and won a substantial number of primaries, it would be both good and bad. Good if it made progress pushing back against the anti-abortion forces, but bad if it led to wider Republican victories. It's ideal for us if their party is extreme but it's also ideal for us if their party is divided and it's hard to be both; that's the needle we're trying to thread.
That’s why we have to be very careful about who we go after. It’s easy to go after the furthest right extremists in the issue - even a lot of Republicans don’t like their position.
But going after the 15 weekers is going to require more finesse. There, I think we have to go after the ban, more than the candidate. That gives us a chance to explain why the bans are bogus and more extreme than most in the middle understand. But if we just go after the candidate, and say they’re extreme on the issue, they’re going to center that by portraying us as out of step with the middle. Right now, a lot of folks don’t understand why a 15 week ban is extreme. They don’t understand why Dems often don’t have a straight answer in where they would draw the line, and Republicans are capitalizing on that.
IMO, we should be emphasizing a return to conditions under Roe, but clearly stating that after viability, there should be no laws which prevent a doctor from providing abortion when she or he deems it medically necessary. That leaves doctors a lot of leeway - they can deem a 12 year old medically requires a 30 week abortion because she’s 12 and too young to safely give birth - but it sounds rational (because it is). We should also note that the American public liked Roe - they didn’t want it overturned in the first place.
Too many Democrats are just refusing to answer the question in a straight manner, and that leaves an opening for Republicans to scream that we want no limits, and that we want abortion right up until birth. Now, we all know that if a woman is 37 weeks pregnant, and a problem develops, a doctor will induce and deliver, but that fact is getting lost in the shouting.
In agreement on everything. I have issues with a child aborting at thirty weeks when she can just get a C-section. An abortion that late doesn't seem like it'd be any less invasive. It's cases like this that get doctors murdered as what happened with Dr. Tiller. Don't think the state should be involved in anyway but I just don't think it's worth putting doctors or parents lives at risk over the controversy. And I also just don't see the necessity of an abortion this late when pre-term births are pretty safe at thirty weeks.
If they don't know how to answer the question then they really need to be reading this newsletter.
Thank you for your consistent truth telling
No recording. Perhaps try to attach again?
Yes, I could not get the audio to run? But I d t need to hear his drivel to get the gist! Ugh!! 😫😤🤬🤯
This is so damning. Thanks for making it public, Jessica!
I didn’t realize that pressed ham was still around
😂
Do these ‘compromises’ effect the extreme bans enacted in red states? The Texas and the Idaho and the Alabama. Will these states be compelled to allow abortion at 10 or 14 week or whatever? Or will THOSE states be allowed to claim Their states rights to keep their total bans in place?
This is one reason why the “compromise” language is so dangerous - it makes it sound like they’re proposing both a floor and a ceiling (e.g. ban after 12 weeks, protect before 12 weeks). Katie Couric should have pressed Karl Rove on this. He should be forced to admit that he really just wants the ceiling, not the floor - a new nationwide ban that every state would be forced to adhere to whether it wants to or not, with no regard for protecting people from even more draconian & extremist bans in TX, GA, etc.
They will stay the same because SCOTUS allows it. The “compromise” is for a National Ban across the board. It’s a way to force blue states to comply with what they want. The language will be vague, for a reason.
Similar to what FL legislature did with K-3 “don’t say gay bill.” They expanded it very soon after.
Wow great question. I live in Texas the belly of the beast.
I swear they're reading from a domestic abuser handbook. These are all the classic signs of abuse.
Well they invented that book so yeah.
Decades of experience tells me that people like Rove will, in fact, tell the truth only when they are surrounded by friends--or what they consider to be allies. That's why recordings like this one are so valuable: we hear things that we would otherwise not. The same goes for private letters and papers. Thank you so much for posting this!
As a side note, a quick primer for Rove: ALL nicknames are “fake.” That’s what makes them nicknames and not real names.
(In the audio clip, he refers to Beto O’Rourke by full name, refusing to use his “fake nickname.”)
Karl Rove tells the truth about nothing and definitely has no friends. We needed to shut his stupid face up a long time ago. He's been making our lives hell for years! Couldn't he just get a job or another wife or something?