Republicans Are Running Scared

8.26.24

Click to skip ahead: In Language Matters, Vance claims that Trump would veto a national abortion ban. In 2024 news, Trump is desperate to seem pro-choice. Ballot Measure Updates on Arkansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska and Arizona. In the States, some quick hits. In Stats & Studies, research on self-managed abortions. Anti-Abortion Strategy looks at conservatives’ focus on ‘free speech’ lawsuits. Finally, read until the end of the newsletter to see the newest Abortion, Every Day t-shirts!

---

Language Matters

This is why I’m so obsessive about language: JD Vance was on Meet the Press this weekend, where he said that he could “absolutely commit” that Donald Trump wouldn’t impose a federal abortion ban. And when Kristen Welker asked Vance whether Trump would veto a such a ban should it come across his desk, the vice presidential hopeful said, “I think he would.”

Today, headlines are everywhere declaring that Trump would veto a national ban. First of all, the idea that we can trust Trump or Vance on anything is absurd. But there’s another reason that this promise is straight bullshit: the word ‘ban.’

When Vance and Trump say that they don’t support a national abortion ban, they’re doing the rhetorical equivalent of crossing their fingers behind their back. Because what they mean by ‘ban’ is something very different than what Americans understand the term to mean.

For over a year, I’ve been banging the drum about conservatives’ war on language and the the word ‘ban,’ specifically. Essentially, anti-abortion lawmakers and activists claim that ‘ban’ means abortion being illegal in all cases, even when a woman’s life is at risk. As such, they say, America has no abortion bans. Seriously.

That’s why we’ve heard Republicans use terms like ‘restrictions’ or ‘standards’ instead of ‘ban’—the language is an attempt to trick voters. Unfortunately, the strategy has worked to some extent: Remember whenThe New York Times falsely reported that Vance didn’t support a national abortion ban? That was because Vance said he supported a “minimum national standard,” and the Times didn’t know the term actually meant ‘ban.’

So let’s be clear: If Trump is elected, he will absolutely support national abortion legislation. He simply won’t call it a ban. Instead, the Trump administration will say they’re supporting a ‘commonsense restriction,’ or a ‘minimum standard.’

The next time a reporter has the opportunity to ask Trump or Vance about abortion, they need to ask if they’ll commit to vetoing any federal legislation on abortion: restrictions, limits, standards, or any other word Republicans come up with.

2024

There’s a reason Trump and Vance claim they don’t support a national abortion ban: they can see that abortion rights are losing them this election. Trump is so desperate, in fact, that he wrote on Truth Social, “My Administration will be great for women and their reproductive rights.” And as Kamala Harris attacked Trump at the DNC for the chaos and pain his abortion bans have caused, the disgraced former president had a social media breakdown:

“I do not limit access to birth control or I.V.F. - THAT IS A LIE, these are all false stories that she’s making up. I TRUST WOMEN, ALSO, AND I WILL KEEP WOMEN SAFE!”

Not long after, Trump said something similar at a Las Vegas event:

“I’m very strong on women’s reproductive rights. The IVF (in vitro fertilization), very strong. I mean, we’re leaders in it. And I think people are seeing that.”

Trump knows abortion rights is a winning issue, so he’s trying to do anything he can to attach himself to it. Vance, too, is co-opting feminist rhetoric. When asked about his “childless cat ladies” comment, he told Meet the Press, “I just want women to have more choices.”

It’s pathetic, really—but not a surprise. We’ve seen Republicans pulling this nonsense since Roe was overturned. I think often about the legislators who tried calling a 12-week abortion ban “a plan to keep abortion legal through the first trimester.”

Even Republican Sen. Tom Cotton got in on the action, arguing on ABC News this weekend that, “The only candidate here proposing a national abortion law is Kamala Harris.”

Anti-abortion activists and conservative pundits at the National Review, however, are accusing Trump of “abandoning” the movement. But this just feels very similar to what happened with the GOP platform. Remember, it wasn’t so long ago that anti-abortion activists pretended to be so upset that the Republican platform (supposedly) didn’t mention a national ban. In reality, it was a tactic to distract the media—making reporters believe that the platform had somehow softened on abortion even as it called for constitutional personhood.

Anti-abortion groups know that Trump will give them what they want once he’s office; but by feigning upset in the meantime, they’re helping him to win over as many ‘moderate’ votes as possible.

I’m with Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who told NBC News this weekend that “American women are not stupid” enough to believe Republican lies.

“We are not going to trust the futures of our daughters and granddaughters to two men who have openly bragged about blocking access to abortion for women all across this country,” she said.

To learn more about what a Trump administration would actually do on abortion rights, read Abortion, Every Day’s Project 2025 explainer:

Project 2025 & Abortion

Quick hits:

• Kylie Cheung at Jezebel writes about Republicans’ attempts to pretend abortion isn’t a real issue for voters this November;  

• KQED looks at Kamala Harris’ abortion record in California;

• And The Washington Post reports on women talking about their abortions while running for office.

Ballot Measure Updates

A lot happened on ballot measures while I was on vacation. To start, let’s talk about Arkansas, where Republicans have successfully quashed a pro-choice amendment and are keeping it off the ballot entirely.

For background, read the Arkansas Times, where reporters have been doing a terrific job covering this story. Basically, abortion rights advocates successfully gathered all the signatures they needed, but the Republican Secretary of State refused to accept them, claiming that Arkansas For Limited Government (AFLG) didn’t turn in the necessary documentation. AFLG says not only they did they turn everything in, but the SoS’s office—who they were in constant contact with—told them they had everything they needed.

Last week, the Arkansas Supreme Court upheld the rejection of those signatures and ruled that abortion rights won’t be on the ballot in November. I’m so sorry for the pro-choice activists who worked so hard to get the issue in front of voters; this is just another example of how Republicans are willing to undo democracy in order to keep abortion banned. But as the AFLG said, “we will remember this in November.”

Montana Republicans also tried to keep abortion rights off the ballot this Fall by rejecting signatures from a pro-choice petition. They claimed that some of the signatures were from “inactive” voters—voters who didn’t cast a ballot in the previous federal general election and didn’t return an election notice confirming their address.

Abortion has been protected in Montana’s constitution since 1999, but Republicans have been trying to restrict reproductive rights regardless and do away with that precedent since Roe was overturned. Thankfully, they weren’t successful: abortion rights will be on the ballot in Montana.

Voters will also have a say on abortion rights this November in Nebraska, where two amendments will be on the ballot. Last week, the Secretary of State’s office certified a pro-choice amendment and an amendment pretending to be pro-choice. If you haven’t read about this tactic yet, it’s a doozy.

Basically, anti-abortion groups know that reproductive rights are incredibly popular, so they launched a ballot measure campaign of their own: Protect Women and Children. (Its not a coincidence that the name sounds like the actual abortion rights amendment, Protect Our Rights.) And while the conservative ballot measure touts itself as pro-choice, but would actually enshrine Nebraska’s 12-week ban into the state constitution—making it virtually repeal-proof.

Hundreds of voters reported being tricked into signing the anti-abortion petition, and there’s a lot of understandable fear that many will be similarly fooled at the ballot box.

We’re not done yet: Missouri Republicans are also trying some last minute shenanigans to keep abortion off the ballot. Late last week, State Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, state Rep. Hannah Kelly and anti-abortion activist Kathy Forck filed a lawsuit seeking to stop the amendment from ever getting to voters.

The three women claim that the amendment violates the state constitution by including more than one subject. What’s the other subject besides abortion rights? Language that guarantees the “fundamental right to reproductive freedom.” They argue that the phrase is “unlimited in scope.”

I’ll keep you updated on the suit, but this is just the latest in a very long line of attacks on democracy in Missouri—where Republicans held up the process for months and anti-abortion groups even sent text messages to voters claiming that pro-choice petitioners were trying to steal their identity.

Finally, in Arizona, the state Supreme Court rejected a legal challenge brought by an anti-abortion group. The group wanted to invalidate all of the signatures gathered for the pro-choice measure heading to voters this November. Arizona Right to Life claimed that abortion rights activists misled voters by not saying explicitly in the ballot summary that the amendment would invalidate antiabortion laws. (I think that goes without saying??) Thankfully, the Court didn’t find the argument compelling.

This comes after the state Supreme Court ruled in favor of anti-abortion activists on another issue, allowing them to use the term “unborn human being” in an informational pamphlet being sent to all Arizona voters about the measure.

Speaking of Arizona, I loved this interview that States Newsroom did with Chris Love from Arizona for Abortion Access. In other quick ballot measure hits, a New York judge declined to force the Board of Elections to include the word ‘abortion’ in the Equal Rights Amendment heading to voters in November; and a South Dakota anti-abortion group is still bringing legal challenges against a pro-choice ballot measure even after it’s been certified.

“Abortion is a medical procedure. It’s not a dirty word. We don’t need to whisper it. You’re using a medically accurate, scientific term. And there’s nothing wrong with that. I would encourage folks all the time to lean in to saying the things you mean. When we’re talking about abortion, we should say abortion.” - Chris Love

In the States

• Good news in Ohio, where a judge has granted placed an injunction against the state’s 24-hour waiting period;

• A former city council member is suing Austin, Texas over its funding of a “reproductive health grant” that provides logistical support to those leaving the state for abortion care;

• ProPublica investigated a Missouri anti-abortion group using their state funding beyond state borders;

• And eight people were convicted of violating the FACE Act after blocking access to a Michigan clinic.

Stats & Studies

PBS NewsHour did a short segment on the new study that found more Americans are self-managing abortions. You can watch it below, and read the new research from Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH) at the JAMA Network.

Anti-Abortion Strategy

This may be the fastest growing legal tactic I’ve tracked since I started Abortion, Every Day: Anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers are trying to avoid state regulation and accountability by arguing that their free speech is being violated.

In New York last week, for example, a federal judge blocked Attorney General Letitia James from taking action against centers that claim to be able to ‘reverse’ abortions—ruling that the groups are protected by the First Amendment.

In issuing the preliminary injunction, U.S. District Judge John Sinatra Jr. said that free speech is protected even when that speech is false. The Trump appointee also said that the centers have a right to “speak freely” about so-called reversals and claimed the activists were being “irreparably harmed each day that their First Amendment freedoms are infringed.”

A network of crisis pregnancy centers in Massachusetts brought a similar lawsuit against Gov. Maura Healey and other state officials. As is the case in New York, the group claims that they’re being targeted for their beliefs. Their lawsuit alleges free speech violations, and accuses state officials of falsely labeling the centers “a threat to public health.” (They are!)

We’re seeing more and more lawsuits like these, and many have been successful. Anti-abortion groups are even using free speech lawsuits to try to undo buffer zones around reproductive health clinics—because apparently screaming in a patient’s face is a First Amendment right.

What worries me about these cases goes beyond their success rate, however. They’re painting themselves as the victims, even as they victimize and lie to women in their communities.

New Logo, New Swag

To commemorate Abortion, Every Day’s new logo, we launched a few new shirts and sweatshirts today. And if you haven’t bought your Abortion 2024 gear yet, it’s a good time to pick that up too!