South Dakota Leaves Women's Lives to a YouTube Video

9.5.24

Click to skip ahead: In Attacks on Democracy, Florida Republicans are looking for ‘fraudulent’ Amendment 4 signatures to keep abortion off the ballot. Welcome to Dystopia looks at a video that I truly can’t believe exists. In the States has news from Alaska, New York, Ohio, New Mexico and more. In Ballot Measure Updates, the latest from Missouri. In the Nation, Republicans are attacking federal privacy protections for abortion patients. In 2024, some quick hits. And in Care Denied, horror stories out of Florida and South Carolina.

---

Attacks on Democracy

One of the most watched-ballot measure fights right now is in Florida—where pro-choice activists need 60% of the vote to pass Amendment 4, which would protect abortion rights in the state up until ‘viability.’ Republicans have been pulling out all the stops to prevent that from happening, from petitioning the state Supreme Court over Amendment 4’s language to attaching a financial impact statement to the measure telling voters that restoring abortion rights would negatively impact the state budget.

Back in February, I warned about another potential attack on democracy—one we hadn’t seen yet but I feared was coming. I noted that two people had been arrested for allegedly submitting fake signatures for Amendment 4, and that the case was being run not just by law enforcement, but the Florida department of “Election Crimes and Security.” This department was created by Gov. Ron DeSantis in 2022 to target and arrest Black voters as part of a broader intimidation effort.

Here’s what I wrote at the time:

“This is what I predict: We’re going to start to see more arrests, followed by claims from right-wing media and state Republicans that the majority of voters don’t actually support abortion rights. They’ll use accusations of voter fraud—whether they’re true or not—to quash ballot measure efforts before or after voters have a say on abortion rights amendments. I hope I’m wrong, but it’s definitely something worth keeping an eye on.”

Today, the Tampa Bay Times reveals that Florida’s department of state is examining tens of thousands of Amendment 4 petition signatures for potential fraud. Sometimes I really hate being right.

The Times reports that deputy secretary of state Brad McVay contacted supervisors in four different counties to collect about 36,000 signatures for review. What struck these supervisors as odd was that McVay was asking for signatures that had already been deemed valid. Fraud cases over ballot measure petitions generally come about when county supervisors find signatures invalid or fraudulent. That’s not the case here.

Mary Jane Arrington, Supervisor of Elections in Osceola County, says, “I have never in my tenure had a request like this one.”

Amendment 4 campaign director Lauren Brenzel called the investigation “an attack on Floridians’ rights, their futures, and democracy at-large.” She said, “This is nothing more than trickery by extreme politicians who fear the will of the people.”

We’ve seen attacks on petition signatures before—like in Montana, where Republicans claimed that some signatures in support of a pro-choice measure were from “inactive” voters and shouldn’t be counted. Or in Arkansas, where Republican leaders successfully kept abortion off the ballot by rejecting certain signatures collected by paid canvassers. Law professor Mary Ziegler warned in Slate just a few weeks ago that by going after paperwork errors or technicalities, Republicans could pretend that this was “a fight about election integrity and the rule of law.”

What we’re seeing in Florida is related, but different. One of the reasons I worried about accusations of fraud, in particular, is that it allows anti-abortion lawmakers and activists to claim that voters aren’t really pro-choice. Labeling potentially tens of thousands of signatures are fraudulent is a way for Republicans to gaslight Americans into believing that the overwhelming support for abortion rights we see every day isn’t real. That voters don’t really want abortion rights restored.

In other words, it’s not just a way to keep abortion off the ballot, but to claim that it never belonged there in the first place.

Welcome to Dystopia

Want to see what dystopia looks like? The South Dakota Health Department just put out an informational video to tell doctors when they’re allowed to give women life-saving abortions. There is no good way to explain how truly bizarre this video is, so I’ve embedded it for you (if you can stomach it):

First of all, it’s important to know that South Dakota’s health department created this video in consultation with the American Association of Pro-Life OBGYNs (AAPLOG). That’s right, the group that says that abortion is never necessary to save someone’s health or life, and that recommends women be given c-sections rather than abortions—even before a fetus is viable. So from the get-go, we know that the point of this ‘informational’ video isn’t to help women or doctors, but to further enshrine anti-abortion bullshit. (For more on AAPLOG, revisit Abortion, Every Day’s explainer here.)

Indeed, the video is part of a new legislative trend I warned about six months ago: “Med Ed” bills. Essentially, the anti-abortion movement knows that their public image is terrible, so they started proposing legislation they claim will explain state bans to doctors, and ensure women can access health- and life-saving care. In South Dakota’s case, the legislation mandated an informational video and other materials that would ‘clarify’ the state’s abortion ban and tell doctors what types of medical conditions qualify for emergency care.

Leaving aside how dangerous it is to allow anti-abortion legislators and activists to define what conditions endanger pregnant women’s health and lives, there’s something else going on here too. As I wrote in my “Med Ed” explainer, this is a move to redefine ‘abortion’ and fuck with legislative and medical language in an effort to divorce abortion from healthcare.

Just as predicted, South Dakota’s Secretary of Health Melissa Magstadt kicks off the informational video by defining abortion not as a medical intervention, but an intention. She even explicitly says, “intent plays a crucial role.”

“When a miscarriage occurs, when the pregnancy occurs outside the uterine cavity, commonly known as an ectopic pregnancy, or when a fetus never forms, the treatment for these conditions is not considered an abortion.” (Emphasis mine)

Magstadt also calls care for life-threatening pregnancies a “maternal fetal separation,” echoing AAPLOG’s language that’s forced doctors to give women c-sections instead of easier and safer abortions.

I could go on; honestly, I could write a dissertation on every minute of this video. But the most important things to know is that this is the anti-abortion movement’s attempt to 1) redefine abortion; 2) allow legislators to define what constitutes a dangerous pregnancy; and 3) make it appear that Republican legislators are doing something to help women in the post-Roe care crisis even as they further confuse doctors and endanger patients.

On top of everything else, watching that video is just fucking weird. How is it possible that there’s YouTube video that will determine whether South Dakota women live or die.

In the States

An Alaska judge has struck down a law that banned anyone other than a physician from performing abortions. Superior Court Judge Josie Garton ruled that the law violated the state constitution and that there was “no medical reason” why other healthcare providers—like nurse practitioners or physician assistants—couldn’t provide abortions as well.

“When [advanced practice clinicians] are barred from providing abortion, there are fewer available providers, fewer appointments, and potential for greater delay,” she said.

Meanwhile, Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy vetoed a bill to expand birth control access in the state. The legislation would have mandated that insurance companies cover up to a year’s supply of birth control—a way to ensure that Alaskans in rural areas could obtain contraception without traveling far distances.

A spokesperson for the governor fell back on a talking point we’ve heard Republicans use often when voting against birth control, claiming that contraception is already “widely available.” When I tell you that Republicans are already attacking birth control, I mean it.

I am so sick of anti-abortion lawmakers using their wives’ stories as a way to mitigate voter outrage. We’ve seen Republican gubernatorial candidate Mark Robinson in North Carolina release a campaign ad sharing his wife’s abortion story in a craven attempt to curry favor with voters. Nevada Senate GOP candidate Sam Brown did the same with this wife’s story, trying to use it as proof that he was somehow ‘moderate’ on abortion rights despite his actual extremist stance.

Now U.S. Rep. Brandon Williams of New York has written an op-ed about his wife’s abortion, claiming that it’s what makes him “personally pro-life” but opposed to a national abortion ban. He writes, “In New York, voters have made their stance on abortion clear, and it remains legal…As your Congressman, it is not my role to challenge that decision.”

I call bullshit—it’s clear that Republicans like Williams are running scared and willing to do anything they have to do win with voters. Even if it means throwing their wives’ most vulnerable moments to the wolves.

Meanwhile, Ohio anti-abortion groups continue to insist that the repeal of abortion restrictions like the former 24-hour waiting period is harmful to women. Peter Range at Ohio’s Center for Christian Virtue told the Associated Press that pro-choice groups “are after every common-sense law which protects mothers and babies in our state.” I’ll give them one thing: these people are incredibly disciplined on their messaging. Because not only did he co-opt feminist language about protecting women, he also managed to fit in the term ‘common-sense,’ which is an increasing fave among extremists.

Finally, in some rare good news, a new abortion clinic is being constructed in New Mexico with the hope of helping patients traveling from neighboring anti-abortion states. What’s more, construction of the clinic is being funded by money that was set aside by the state for just this purpose. You love to see it.

Quick hits:

• More rumblings about the possibility of Sen. Ted Cruz being booted from his Texas seat over abortion rights, this time from New York Magazine;

• Democratic gubernatorial candidates in New Hampshire discuss their stances on abortion;

• Philadelphia, Pennsylvania is allocating funds to Planned Parenthood for the first time;

• And politicians and abortion rights advocates in North Carolina speak out against Trump’s abortion bans.

Ballot Measure Updates

Let’s talk about what’s happening in Missouri, where there’s a legal fight over the language of an abortion rights ballot measure summary. Yes, again! You may remember that last year, Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft drafted a summary claiming the amendment would allow for “dangerous, unregulated and unrestricted abortion” by those without a medical license. The courts ruled the summary was partisan and unfair, but somehow we’re dealing with the same issue again this week.

After Ashcroft certified the pro-choice measure for November’s ballot last month, his office published a “fair ballot language” statement that will be posted at every polling station next to sample ballots. Let’s take a look at what, exactly, that ‘fair’ statement says:

“A ‘yes’ vote will enshrine the right to abortion at any time of pregnancy in the Missouri Constitution. Additionally, it will prohibit any regulation of abortion, including regulations designed to protect women undergoing abortions and prohibit any civil or criminal recourse against anyone who performs an abortion and hurts or kills the pregnant women.”

Can you believe that he has the nerve to claim this is fair and unbiased language? Abortion rights activists, understandably, are asking the courts to issue a new summary. Rachel Sweet of Missourians for Constitutional Freedom says, “These politicians know that Missouri voters overwhelmingly support Amendment 3, so they resort to deceptive and misleading tactics.”

A judge heard arguments over the language yesterday, and we’re expecting a decision any time now. NOTE: Literally just as I was about to send this out, a judge came down with a ruling. Judge Cotton Walker tossed the summary! He wrote that the language was “unfair, insufficient, inaccurate and misleading.” More on this tomorrow.

Quick hits:

• A lawsuit brought against South Dakota’s abortion rights ballot measure won’t be decided before the amendment goes to a vote;

• Rolling Stone looks at the sketchy politics behind Florida’s financial impact statement for Amendment 4;

• The American Prospect has more on the Nebraska ballot measure fight and the lawsuit claiming the proposed amendment violates the state’s single subject rule;

• And a student correspondent at Teen Vogue takes us through the abortion rights ballot measures.

In the Nation

How many different ways can Republicans make clear that they want to be all up in your medical business? As if it wasn’t enough that they’re passing abortion bans, now they want to access the medical records of women who manage to escape their anti-choice states to get care.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is suing the Biden Administration over a new HIPAA rule that prohibits healthcare providers and insurers from handing over women’s medical records to law enforcement. When President Joe Biden announced the rule back in April, he said no one should have their private reproductive health information “used against them, their doctor, or their loved one just because they sought or received lawful reproductive health care.”

The rule was inspired in part by states like Texas, which are making moves to restrict women’s travel via ‘abortion trafficking’ ordinances and bounty hunter mandates. In his suit, Paxton claims that the rule “unlawfully restrict[s] state law enforcement investigations.”

We saw something similar last year, when 19 state attorneys general pressured the Department of Health & Human Services to allow them access to the medical records of those who get abortions out-of-state. Sigh.

2024

• Prism on what a Kamala Harris presidency could mean for abortion rights;

• NBC News on the issues impacting the fight for House control, including abortion;

• And The New York Times looks at how Trump’s abortion flip-flopping is playing among anti-abortion voters:

Care Denied

Glamour magazine has a wrenching story from a South Carolina woman who was denied care after receiving a devastating diagnosis about her pregnancy. Emma Giglio was born and raised in South Africa, and said she had always been pro-choice but “was very naive” about abortion restrictions:

“I was never really following it closely. It wasn’t really a big part of my life until it had to be, I guess. Until it affected me.”

Glamour takes us through the entirety of Giglio’s abortion journey, and it’s well worth a read or share for anyone who doesn’t know much about what constitutes an abortion later in pregnancy—and the hurdles patients have to overcome in order to get care. “I don’t think people understand the level of trauma that can have on a family,” she says.

We’ve also been hearing a lot more from men who have been impacted by abortion bans, which I’m grateful for. This week, Derick Cook has an op-ed in The Miami Herald about how Florida’s abortion ban nearly killed his wife. Cook and his wife Anya shared their story at the Democratic National Convention last month, adding their voices to a growing number of post-Roe horror stories.

Because of Florida’s 15-week abortion ban, Anya was denied miscarriage treatment when she started to lose her pregnancy just one week after the legal cut-off for care.

After being sent home from the hospital, Anya bled out in the bathroom of a hair salon, losing nearly half of the blood in her body. From Cook:

“The doctor said the operation should take an hour. It turned into eight hours. At one point, the doctor asked me if I wanted him to focus on saving my wife’s life, or her uterus.

I couldn’t go against my wife’s wishes. I knew she wanted to have a baby more than anything. But I also knew that I couldn’t live without her. So, all I could do was ask him to please save both.”

For information on how men can get involved in abortion rights, take action and be allies, check out Men4Choice.

---

My new book is out soon! Don’t forget to check out the special perk for subscribers who pre-order before September 18th.