The Republicans Pretending to Be Pro-Choice

10.11.24

Click to skip ahead: Anti-Abortion Strategy looks at how Republicans are co-opting pro-choice rhetoric (again). In Texas Suit Dropped, the asshole suing his ex’s friends for getting her abortion medication is packing it up. In the States, news from Texas, North Dakota, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Indiana. In Ballot Measure Updates, attacks on democracy in Florida and Nebraska. 2024 looks at the latest anti-abortion ad campaign. In the Nation, some quick hits. Stats & Studies looks at new research, including a poll showing that abortion is the number one issue for young American women. Finally, in You Love to See It, congrats to a legal superstar.

---

Anti-Abortion Strategy

The anti-abortion tactic I’m most worried about these days? The GOP co-opting pro-choice rhetoric. The 19th published an important piece this week, for example, about the Republicans in House races who are moderating their tone on abortion while maintaining their anti-abortion policies. Whether it’s straight up calling themselves ‘pro-choice’ or claiming that they’d never vote for a national abortion ban, these politicians have seen the writing on the wall and are doing their best to appeal to voters.

It’s something I’ve been tracking myself: Consider what happened in this week’s debate for Arizona’s U.S. Senate seat. Republican Kari Lake, who has been a vocal supporter for bans—even the state’s 1864 ban—suddenly says she wouldn’t vote for a national ban. But it was her language about the ballot measure heading to voters this November that caught my attention:

“We have the choice as Arizonans to decide what our abortion law will be. It’s going to be up to us.”

This is the exact language Donald Trump has been using; terms like ‘choice’ and ‘will of the people’ are everywhere, giving voters the impression they have power even as Republicans try to strip it away.

In a debate last night, for example, U.S. Rep. Marc Molinaro of New York not only promised to oppose a national ban, but looked at the camera to speak to women directly: “I absolutely respect the decision you make, and I want that decision to rest between you and a physician, not Washington, D.C.” Sounds downright feminist!

Just today, Pennsylvania state Rep. Ryan Mackenzie wrote an op-ed titled, “I will not support a federal abortion ban.” Mackenzie, who is running for a U.S. House seat, also said he supports IVF and contraception, calling himself a “bipartisan leader” on women’s health. (This is a guy who used to brag about his “100% pro-life voting record.”)

I could keep going: The Republican running for Congress in Virginia’s 10th district, Mike Clancy, says, “it is best to return to each individual state for the voters of those states to decide how they want to approach abortion.” And like the rest of his Republican cohort, Clancy promises he’d oppose a national ban and that he supports birth control and IVF.

It’s almost as if they’ve been given the same memo! As transparent as these tactics are to us, though, I worry that they won’t be so obvious to most Americans.

Because this isn’t just a Trump-trend that other lawmakers are picking up on—it’s a well-planned rhetorical shift coming from the top down. It wasn’t so long ago, after all, that Mitch McConnell held a meeting about moving away from the term ‘pro life’. And I reported last year that the National Republican Senatorial Committee was advising candidates to lie about opposing a national ban, by claiming to support “reasonable limits on late-term abortions” (aka a national ban).

All of which is to say: The anti-abortion strategy we can plan to see the most of in the coming years is one of obfuscation and appropriating pro-choice language. It will be candidates lying about their real abortion stances; pretending to support ‘choice’ and the ‘will of the people’ while working to keep voters as far from abortion as possible; and using coded language about supporting bans.

So what do we do? To start, reporters need to ask Republican candidates more specific questions: What do you mean by ‘ban’? Would you oppose any federal restrictions? What kind of birth control do you support? Emergency contraception and IUDs, too? Do you support allowing fertility doctors to continue working as they always have? Would you implement restrictions on embryo destruction?

I know, I know. I won’t hold my breath. But without this kind of specificity, the GOP will get away with lying to voters.

Texas Suit Dropped

It’s nice to have good news every once in a while! I’m sure you remember Marcus Silva, the Texas man who brought a lawsuit against three of his ex-wife’s friends, claiming that they helped her to obtain an abortion. Silva was represented by Jonathan Mitchell—one of the architects of the state’s abortion ban—and was suing the three women for $1 million in damages.

Unsurprisingly, it came out that Silva was abusive (I mean who else would pull a stunt like this) and that he tried to weaponize the suit in order to blackmail his ex into having sex with him.

The wrongful death case was set to go to trial on Monday, but Silva has dropped the case. From Jackie Noyola, one of the women who was being sued by Silva:

“While we are grateful that this fraudulent case is finally over, we are angry for ourselves and others who have been terrorized for the simple act of supporting a friend who is facing abuse. No one should ever have to fear punishment, criminalization, or a lengthy court battle for helping someone they care about.”

And that’s always been the point. Mitchell backed this suit because he wants people to be too afraid to help each other; and feminists had long pointed out that the Texas ‘bounty hunter’ mandate would empower abusers to harass women.

It’s also worth remembering this piece from Mary Ziegler, in which the law professor and author argues that Mitchell always had broader goals with this case: fetal personhood. Mitchell is also obsessed with targeting abortion funds and anyone helping women to get care–so I think we can expect to see more cases like this from him in the future.

In the States

Speaking of Texas, the Texas Tribune reports on the attempts to oust three state Supreme Court justices using voters’ anger over abortion rights. The Find Out PAC—as in, ‘fuck around and find out’—is looking to unseat justices Jimmy Blacklock, John Devine and Jane Bland.

PAC founder Gina Ortiz Jones tells the Tribune, “This is the best way that we can have our voices heard at the ballot box on this issue.” Jones points out that unlike other states that are putting abortion on the ballot, Texas doesn’t have the option of a citizen-led initiative. “But that doesn't mean we can't hold these three accountable based on what they've done,” she said.

Good news out of North Dakota, where a judge denied the state’s request to reinstate an abortion ban while a legal battle over the law ensues. Judge Bruce Romanick, who struck down the state’s abortion ban last month, said, “It would be nonsensical for this Court to keep a law it has found to be unconstitutional in effect pending appeal.” (Remember: While it’s terrific news that North Dakota’s ban was repealed, there are still no clinics in the state so access remains difficult.)

In Indiana, Planned Parenthood and other groups have appealed a ruling that denied a request to broaden an ‘exception’ to the state’s total abortion ban that would have made it easier for doctors to give women health- and life-saving care.

It was just a few weeks ago that a judge said that the ban could remain as is, even as she acknowledged that the law put doctors in “the incredibly unenviable position” of sorting out when to give care under threat of prosecution, and that providers had offered “significant and compelling evidence.”

Now the case will move to the Indiana Court of Appeals. In a press release, the ACLU of Indiana accused the law of “putting pregnant people’s health at serious risk, leading to preventable tragedies and even death.”

“Hoosiers deserve better, and the Indiana Constitution demands better,” the group says.

NC Health News has an important piece today on how Hurricane Helene has impacted abortion access in North Carolina. A Planned Parenthood clinic in Asheville, for example, is closed because it still doesn’t have running water. North Carolina—even with its 12-week abortion ban—is a vital access point in the South. Women from states with total bans travel there for abortion care, so losing any clinic can be catastrophic.

This isn’t just about one clinic or building, though: Abortion clinic workers are having a hard time commuting to and from work because the roadways aren’t all safe or available, for example, and some patients can’t get care because their cars or homes have been destroyed in the storm. Or because they’re seeking basic necessities like food and water.

Then there’s the whole matter of state restrictions: As NC Health News points out, North Carolina’s law mandates that patients get in-person counseling three days before their actual abortion; that means they need at least two visits to a clinic. Given the additional hurdles that the devastation of Helene left in its wake, this will be downright impossible for many, many people.

In better news, I’m glad to see pro-choice protections being implemented on the local level, like this move in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. County Executive Sara Innamorato signed an executive order yesterday that prohibits county officials, employees and departments from aiding in abortion investigations from potential out-of-state law enforcement. The order says that Allegheny County “has a duty to protect its citizens from the extra-legal overreach of overzealous out-of-state prosecutors seeking to hold Allegheny County residents accountable to foreign laws.”

The reason that local efforts like this are so important is because that’s where anti-abortion activists are focusing a tremendous amount of their time and energy—passing horrific ordinances, like the so-called ‘anti-trafficking’ policies spreading throughout Texas.

Quick hits:

• Georgia abortion clinics say their patients deserve better than being jerked around by the state;

• Mother Jones speaks to a Louisiana doctor worried that other states will start classify abortion meds as ‘controlled substances’, too;

• Sen. Ted Cruz may be staying quiet on abortion these days, but he’s out campaigning with the author of Texas’s ban;

• Finally, the local public radio & television station in Tennessee conducted a long-form interview with Ashley Coffield, president of Planned Parenthood for Tennessee & North Mississippi.

Ballot Measure Updates

I have a frustrating update out of Florida, where Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis and his administration have launched a full-scale attack on democracy in order to keep abortion banned. The state Supreme Court ruled yesterday that DeSantis can continue to use taxpayer dollars to lobby against Amendment 4, a citizen-led initiative seeking to restore abortion rights.

Apparently the Florida Supreme Court doesn’t care about the law that prevents the government from interfering in elections. In addition to launching a state-run campaign against the pro-choice amendment, DeSantis’ administration has also been threatening television stations that run ads for Amendment 4. We haven’t even gotten into the voter intimidation yet!

My heart really goes out to the abortion rights activists in Florida; I can’t imagine what it’s like working on this issue under these kinds of insane circumstances.

I’m afraid we’re not done with Republican trickery today—we need to talk about Nebraska. As you know by now, there are two abortion-related measures on the ballot: one that would protect abortion rights up until ‘viability,’ and another that would enshrine a 12-week ban into the state’s constitution. The amendment proposed by anti-abortion groups has been deliberately framed as a ‘pro-choice’ measure in order to trick voters.

Unfortunately, the tactic is working: New polling indicates it’s likely that both measures will pass. If that happens, whichever proposed amendment has most votes will be adopted. So if you know folks in the state, now is the time to reach out!

It’s clear to me that Nebraska voters are confused about the two measures. After all, hundreds of Nebraskans complained to the Secretary of State’s office after being misled by signature-gatherers who told them they were signing a pro-choice petition.

We also know that past polls have shown that most Nebraska voters want abortion to be legal—which is also the trend regionally and nationally. These new Nebraska numbers, for example, come from a poll taken by the Midwest Newsroom and Emerson College Polling of voters in Iowa, Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska. It found that a majority of voters in Missouri and Iowa believe the states’ abortion bans are too strict (good news in particular for Missouri, where abortion will be on the ballot). And in Kansas, most voters agreed that it’s a “good thing” that people can have abortions until 22 weeks in the state.

In other words: All of this broad support for abortion rights indicates that what’s happening in Nebraska is likely because of the concerted anti-abortion effort to confuse voters about which measure would protect reproductive rights.

Quick hits:

• The Denver Post editorial board has come out in support of Amendment 79, Colorado’s pro-choice ballot measure;

• Kamala Harris was in Arizona, where she told the audience to vote for the abortion rights amendment on the ballot in November;

• One of the biggest funders to the campaign opposing Missouri’s abortion rights ballot measure is the family that owns the Kansas City Chiefs;

• Finally, the abortion rights activists behind Maryland’s pro-choice ballot measure, Question 1, have released a new ad to reach voters before November:

2024

Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America (SBA-PLA) is launching a multi-million dollar ad campaign across battleground states that targets local Democrats, accuses Kamala Harris of being an extremist, and co-opts ‘Black Lives Matter.’ It’s that last one that really turns my stomach; here’s the ad if you can stand watching it.

The ads—which repeat the same abortion ‘up until birth’ nonsense we’ve heard again and again—will run in Arizona, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Ohio.

Remember: SBA-PLA has a tremendous amount of power among Republicans—even as they continue to push bad polls that lose the GOP elections. So as wild as these ads seem, they’re part of the conservative mainstream.

In the Nation

• The New Republic on how the Supreme Court could use Dobbs to attacks trans rights;

• A new study on the impact abortion bans have on LGBTQ+ parents;

• The Economist reports that American women are going to Mexico for abortions;

• The New York Times with a video on the Republican women who are dropping the GOP this November because of abortion;

• More on the OBGYN exodus out of anti-abortion states and the drop in residency applications;

• Finally, Teen Vogue on a new book that “untangles the joined histories of witches and reproductive rights throughout history.”

---

If you’re not sick of hearing me talk about abortion yet, I was on Hysteria this week chatting about ballot measures, Melania and more:

---

Stats & Studies

A survey from KFF finds that abortion is the number one issue for women under 30 years old this November. As it should be! Nearly 4 in 10 young women said that abortion was most important for their upcoming vote; what’s interesting is that this number is double what it was just a few months ago, when just 20% of young women answered the same. What changed since then? Well, the Democratic presidential nominee has.

Ashley Kirzinger, director of survey methodology at KFF, says that “Harris becoming the Democratic presidential nominee energized women voters in a way that the Biden candidacy had not.”

Meanwhile, a new Redfin Survey reports that nearly 1 in 10 Gen Zers who plan to move cite abortion as a reason—they’re looking to go somewhere that reproductive healthcare is legal and accessible. It sounds like despite conservative efforts to make us believe that voters don’t care that much about abortion, they really really do.

In the last bit of research news, a new study from the Guttmacher Institute finds that nearly 40% of people seeking out abortions discovered their pregnancy at six weeks or later—throwing a wrench in the idea that patients can easily get care before a 6-week ban.

Guttmacher also found that it was young people who are most likely to not know about their pregnancy earlier than six weeks, and that other factors included having a low-income, less education and a lack of private insurance. In other words, it’s the most vulnerable among us who are most impacted by 6-week bans.

You Love to See It

Just wanted to say congratulations to Center for Reproductive Rights attorney Molly Duane, who was named one of the TIME 100 this year! Molly has represented women like Amanda Zurawski and Kate Cox, and is on the front lines of the legal battle to restore abortion rights. As Cecile Richards writes, Molly is “fighting for a generation of women who have lost the right to determine their own lives and futures…It’s a long-haul fight—but Molly is just getting started.”