Finally, 2024 Enthusiasm
7.23.24
Click to skip ahead: In 2024 news, the word of the day is ‘enthusiasm.’ In the States, news from Iowa and New Mexico. Ballot Measure Updates on Arkansas, Florida and South Dakota. Post-Roe Care Crisis looks at the anti-abortion movement’s push to normalize c-sections for life-threatening pregnancies. In the Nation, some quick hits. And in You Love to See It, let’s end with some well-done abortion rights coverage.
2024
Excitement continues to build around Vice President Kamala Harris’ likely presidential nomination, with abortion rights groups rallying around her with endorsements. Emily’s List president Jessica Mackler says, “There’s a real electric energy right now in the party,” and that “a lot of that is about the leadership that she provides on reproductive rights.” (The Guardian reports that Mackler’s group plans to spend $20 million in support of Harris’ race.)
As I wrote earlier this week, there’s a reason that abortion rights groups and activists are feeling so positive about Harris. Kelly Baden, vice president for public policy at the Guttmacher Institute, tells NBC News, “She talks about abortion rights, and she talks about it unapologetically.” And Drew Altman, CEO of KFF, says, “I expect to see her focus on one issue: abortion [which] energizes voters more than anything else.”
There’s also an expectation that Harris—and her focus on abortion rights—will drive out young female voters. Melissa Deckman, CEO of the Public Religion Research Institute, points out that “young women in particular are the most staunchly supportive of abortion rights.” Deckman also repeats the word I’m hearing most often since Harris’ announcement: Enthusiasm.
There’s just an energy that was noticeably missing with Biden’s campaign, particularly among young people. (I seriously must have seen about a thousand ‘brat’ memes about Harris in the last two days.)
“In the last 24 hours I’ve seen so much more enthusiasm from the demographics that were the most cynical.” - Mini Timmaraju, president of Reproductive Freedom for All
While Democrats are riding high on excitement over Harris, Republicans seem to be getting worried about Donald Trump’s VP pick. Which, to me, is hilarious. Trump needed a running mate who could appear moderate on abortion rights, and that certainly isn’t JD Vance. It doesn’t help that Democrats are going all in on Vance and his anti-abortion extremism. They’re pointing out his support for a national ban, his opposition to exceptions, the way he compared abortion to slavery, and that he wants law enforcement to be able to get patients’ out-of-state abortion records.
In other words, they’re sort of fucked.
Quick hits:
The Conversation looks at what public support for abortion rights means for Harris;
The New York Times asks what’s changed for women since 2016;
Melinda French Gates, who recently committed $1 billion to reproductive rights, has endorsed Harris;
And a list of potential running mates for Harris.
In the States
Well, we got an official date: Iowa’s 6-week ban will take effect on Monday morning, decimating access throughout the entire region. Read Abortion, Every Day’s Iowa explainer and the Des Moines Register to learn more about the details of the ban, but it’s about as bad as you can imagine.
And remember: Multiple polls show that over 60% of Iowans want abortion to be legal in all or most cases. Iowa House Democratic Leader Jennifer Konfrst says, “The majority of Iowans believe in reproductive freedom, and they must hold their elected officials accountable at the polls this November.”
Still, anti-abortion activists are pushing to even further restrict care. Chuck Hurley of the conservative organization the Family Leader said, “Fourteen states now protect babies from the moment of conception, and Iowa should be the 15th.”
Local news outlet KCCI looks at who would actually enforce Iowa’s abortion ban—namely, the state board of medicine. It will come as no surprise that all seven members of the board were appointed by Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds.
To help abortion patients in Iowa, consider donating to the Iowa Abortion Access Fund.
“Legislators shouldn't be making these decisions. I think patients and their providers should be making these decisions together.” -Iowa OBYN Dr. Sarah Traxler
The New Mexico Department of Health has launched a bold billboard campaign in the Medical Center Area of Houston, Texas:
WHEW. It’s hard to imagine a more compelling message. From New Mexico Health Secretary Patrick Allen:
“It’s basically the idea that New Mexico provides an opportunity where you’re able to provide health care to the best of your professional ability without having to look over your shoulder, worrying about new legal or political circumstance…putting limitations on that.”
FreeToProvideNM.org tells visitors, “we welcome professionals from all healthcare backgrounds” and that the state “values diversity and celebrates the unique contributions of everyone.”
Michigan did something similar last year, running ads touting their abortion rights laws to bring in new workers. These states know that being pro-choice isn’t just the right thing to do—it’s good for business.
Quick hits:
President of Planned Parenthood North Central States Ruth Richardson writes in the Star Tribune that even abortion ‘sanctuary’ states like Minnesota are in danger;
And a new study shows that Ohio’s healthcare system is worse than average for women.
A message from our sponsor:
You’re smart. We’re smart (and funny). Let’s do this thing.
If you’re reading this newsletter, you’re probably more passionate and more informed about reproductive rights than 99% of people out there. You need a podcast that can keep up. That’s Boom! Lawyered.
Imani Gandy and Jess Pieklo are two of the most experienced repro legal analysts in America. They’ve been covering the chaos rippling across the courts for over a decade. Bonus: they’re also funny. Not “legal funny,” either. Real, actual, “laugh-crying in the car” funny. Check out their summer series now as we ramp up for the most important fall yet for repro—and everything else. Download Boom! Lawyered wherever you get your pods.
Ballot Measure Updates
Republican leaders in Arkansas are still refusing to accept signatures collected in support of putting abortion on the ballot. The Secretary of State’s office says abortion rights advocates didn’t hand in the proper paperwork—what the Arkansas Times points out is essentially a cover letter.
Arkansans for Limited Government (AFLG) denies that claim and has sued the state over their unlawful rejection of the signatures. Republican Attorney General Tim Griffin, however, is trying to get the group’s lawsuit against the state dismissed.
The most egregious part of all this? Arkansas officials at the Secretary of State’s office told activists from AFLG that they had filed all the necessary paperwork and were good to go. From attorney Peter Shults:
“Petitioners continually tried to follow the correct procedures and the Secretary’s office repeatedly told them they were doing so, before the Secretary abruptly rejected their petition. This bait and switch was unfair, and the Secretary should be estopped from rejecting petitioners’ submission.”
All of this, just to avoid hearing from voters. If you want to follow this story closely, the Arkansas Times has been seriously on top of it.
Meanwhile, an anti-abortion group is still trying to stop the pro-choice measure in South Dakota from getting to voters this November. As is the case in Arkansas, the South Dakota campaign isn’t supported by mainstream abortion rights groups, who are worried that the measure doesn’t go far enough. Still, South Dakota Public Radio reports that Planned Parenthood North Central States and ACLU of South Dakota are happy to see voters come out in support of abortion rights more broadly:
“As we continue to seek out the best paths to meaningfully protect abortion care in South Dakota, we hope South Dakotans will continue to use their power and their vote to create lasting change.”
A few final quick hits: Teen Vogue has one of their student correspondents covering the ballot measure effort in Nevada. And in Florida, The Miami Herald looks at the incredible funding behind Amendment 4; POLITICO gets into the fight over the measure’s financial impact statement; and The Tampa Bay Times looks at how Harris’ candidacy brings energy to the proposed amendment.
Post-Roe Care Crisis
For nearly a year, I’ve been tracking the anti-abortion campaign to force women with life-threatening pregnancies into c-sections and vaginal labor. If you’re a regular reader, you know that extremist groups like the American Association of Pro-Life OBGYNs and the Charlotte Lozier Institute have been pushing out ‘experts’ and publishing papers to disguise medical torture as credible clinical recommendations.
Their most recent attempt comes in the form of ‘research’ from anti-abortion regulars Ingrid Skop and James Studnicki. First reported by States Newsroom reporter Sofia Resnick, the paper contains all the horrific shit we’ve seen before: terms like ‘maternal fetal separation,’ calls for c-sections as medically standard, and the lie that abortions are never necessary to save someone’s life.
It’s that last bit that Studnicki and Skop focus on most intently, writing that “there is no disease, illness or condition for which an induced abortion has been determined to be a standard of care…”
This seriously concerns me. Given the anti-abortion movement’s increasing interest in emergency abortions and laws like EMTALA, so-called research like this isn’t just a paper—it’s a sign of lawsuits and attacks to come.
There’s something else interesting here: Studnicki and Skop appear to concede that studies show abortion is safe. Or, at least, they say it’s irrelevant. Again and again, the pair write that it doesn’t matter how safe or effective abortion is—because women shouldn’t be having them to begin with:
“The abortion science that does exist simply ignores the question of medical necessity and focuses largely on the various methods and safety of the abortion procedure itself...those results alone provide no justification that the procedure was medically necessary in the first place.”
Again, their claim is that abortion isn’t necessary because dying women can just have major abdominal surgery or be forced into vaginal labor—regardless of fetal viability. As I wrote earlier today, the idea is to normalize women suffering and dying in pregnancy. (While simultaneously claiming—as Studnicki and Skop do in this paper—that “pregnancy rarely presents a risk to the mother.”)
You can be sure that papers like this one are signaling a legal and cultural anti-abortion trend. We’ll hear more and more about how abortion is never medically necessary. We’ll see more and more ‘experts’ trotted out to claim c-sections are completely normal and fine.
And while it may seem absurd—because who could ever take that stance seriously?—we need to prepare now. After all, did you ever think that the Supreme Court would be hearing arguments on whether or not hospitals can deny women life-saving care?
If you missed today’s column on forced c-sections, read it below:
In the Nation
NBC News on the fight over ‘abortion reversal’;
Salon interviews the folk behind Charley, the abortion chatbot;
House Republicans pulled two funding bills with anti-abortion riders;
And Bloomberg on the reproductive rights battle over IVF.
You Love to See It
I just wanted to shout out this NBC News piece for covering abortion rights in a comprehensive, accurate way. It’s a straightforward and relatively short news piece on Vice President Harris’ abortion stance, but it still manages to give vital context that’s often missing in mainstream coverage.
Reporters Erika Edwards and Bracey Harris write that “study after study has found that lack of access to abortion care has far-reaching health consequences,” mentioning studies linking abortion bans and infant and maternal mortality, and noting how the laws are driving doctors out of anti-abortion states. They also make clear that the GOP platform includes call for fetal personhood, that JD Vance supports a national ban, and that voters have supported abortion in every state where it’s been on the ballot.
Basically, they get right all the things we’ve seen so many outlets get wrong. What’s interesting is that I’m so accustomed to less-than-terrific coverage, the NBC piece almost reads as pro-choice. But it’s not—it’s just passing along facts we’re not normally used to seeing.
Finally, I love this: Activist and model Karlie Kloss did something really clever for this interview with Fortune’s “Well” section. At first glance, it looks like one of those standard articles about a celebrity’s workout and supplement routine. But Kloss linked her interest in health and wellness to abortion rights:
“Abortion is part of reproductive health care and is a basic human right, in my personal opinion. I do not believe it should be politicized. It is a deeply personal decision and choice that any one should have the right to make for themselves. That is my belief.”
More of this, please!
With C-sections being touted as normal and fine to do in place of abortion, I am sure we would all like to hear from an expert as to how this affects a woman's future fertility as in how many c-sections is she 'allowed' therefore determining how many children she can have. Another area I would like to hear more specifics about is the effect on a girl's body when she carries a fetus to term. Details like that help us have specifics to talk about. How it's not 'just having a baby.'
As much a Biden's decision was super difficult and gutwrenching, his timing was perfect. The Republicans were caught totally off-guard and were way overconfident. Thus, the Vance VP disastrous pick.