GOP Platform Author Admits There's a National Ban

7.16.24

Click to skip ahead: In WTF NYT, the paper of record deceptively edited a quote. In the States, news out of Ohio, Michigan, Montana and more. I Told Ya So on the GOP’s abortion plank. Ballot Measure Updates has more on the financial impact statement fight in Florida. Language Watch flags Republicans using maternal morality as a shield. Finally, in 2024 news, Trump is trying to distance himself from Project 2025.

---

WTF NYT

I’m going to start with the absolutely jaw-dropping news that The New York Times deceptively edited a quote to make it appear that JD Vance opposes a national abortion ban. I don’t know whether to call this a massive fuck-up or malfeasance, but it’s really, really bad.

As I outlined earlier today, the Times claims Vance opposes a federal abortion ban, citing this interview and quoting the vice presidential candidate as saying, “Ohio is going to want to have a different abortion policy from California, from New York, and I think that’s reasonable.”

The full quote, however—which is linked to in the Times piece—clearly shows that Vance supports a national ban:

“I'd like it to be primarily a state issue. Ohio is going to want to have a different abortion policy from California, from New York, and I think that's reasonable.

I want Ohio to be able to make its own decisions, and I want Ohio's elected legislators to make those decisions. But I think it's fine to sort of set some minimum national standard.” (Emphasis mine)

If you need a reminder of what a ‘minimum national standard’ means, here ya go. But let’s be clear: This is not a small muck-up; it is a very big fucking deal. Here’s hoping the Times offers a correction and apology. Regardless, it’s a reminder of how desperately we need independent feminist media and mainstream reporters who have abortion rights expertise. Or, at least, the ability to include a full quote. If you want to see me rant on video, watch me on TikTok.

---

If you missed Abortion, Every Day’s breakdown of Vance’s abortion position earlier today, you can read it below:

JD Vance on Abortion

---

In the States

Let’s focus on some good journalism for a moment: I really appreciated this piece from the Daily Montanan, which takes on Republicans’ talking point about abortion ‘up until birth’. Reporter Matt Volz dug into a comment from Tim Sheehy, the GOP candidate campaigning to replace Democratic U.S. Sen. Jon Tester in Montana. (Sheehy said in a debate last month that Tester has voted for “healthy, 9-month-year-old baby killed at the moment of birth.”)

Volz provides context and history for where in the world this claim is coming from, relays statistics, and talks to experts about the reality of abortion later in pregnancy. We need more in-depth coverage like this—especially when it feels like Democrats are always bungling this talking point.

Once states pass pro-choice ballot measures, it doesn’t mean the work is done. Abortion rights activists have to then go through the painstaking process of challenging each and every abortion restriction to get it repealed; and that’s exactly what’s happening in Ohio and Michigan.

In Ohio, for example—where voters passed Issue 1 by huge margins—there’s a battle over the state’s 24-hour waiting period. Republican Attorney General Dave Yost is arguing that the waiting period doesn’t violate the state constitution’s new amendment. That leaves pro-choice activists gearing up for a long fight—complete with women submitting affidavits about how the restriction has hurt them. Here’s what one woman wrote about having to drive hours to get care:

“I didn’t understand the purpose of it, what it changed looking back, or how it helped. All I know was that with three children already and a full-time job, I didn’t see how getting the medical procedure I needed was possible.”

And Planned Parenthood of Michigan president Paula Thornton Greear and Chief Medical Officer Dr. Sarah Wallett write in the Michigan Advance about Michigan’s fight to end restrictions now that abortion rights are protected in the state constitution. Again, it’s a good reminder that those ballot measures are just one piece of a much bigger fight.

Told Ya So

Do you remember when I went on a tear last week over the headlines declaring that the GOP’s platform had ‘softened’ on abortion? One of the things I pointed out was the plank’s language about so-called late abortion.

I warned that the anti-abortion movement has been increasingly defining ‘late’ abortion as anything after the first trimester. (Because it’s not a real medical term, they can define it however they like.) That strategy allows them to propose a national abortion ban at 15 weeks while claiming that they’re just seeking to ban ‘late’ abortion.

So while reporters were insisting that Republicans removed language about a national ban, this is what I wrote:

“In combination with the language about constitutional protections for fetuses, it’s reasonable to read the platform as a vow to push for a national ban on ‘late’ abortion—again, which the GOP can define however they’d like.”

I want you to remember that quote. Now I want you to check out what Ed Martin—one of the three members of the RNC platform committee—said just one day after the GOP adopted that abortion language. On his radio show, Martin bragged about the platform’s “opposition to a late term abortion, however you define that.” (Emphasis mine.) But wait, there’s more:

“I call a late term abortion any abortion that is done after the baby is conceived, myself, in part because the term ‘late term abortion’ and some of the distinction of trimesters and all that was Roe v. Wade construct—it was made-up.”

In other words, the platform’s language is exactly what I thought. Republicans deliberately put in ‘late abortion’ as a wink-wink-nudge-nudge for a national abortion ban. And if you had any remaining doubts, consider that Martin also told listeners, “don’t let anybody tell you there’s not protections for pro-life…there’s not as many words describing it, but there’s protection under the Constitution, that life is protected.”

This is one of those rare cases when I really don’t like being right.

---

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

There’s never a dull moment in ballot measure news. In yet another attack on democracy, Florida Republicans are weaponizing a financial impact statement to stop voters from restoring abortion rights. I told you a little bit about this statement last week: essentially a panel has to put together an estimate of how much Amendment 4 might cost the state, and that estimate and statement goes in front of voters.

Yesterday, that panel—which was stacked with anti-abortion wackos—finalized a statement filled with biased language and misinformation crafted to mislead voters. The statement claims, for example, that litigation over the amendment will “negatively impact the state budget,” and that “an increase in abortions may negatively affect the growth of state and local revenues over time.” The statement even claims that restoring abortion rights “would result in significantly more abortions and fewer live births per year in Florida.”

Amendment 4 campaign director Lauren Brenzel called it a “dirty trick to mislead voters.” Remember, one of the panel members is an appointee of Gov. Ron Desantis, and another is a literal Heritage Foundation employee—that’s the group that came up with Project 2025!

We’ve seen this kind of nonsense before with biased ballot summaries in Ohio and cost estimates in Missouri, but that doesn’t make it any less infuriating.

Something else to note about Florida’s Amendment 4: there’s a new focus group showing that some swing voters are confused by the ballot measure’s language. It’s a very small group, but interesting to watch if you’re into that sort of thing. The message that seemed to resonate most with folks was getting government out of abortion entirely—even if just to make sure politicians couldn’t keep wielding the issue as a weapon in campaigns.

There was also a lot of confusion about what ‘viability’ meant, with some pro-choicers not liking the language, and getting the impression that it would overly restrict abortion. That aligns with what we’ve seen more broadly: That Americans want zero government involvement in pregnancy and abortion, and that ballot measures get more support in polls when there’s no language about viability.

Meanwhile, abortion is still on the ballot in South Dakota thanks to a judge’s ruling this week. A state judge dismissed a lawsuit from an anti-abortion group who wanted to stop the amendment from going in front of voters this November. Adam Weiland from Dakotans for Health said, “They have thrown everything they could dream up to stop the people of South Dakota from voting on this matter.”

In less great news, Arkansas abortion rights activists are still fighting with the Secretary of State, who has refused to accept the signatures collected for a pro-choice ballot measure. What’s incredible is that while the Republican-led office claims Arkansas For Limited Government didn’t turn in the necessary documentation, a FOIA request from the Arkansas Times found that just wasn’t true. (The AT has been doing a great job on this story; make sure to read their explainer and other reporting.)

This week, the pro-choice group filed a lawsuit against Secretary of State John Thurston, arguing that his rejection of the signatures is unlawful. I’ll keep you updated as I find out more.

Language Watch

Well this is just gross. U.S. Sen. Katie Britt of Alabama—best known for her Serena Joy impression earlier this year—is trying to distract from her horrific anti-abortion extremism by shifting focus onto maternal mortality for Black women.

In an interview where Britt was talking up JD Vance—and being asked about her opposition to reproductive rights—the senator voiced concerns that, at first glance, sounded downright feminist:

“We have the highest maternal mortality, Alabama does, than any other state in the nation. It disproportionately affects Black women. And in 2024, this should be going in the opposite direction.”

Shouldn’t we be glad that Republicans are concerned about maternal mortality among Black women? Maybe under other circumstances, I’d say yes; but Britt is doing something very deliberate here. She knows that Alabama’s maternal mortality—which is already awful—is about to skyrocket even higher among Black women because of the end of Roe.

She’s trying to 1) get ahead of those really bad post-Roe numbers and 2) set the stage for ever-more funding to anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers, which she and her cohort claim help women and families. (They don’t.)

It’s all a cover. She did the same thing with IVF, proposing legislation she claimed would protect fertility treatments even as it allowed for restrictions. And remember, this is a lawmaker who wants to track pregnant women in a government-run database!

All of which is to say: What Britt is doing is a sign of what we can expect from other Republican legislators as things get worse and worse for women. Co-opted feminist language, fake concern for maternal mortality, and neverending bullshit.

2024

Donald Trump is trying to distance himself from Project 2025, which has blown up in terms of public awareness. In a Fox News interview, Trump said, “From what I’ve heard, it’s not too far, it’s way too far.” Trump also played the same game on Truth Social:

"I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them."

It looks like the disgraced former president can see the writing on the wall. Like his comments on abortion, this is all bullshit. Trump’s own campaign heads wrote parts of Project 2025, and the document will absolutely determine the priorities for a potential future Trump administration.

It’s also worth noting that in the same Fox interview, Trump leaned on his ‘will of the people’ messaging, saying, “I was able to get [abortion] back to the states, and now I’ve given it back to the people.”

Biden’s team isn’t having it. In a call last week, First Lady Jill Biden accused Trump of pretending to be a moderate on abortion:

“Does he think we forgot that his Supreme Court justices killed Roe v. Wade and that he brags about it? Does he think we don’t know that he wants to roll back access to contraception and he could jeopardize IVF treatments? Does he think that he can pivot away from a career of diminishing and denigrating women? Well, women haven’t forgotten, and we can’t be fooled.”

Finally, let’s talk little bit more on Trump’s vice presidential pick, JD Vance. In addition to being an anti-abortion extremist and trad husband with a penchant for calling women “childless cat ladies,” Vance has voted against IVF and birth control, and opposes no-fault divorce (an ever-growing target for conservatives).

And asThe Lever reports, Vance was one of the Republicans who wanted to allow law enforcement in anti-choice states to access women’s out-of-state abortion records. (You may remember this insanity from last year.)

No wonder Biden’s campaign team is focusing in on Vance’s extremism!

What I’m thinking a lot about, though, is how Vance will respond to all this. If we want a hint, I think Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America president Marjorie Dannenfelser gave up the game when she responded to his nomination by saying he would take a “compassionate approach” to the issue. I’m willing to bet ‘compassion’ will be Vance’s go-to, and pretending that this is about protecting vulnerable pregnant women.

These people really expect us to believe that women don’t need abortions, just a pep talk and a package of diapers.

For more on Vance, check out HuffPost, The Guardian, and The Daily Beast.

Quick hits:

• In Ohio, Republican U.S. Senate hopeful Bernie Moreno reaffirmed his support for a national abortion ban;

• Meanwhile, U.S. Rep. John James of Michigan declined to talk about abortion in his RNC speech this week despite a long anti-abortion history;

• The Cut on Project 2025 and Donald Trump;

• And the Associated Press on black male voters.