JD Vance <3 National Abortion Ban
7.17.24
Click to skip ahead: In Good Job, Us, the AED community successfully pressured the NYT into a correction on Vance. In the States, news from Iowa, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and more. Ballot Measure Updates looks at attacks on democracy in Arkansas, South Dakota and Florida. (With some good news from Montana.) In the Nation, some quick hits. Who Got it Right highlights great reporting on abortion. In 2024 news, a new powerful ad from the Biden campaign.
Good Job, Us
We did it! Thanks to Abortion, Every Day’s relentless reporting (and tweeting), multiple news outlets have corrected their false claims about Republican vice presidential candidate JD Vance and his position on federal abortion legislation.
For those who need a refresher: Yesterday, I uncovered thatThe New York Times had deceptively edited a quote to make it appear that Vance opposed a national abortion ban. (They left out two key sentences, including one in which Vance called for a “minimum national standard” on abortion.) Later that evening, NPR used the same truncated quote to report that Vance “would like the issue to be left to the states.”
Today—after pressure from the AED community—both NPR and the Times offered corrections, reporting that Vance does, in fact, support a national abortion ban. We did that. So a big thanks to everyone who shared the newsletter, retweeted me, and sent around my TikTok to friends and family. I know that support turned into a whole lot of requests for corrections and angry emails. And they worked!
That said, I’m still slightly bitter about the Times. While NPR’s correction added in the full quote, the Times didn’t own up to editing Vance’s words— instead making a correction based on Vance’s previous support of Sen. Lindsey Graham’s 15-week ban.
This isn’t just me being petty—though god knows I am. It’s actually really important that Americans know what Republicans mean by a ‘minimum national standard.’ Because while it should be somewhat self-explanatory, it’s clear that many people—including seasoned reporters—didn’t understand that the term refers to a national abortion ban. This is also why it’s so, so important that we’re identifying and spreading the word about the anti-abortion war on language.
If more journalists knew that anti-abortion lawmakers and activists replace the word ‘ban’ with terms like ‘standard’ and ‘consensus’—maybe we wouldn’t have the country’s most influential publications reporting anti-abortion lies.
Because this is exactly how Republicans successfully change political narratives and rewrite candidates’ history: Every article that repeats false messaging, and every reporter that takes their word for it, helps the anti-abortion movement convince Americans they're not so extreme after all.
(You know what I’m going to say: That’s exactly why I cover language at Abortion, Every Day. So please support the newsletter with a subscription if you don’t already!)
In the States
Iowa’s 6-week abortion ban is scheduled to take effect this Friday, and the Des Moines Register reports that clinics are doing the best they can to prepare for the chaos they know is coming. The plan is to make sure patients who don’t make the 6-week cut-off are scheduled out-of-state. And that’s where the Iowa Abortion Access Fund comes in.
IAAF board member Lyz Lenz says that the fund has partnered with the Chicago Abortion Fund to help manage the expected onslaught of patients:
“We just felt like it was the way to just continue continuity of care, partnering with a fund that was not under threat. We wanted to just make sure that Iowans continue to have the help that they need.”
The other issue abortion rights group and doctors are dealing with are the unclear guidelines around the ban’s ‘exceptions.’ Because remember, the Iowa Board of Medicine issued these completely bananas rules—like requiring doctors interrogate their patients about whether they were really raped, or mandating paperwork before a health-saving abortion. From abortion provider Dr. Emily Boevers:
“That means that when you're in that medical emergency, you have to think carefully and build a lot of consensus around whether the Board of Medicine or [state Attorney General] Brenna Bird is going to agree with me that this was a medical emergency. That’s going to be a huge time suck when, literally, people’s lives are on the line.”
The ACLU of Iowa is asking the state Supreme Court to rehear the case on the 6-week ban, but it’s unlikely to go anywhere. Planned Parenthood also reports that they’re seeking out other options to challenge the ban.
In much better news: Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro announced yesterday that he opposes the state’s ban on Medicaid coverage for abortions and that his administration won’t defend the law in court. This comes after a January decision from the state Supreme Court that ruled the prohibition on state funding discriminated on the basis of sex.
That ruling didn’t overturn the law, but sent it back to a lower court. But Gov. Shapiro says it’s time to repeal it altogether:
“My administration looks forward to making our arguments in court and is urging the court to strike down this ban that denies Pennsylvanians access to health care solely because of their sex and clearly runs counter to the recent Supreme Court ruling.”
Getting rid of this ban on Medicaid funding will go a long way in making abortion accessible to folks in Pennsylvania, regardless of their income.
In Wisconsin, Gov. Tony Evers announced today that his administration is joining a lawsuit seeking to overturn the state’s abortion ban:
“I promised from the day the U.S. Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe was leaked that I’d never stop fighting for Wisconsin women and their reproductive freedom, and I won’t stop.”
Remember, there are two lawsuits heading to the Wisconsin Supreme Court right now that could restore abortion rights. The one Gov. Evers is joining, brought by Planned Parenthood, argues that the state constitution protects abortion rights under protections for “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Read my breakdown of what’s happening with abortion rights in Wisconsin and those two suits here.
Quick hits:
How Louisiana abortion rights activists are working to increase access to care despite the state’s ban;
Connecticut Democrats warn voters that Republicans’ claims of softening are bullshit;
A Texas Senator admits that perhaps doctors won’t feel safe giving life-saving care under the state’s abortion ban;
And your favorite giant inflatable IUD has made its way to Virginia.
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
Okay, let’s get into the good news, the bad news, and everything in between.
I’ll start with the good stuff: Last week, I reported that Montana’s Secretary of State was removing the names of registered voters from a pro-choice measure—claiming that they were inactive and couldn’t be counted. (Just another one of the many anti-abortion attacks on democracy across the country.)
Well, this week, a Montana judge ruled that Christi Jacobsen’s office had to count those signatures! The Associated Press reports that Judge Mike Menahan has given county election offices a week to tally the signatures of ‘inactive’ voters. Love to see it!
I’ve been telling you about the ballot measure fight in Arkansas, where the Republican Secretary of State has straight up refused to accept the signatures collected by pro-choice activists. John Thurston says that Arkansas For Limited Government (AFLG) didn’t file the necessary paperwork—a claim debunked by the group and a FOIA request from the Arkansas Times. AFLG is suing Thurston’s office, rightly arguing that the rejection of the signatures is unlawful.
The Arkansas Advocate reports that the pro-choice group has also filed a motion to expedite the case, and has asked the state Supreme Court to temporarily overrule Thurston’s decision not accept the signatures. (By the way, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin will represent Thurston in the suit; I’ve written about Griffin and his long history of anti-choice activism before.)
The rejection of voters’ signatures comes after months of anti-abortion lawmakers and activists trying all sorts of tactics to stop the measure from getting in front of voters—including an intimidation campaign doxxing signature-gatherers for the petition.
Speaking of attacks on democracy: I told you yesterday about Republicans’ misleading financial impact statement for Florida’s Amendment 4, but I missed something vital. In addition to claiming that the amendment would hurt the state budget and result in “significantly more abortions and fewer live births,” the statement that’s going in front of voters also says that Amendment 4 could invalidate “laws requiring parental consent before minors undergo abortions and those ensuring only licensed physicians perform abortions.”
They’re throwing everything they can at this thing, even though Florida’s ballot measure has a much higher standard than other states’: they need 60% of the vote. It’s almost as if Republicans know that voters want to restore abortion rights.
Meanwhile, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis complained this week that the abortion rights amendment would “make Florida more blue.” (Let’s fucking hope so!)
In South Dakota, an anti-abortion group says they’re going to appeal a judge’s decision that allows a pro-choice measure to head to voters. Life Defense Fund wanted to get voters’ signatures removed from the proposed abortion rights amendment, but their suit was dismissed his week.
Leslee Unruh, co-chair of the group, says, “there are absolutely no legal grounds for this dismissal.” I will never forget Unruh’s name because she’s been fighting against abortion and sex education for decades—but mostly because of her meme-worthy ‘we want more babies’ interview on Fox News in 2007.
“From supporting a national abortion ban, to voting to block nationwide access to IVF, Vance has consistently attacked and undermined reproductive freedom throughout his career—and he will take that dangerous record to the White House, cosigning every policy that comes his way, no matter the harm.”
- Jenny Lawson, executive director for Planned Parenthood Votes
In the Nation
Democrats spoke outside the Republican National Convention today with Amanda Zurawski, who nearly died after being denied an abortion in Texas;
The Washington Post on the Republican women trying to get the party to stop talking about abortion;
NPR on the abortion language of in the Republican platform;
Ahead of his RNC speech, Ben Carson says he “would love to see” a national abortion ban;
Ms. magazine reports that the GOP platform absolutely does contain a national abortion ban;
And law professor Jessica Waters writes at The Conversation about what it means for abortion rights when the courts have more say than federal agencies.
Who Got it Right
Since I spend so much time shitting on mainstream coverage of abortion, let’s talk about a few pieces that got it right. Right off the bat, we have CNN’s report on JD Vance and his support for a national abortion ban. Reporters Andrew Kaczynski and Em Steck found a 2022 podcast interview with Vance where he says he “certainly would like abortion to be illegal nationally.”
NBC News did a deep dive on JD Vance’s abortion position, with reporter Aria Bendix making clear that “he has consistently opposed efforts to protect reproductive rights.” Bendix points out that Vance has called for “minimum national standards” and told reporters last year, “We can’t give in to the idea that the federal Congress has no role in this matter.”
And big thanks to Rachel Maddow and the folks at MSNBC who not only highlighted just how extreme Vance is on abortion rights, but also defined ‘minimum national standard.’ Maddow made it clear that the term means abortion ban, and that Vance is the “single most radical choice” Trump could have made.
Oh and this is rich: HuffPost reporter Jennifer Bendery flagged this week that Vance scrubbed anti-abortion content from his website. Typical.
2024
WOW this ad is something else. Hadley Duvall—the young woman whose story is credited with wining Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear reelection—is speaking out in a campaign spot for President Joe Biden. Duvall, who was raped and impregnated as a child, shared her story in an ad for Beshear in 2023. The response paired with Beshear’s win sparked a wave of campaign ads using personal abortion stories—including some from candidates themselves.
I wish that young women didn’t have to lay bare their most painful and vulnerable moments just so the rest of us might be treated like full human beings. But I’m sure glad that they have the bravery to speak up.
Quick hits:
Vance and Sen. Marco Rubio claim that Trump isn’t beholden to Project 2025;
Steve Bannon (ick, I know) says the first few weeks of a Trump presidency would be all about Project 2025;
Judith Levine at The Guardian says don’t believe Trump’s efforts to appear ‘softer’ on abortion;
And Reproductive Freedom for All president y Mini Timmaraju writes at HuffPost that the fight for abortion rights can save democracy.
Hadley Duval is extraordinary…allowing her story to go national is an act of incredible bravery. She deserves all of our support in light of the predictable social media attacks she will endure.
Terrific job Jessica holding the NYT’s feet to the fire!
Jessica, you can say you're petty, but I'd call it diligence and attention to detail, and everyone else would too if you were a man. Your humility is one of your many endearing qualities, but I still feel remiss to not say something when I hear women criticizing themselves. At least so long as men rarely do the same!