It seems natural to also tie the loss of abortion care with the loss of healthcare in general that the country is experiencing, even and especially in Red states.
Abortion is a fringe issue in 2026, and beyond. For decades, Republicans fretted over overturning Roe v Wade, not because we thought there was some "right" to abortion inherent in the constitution, but because we thought repeal of Roe would unleash a tectonic shift in voting patterns, akin to what happened in the Great Depression, or the 1960's, due to the passing of the civil rights legislation. Then Trump unleashed his reckless superpower (he and MAGA don't give a shit what anybody thinks or says about them, or how they judge them), and the Court just did it. It was his one and only gift to the Evangelicals who made him president.
Those of us practical conservatives, who argued to leave Roe alone cringed, ducked, held our breath...and basically nothing happened. Yes, the red wave in 2022 was diminished, but that can be attributed as much to lower GOP turnout than to frenzied turnout by abortionists. And we still won the House. In 2024, Trump, despite 34 felony convictions and January 6th, was re-elected and won every swing state,...running against a pro-abortion woman, who tried to savage Kavanaugh in his hearings. The GOP held the House and won the Senate. Voters. Didn't. Care.
What we learned invalidates this leftwing hopium that somehow abortion is going to be a salient issue again. In polls, abortion ranks even lower as an "issue people care most about" than it did before Dobbs. It seems most people have accepted, or at least resigned themselves to it. Why doesn't move the needle?:
1. Abortion is still legal in the vast majority of states. Nothing has changed in most of those states, so the average person there sees no infringement on their personal access to abortion. Americans are self-centered, even Democrats.
2. Where abortion has been restricted, elections are typically not competitive, because there generally aren't enough Democrats to make a difference, no matter how pissed-off they get over abortion. Who cares if a GOP candidate wins by 17% instead of 18%?
3. Everybody who was flaming hot mad over repeal of Roe was already voting lockstep for Democrats, and they were typically located in states or districts where the GOP isn't competitive anyway. Again, who cares if a GOP candidate loses by 20% instead of by 15%?
So please proceed, Dems. You're going to win (maybe bigly) in 2026, because as Kos said yesterday on his site, "Trump is just that awful", but abortion is a virtual non-issue electorally, post Dobbs. Thank God, too. I was getting really tired of having to listen to SCOTUS nominees and GOP candidates twist themselves into pretzels to avoid revealing their disdain for the bad law that was Roe v Wade.
I agree Roe v. Wade was flawed, we should have had a Bodily Autonomy amendment instead.
But I think you vastly underestimate how women are experiencing the elimination of Roe v. Wade and how angry it has made them to slide backwards.
Women's healthcare has been heavily impacted in rural areas especially--and not just pregnant women. Even contraception is targeted now in some of these red states. Right now the federal government is working on eliminating mailing of abortion drugs through USPS, which will eliminate abortions from all the red states in one devastating blow.
Try getting out of your bubble and read Jessica Valenti's Abortion, Everyday newsletter https://jessica.substack.com/. Excellent reporting from states, on the ground, on what eliminating Roe v. Wade has wrought. Overreach is the operational word out there. And it is not popular. Definitely not 'practical' conservatism.
Reading a pro-choice newsletter may not be your cup of tea, but I read people like you a lot to try and understand where they are coming from. You should try it yourself.
I appreciate your response. My post was not intended as a judgment on the act of abortion, just as a commentary on the practical impact the abortion issue has had on elections, and why.
For the record, I am not against abortion, and I don't think it should be illegal. If I was a SCOTUS Justice, I would absolutely have voted to repeal Roe, because it was bad law, fantasy law - made by a radical Court that did no better than what liberals accuse the current Court of doing, inventing law to justify policy.
OTOH, if I was a state (or federal) legislator, I would not vote for any bill that banned abortion. Restrict it somewhat? Fine. Ban it? No. Like Bill Clinton, I'd like abortion to be available (legal), safe, and rare. Not necessarily "easy", because it should not be a routine get-out-of-jail-free card for bad behavior (and that goes for women AND men, since it still takes two to tango, and child support payments can be a bitch), but safe and available. I don't approach it from a religious perspective, just a moral and practical one. Is it a bad thing to do? Yes-always. Is it sometimes necessary? Yes-sometimes. As a sophisticated thinker, I can hold both opinions simultaneously. Sometimes we have to do bad things for good reasons.
I am not interested in "pro-choice" literature anymore than I am interested in being lectured to by Evangelicals about abortion being the devil's work. I know it's not a "right", like life, religious freedom, property rights, etc., but I'm uncomfortable with defining it as "murder". As an issue, it's complicated - grey, not black and white. Anybody who doesn't agree with that sentence, I consider wrong.
But it's a loser issue electorally, if just because the people who care are unpersuadable and already voting one way or the other. There are no new votes there - at least in states where it matters. If there were, Trump would never have been re-elected.
Important for media to once again and regularly have sufferers (ncluding men! And grandmothers) tell their heart-wrenching stories about loss of women's health care and abortion access, to keep the real costs and their scale front-of-mind for the public. They have been displaced by the "Strait of Warm Ooze" boondoggle, etc.
Well, the morbidly good news is you’re in luck. As long as Dobbs remains the law and Republicans keep being a bunch of anti-abortion death cultists, horrible stories about dead women and ruined families will proliferate.
How does one become a political consultant? How are they not just another layer of grift that has become ingrained in our system? How are they in ANYWAY a positive part of the discourse?
Oh my god this consultant class will do anything - anything - to avoid talking about the issue that affects 99% of voters - economic inequality and the cost of living. These people are deluding themselves if they think abortion is going to be a more salient message than the rich should pay their fair share, we shouldn't have trillionaires when people are dying from lack of health care, etc. They have their own economic security, they have their donors bankrolling them, they will be just fine as long as we all collectively look the other way from the biggest issue this country is facing and which crosses the right/left divide - the inherent unfairness in this system they barely want to tinker with, much less change.
Agreed. Having children is the most expensive thing you can do, aside from buying a house these days. Average of $250,000 over the child's lifetime, often more.
And abortion and contraception is healthcare--for women, granted, so perhaps men dismiss it, but it obviously impacts men who want to have families, or don't want to have families.
So if we really cared about family welfare, family values, and correcting economic inequalities, we would make certain women are healthy enough to bear and care for their children, and avoid having children when they can't afford it.
Especially since minority women, poor women, are disproportionately affected by lack of healthcare for women; rich men's mistresses and wives and daughters always get what they need, including abortions. Rich people can afford female contraception, which amazingly is still not covered in most states, and is pricey compared to overseas.
So this issue is actually integrally tied to rich paying their fair share and economic inequality.
Thank you, Lauren. Your reporting and the comments for this piece are excellent. I have always been dismayed how the issue of reproductive freedom has been mired in hypocrisy: men pontificating about ANY part of it, supercilious controllers who think they have a direct link to the will of the Divinity for instructing the rest of us how to conduct our lives. The supreme irony is that “right-to-life” concern generally extends basically inutero. Before and after that, pre-natal and post-natal care, decent housing, living wages, actual respect for people, is scarcely of interest. And heaven forbid they should be expected to make any financial contribution for these no doubt lazy, shiftless and careless creatures.
While I agree with the points made, what does trouble me is the reliance on Democratic consultants. Please Democrats, stop the consultants and just speak to the issues from your heart. Be authentic on abortion and other issues and stop listening to consultants and Democratic aligned groups. Voters respond to authenticity, much less so to canned answers.
Preach. The consultant quotes in this piece should be exhibit A for how worthless they are and how the Democrats need to stop relying on them to tell their politicians what to believe in and say as they campaign. Until they ditch all the reliance on consultants and operatives, they will never stop coming across as utterly phony politicians who are focused solely on trying to win elections by crafting the perfectly bespoke message for this and only this particular election. Since they don’t actually believe in the consultant speak they’ve been fed they won’t deliver on any of it anyway, and they’ll get tossed out of office when they don’t deliver anything of importance and start the whole process of trying to triangulate once again. Ditch the consultants, find some conviction in what you believe, and lead, otherwise get out of the damn way for someone who can
Democrats can only win on abortion if they understand that a baby is a life too. The Clinton messaging worked on abortion because it was seen as humane respecting women while doing everything to reduce the number of abortions.
Jared Polis has been one of the best on this following in Barack Obama’s footsteps. Abortion is not the only option. Democrats can link access to abortion, promoting adoption as an alternative, and continuing to push for support so young mothers choose to keep their babies through the continuing of child tax credits and support programs like CHIP and other helpful programs.
The problem with the post 2018 messaging from the Democrats is it is hyper-focused on abortion and not the alternatives the party used to champion. As a result the political benefits were more energizing the already staunch Democrats when if messages better it could really actually swing the voters they need that just want to hear the issue spoken of in a humane way. You don’t have to be religious to understand that unborn babies deserve protections and abortion should only be a last resort.
At what point does that "baby" deserve personhood, when is it really "life"? The moment the sperm fertilizes the egg? Is an ectopic pregnancy, where the fertilized egg is stuck in the fallopian tube, endangering the mother's life, still a person that requires protection? Is a little girl raped by her father, so young a caesarean would be necessary since her pelvis isn't wide enough to deliver the child, less valuable than the baby?
You go down this path, and you inevitably end up treating women as little more than incubators and you will force young vulnerable girls to give birth when they are children themselves. All the while sanctimoniously telling them this is good for them. It often isn't. They should be given the choice to weigh the dangers of pregnancy and make the decision for themselves. Because only they know their situation fully. Not you. Not the government, and not your Church.
We need a bodily autonomy amendment. Nobody, but nobody, should be making the decision for the woman carrying the child except that woman, and yes, right up to birth since pregnancy has all sorts of turns and twists and problems people must face. I faced this decision two months before the due date, and chose to have the child, but it was touch and go for both of us, and I would NEVER deny another woman that choice. I had plenty of support, so I was lucky.
You describe it as if it is a nice little jaunt, just a 'natural' thing. Pregnancy is a major medical event, women don't just pop babies out easily. Spent two months in bedrest at the hospital then two solid months in the NICU, day after day, so I understand this fact profoundly. It was a gift, but it was also an big eye opener.
Your religious beliefs--which by the way the majority of other religions do not share on this subject--do not trump my right to decide what to do with my body and any child gestating inside it. Full stop.
As for whether this country will ever decide to treat women as independent human beings, and take female health care seriously, the jury still seems to still be out on that. I do wish Democrats would screw up their courage and talk more honestly about the situation.
I highly recommend subscribing to and reading Jessica Valenti's "Abortion, Every Day" newsletter, where she tracks what the red states and federal government and SCOTUS are doing to women right now in the wake of overturning Roe v. Wade. It's monstrous how many women have already died or been harassed and blamed for the 'natural' course their pregnancy took. It will give you a clear picture of where anti-abortion groups want to lead us.
I agreed with Clinton. 30 years ago. Here's the thing...
Adoption is an alternative to taking care of a child after it's born, but it's not an alternative to 9 months of having another entity using your body (your food, your bloodstream, your organs, etc). There's a bodily autonomy issue. We don't require people (even after they've died) to donate organs, even when it means other people who need them die.
Pregnancy has profound health implications, inherent health risks, and I think that's become more widely appreciated since the Clinton era. Once you get the state involved in an individual's healthcare, it gets messy. There are a lot more situations and ambiguity than you might think.
It goes without saying there should be support for mothers (young or older -- 60% getting abortions have already had children), and support for adoption, and promotion of birth control to reduce unwanted pregnancies as much as possible. I'm 100% behind that.
But I can't get behind Clinton's "it should be rare" (what number is "rare," and who determines that, based on what?). Or "a last resort," it makes it sound too simple. Suppose a woman has two children who depend on her, gets pregnant, but she has some risk factors that increase the chance she'll die. Is there some point it's not a "last resort" and some point it is? 0.1% chance? 1% chance? 10% chance? 50%? Is it actually possible to write a coherent policy that covers this situation, and all others? Or should it just be between her and her doctor?
I think the conversation has changed because people have been more exposed to the healthcare aspect, and it IS seen as a humane way to talk about it.
An unborn baby has moral value as potential human life. It does not have rights, and the baby’s potential life is not and can never be treated by the state as more important or valuable than the actual life of the mother. None of those statements should be remotely controversial, and they were the bedrock underlying principles of abortion jurisprudence for years before Dobbs flipped that on its head by declaring that women had no relevant liberty interest or right at all, and that the state may subordinate them to an unborn child. Thats not prolife. It’s dystopian, as we have all seen in the aftermath of Dobbs.
If you want to be pro-life, and provide protections to the value and potential life of the unborn, and reduce the occurrence of elective abortions, then your policy solutions need to focus on ensuring access and availability of quality reproductive healthcare, and create a society with a culture of support for women, families, and young children. That would create a pro-life culture and society.
You claim that there is an alleged hyper focus by Democrats on abortion without regards for any alternatives and that swing voters need to hear democrats speak about the issue more humanely. I don’t think that is remotely true in reality, but the most problematic aspect of this framing is that it ignores just how inhumane, cruel, deadly and destructive the Republican response to Dobbs has been to women’s healthcare and pregnancy outcomes in this country.
The Republican imposition of draconian abortion bans with bureaucratic legal exceptions that require the establishment of legal proofs to the states satisfaction under threat of criminal penalties and professional ruin in the name of protecting the unborn has been an absolute disaster of public policy that can in no way be described as remotely pro-life. The inhumane and cruel zealotry of state legislatures and the anti-abortion groups that write that bans for them and slander any and all objections, criticisms, and warnings about what these bans will do show us exactly why that the state has no business intruding in healthcare issues in the name of restricting abortion.
These red state bans have resulted in a wealth of data on maternal mortality rates, infant mortality rates, and pregnancy outcome statistics, that portray the policy outcomes of these as more akin to a death cult than a movement that has any business calling itself prolife. And this is made worse by the fact that those in charge of drafting, implementing, and enforcing these bans and the systems they create can often be seen reveling in their cruelty, inhumanity, and disregard for the life of pregnant women and their babies in the event of pregnancy complications and outcomes that challenge the assumptions underlying their anti-abortion zealotry or where they were accurately warned about such consequences. When they refuse to acknowledge any responsibility for their policy outcomes and instead try to blame the people who warned them for staging awful outcomes like some false flag driven by our dedication to killing babies, it just adds an exclamation point to their unhinged, inhumane cruelty and zealotry.
These people, and by extension the government they control, need to get the hell out of the doctors office and stay out of women’s healthcare as they have quickly proven how little they care about women or their babies and how much they cannot be trusted. So please, skip me with the need for humanity pep talk when every GOP controlled state government is fanatically dedicated to controlling, subjugating, and killing their women without regard for the babies they allegedly exist to protect
It doesn’t. Certainly none that a state can weaponize the rights of a baby’s potential life against the rights and actual life of the mother.
You people actually still think an abstract appeal to emotion like this flies, when youve lost it. Actual emotionally wrought stories are far more devastating and dramatic on the other side now…
That's what you believe. I doubt that's a majority opinion. Most people think abortion should be legal (somewhere around 70-80%), but most people also think abortion is wrong and shameful, because "a baby has to be killed" - that's why people other than radical feminists don't go around advertising their abortions.
The nuanced position is that abortion is bad, but should be available, since sometimes it is necessary to do a bad thing for an otherwise good reason. Rape. Incest. Abuse. Two 18-year olds with their whole lives ahead of them, who hook-up and do something irresponsible and stupid. Sometimes we have to swallow hard and do something that is wrong, because it rights a greater wrong. As Bill Clinton said "Legal (available), safe, and rare".
That is the correct position on abortion. Maybe it's not a sin before the eyes of somebody's God, but it sure as hell shouldn't be a sacrament of the feminist church, either.
It’s kinda cute that you do not realize how that is exactly the position I am stating. Its also consistent with the rationale that undergirds the legal framework of Roe, the case that you so confidently declare to have been wrong without seemingly understanding its underlying premises at all.
Like you have spent so many decades engrossed in a blind ideology that you have clearly abandoned if you now believe what you just stated is the correct position on abortion, yet you are unable to get over that last hump and recognize how this translates into applicable law or the American legal tradition. Keep working on it. If you've gotten this far, you'll get there.
It's not a baby, it is a bunch of cells with the potential to become a child. Not everyone wants to bear a child and then put it up for adoption. That is traumatic for the woman and the child. Women who are not ready to bear a child need more than just child tax credits and CHIPS. I teach in prison and see the result of what happens when women bear children and are unprepared. It creates a lifetime of scars. When a woman is pregnant, it should be her decision alone on how to proceed. Not yours and not a politician.
I’m not talking biologically I’m talking culturally. I have no problem with legal abortion I’ve never considered myself against abortion. That being said, Democrats used to be a lot more thoughtful on the issue and their messaging was far more inclusive and less aggressive.
Expectant mothers never refer to their soon to be born child as a fetus or a clump of cells. And while adoption isn’t for everyone, neither is IVF, neither is surrogacy, etc. But all of these options should be talked about and to an extent championed.
If they want to win the votes of the highly active Bulwark boards, then talk about abortion the same way as 2024. But if you want to have an open tent with potential for large majorities like in 2008, then do it the way President Obama did where he didn’t vote for any legal abortion restrictions but spent a significant amount of effort working with people across the ideological spectrum to culturally reduce the number of abortions. And it worked.
Like your comments regarding having a conversation with people across the ideological spectrum to CULTURALLY reduce the number of abortions. It seems that people would behave more responsibly. And, yet, safe abortions are still available.
Until viable outside the womb, maybe "just a bunch of cells", but certainly not once the baby could live independently. At that time, it's a person, and the mother has a responsibility to protect it, like they have a responsibility to protect any child, even at the risk of her own life. That's what mothers (and not just human mothers) do, or at least most of them do.
He goes too far to be sure, but an unborn baby is more than a clump of cells and has real moral value. He is right that rejecting this entirely is a mistake, but he’s also wrong to suggest this should empower the state to violate a woman’s liberty in the name of banning or directly restricting the availability of abortion. Whatever the value of potential human life of an unborn child, it cannot override the value of the actual human life of the mother, and the government has no legitimate business intruding in that relationship to elevate the value of the unborn child over the mother, as Alito expressly does in Dobbs.
We can all agree that we should want to build a society in which women experience few unplanned pregnancies and are supported in the community, family, and society with enough healthcare, services, and resources that limits the instance of elective abortions as much as possible in the front end, while we also reject the legitimacy of any attempt by the state to restrict or ban abortion on the back end for all the destructive consequences it unleashes
I’ve never supported any legislation to have the government restrict abortions. I’m not sure what in my post suggested that.
I am mirroring the Barack Obama approach that tried to use cultural institutions across the board to reduce the number of abortions and fight child poverty.
Amy Klobuchar and Jared Polis have taken this same approach. While many Democratuc politicians choose to focus exclusively on legislative abortion bans, others have taken a more wholistic approach. They affirm the legal right to abortion in their state on a level similar to Roe vs. Wade, but go further and also support the people that choose to have babies instead of abortions.
A narrow message with the usual slogans may appeal to a portion of the electorate, but Democrats know now that isn’t enough and maybe it’s time to adopt a more comprehensive message that goes beyond simple bumper stickers and provides a more comprehensive plan to help young mothers as well as support those that choose to have abortions.
Ninety percent of abortions are performed at 13 weeks or earlier. At that stage of development, the fetus does not look like a miniature baby. It is approximately two and a half inches in length and shares the same physical characteristics of other mammals. While it has the potential to become a human baby, it is not a baby. This might seem like an issue of semantics, but it isn't. Language matters as having an abortion is never a casual decision.
That is true but language is complicated too. In most states (35+ I think) including ones like California, if someone assaults an expectant mother and ends her pregnancy, they can be charged with homicide (not feticide I think that’s only a couple states). Federally it’s a crime no matter what gestational age.
So in cases of domestic violence or violent assaults that cause the death of an unborn baby, the state does recognize the life as a life and I think Democrats support that. They traditionally have supported that classification.
Don't care what stage its performed in and whether the fetus looks like a miniature baby yet or not. That's not my point.
At any stage I would simultaneously maintain that (1) a fetus has moral value that is unproductive and foolish to deny in this conversation; and (2) whatever degree of moral value a fetus has as potential human life at any stage of the pregnancy, that value would never justify overriding the rights and liberty interests of the woman so that the ability to make decisions about her own body and health might be taken away from her by the state or anyone else.
The competence and corruption are what can appeal to swing voters and Indies.
People are internalizing the costs, and political candidates can't do much about them anyway. The voters will resent insincere promises that can't be fulfilled. Remember, Trump was going to lower costs on day one? How'd that work out? Plus, Democrat economic and social policies, if implemented, will cost more money, not less, and result in tax increases. See NYC.
As for the cruelty? I am beginning to believe that most people don't care, unless it is happening directly to them. Who didn't know Trump was cruel in 2024? Who hadn't heard him talking about deportations that sounded like plans from the Wannsee Conference? They voted for him anyway, because they are sick of illegals and DEI. The "Trump is mean" argument has been made by the GOP Establishment since 2016, and it falls on deaf ears. Apparently, a lot of Americans have a mean streak.
But, there is a seething out there among normie Republicans and Indies over the incompetence of his buffoonery, ballroom, tariffs, and the debacle in Iran, and the overt theft, graft, and corruption displayed everyday by the Trump administration. It makes most people's blood curdle, regardless of political party. Those are the things American voters want to see stopped.
Costs and corruption are what brought Viktor Orban down, despite support from Trump and campaigning by JD Vance.
I would argue costs are externalized and very real to people, as Americans’ bank account balances drop because of Trump’s tariffs, and a large portion of families are less secure as each month passes. Democrats can run on passing legislation to revoke Trump’s ability to impose specific tariffs or rescind bogus national emergency tariffs.
Here’s a salient example: almost all shoes and socks are made outside the U.S., so parents buying clothes for their kids are hit with higher costs due to Liberation Day tariffs (and its tariffs successors).
Cruelty and current Republican tax policy are also linked (tax cuts for corporations and those at the top, while making health care unaffordable and stripping food benefits for hungry children).
As for Reagan, an AI summary correctly notes: “historians and advocacy groups broadly agree that the Reagan administration actively ignored and delayed responding to the HIV/AIDS epidemic during its critical first years. This inaction is widely considered a major stain on his presidency.”
It seems weird for me to downplay the impact of costs on elections. I was there live for “it’s the economy, stupid”. That said, I used to think the economy was everything until 2022. Then inflation was 9% and interest rates doubled, and the red wave was still just a trickle. I’m starting to believe that the only economic indicator that moves people these days is unemployment, and that has remained low under both Biden and Trump, at least since the covid layoffs were all rehired.
I’m still not convinced that arguing that Trump is cruel is going to move many votes. He was elected twice despite it being painfully obvious.
Nobody whose votes were persuadable in the 1980’s thought Reagan was cruel, at least not in real time.
All reasons voiced by cultural and religious conservatives are based on there christian beliefs. the 1st of the 1st amendments states very clearly that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion " .This should be clear enough for the low intellect Justices to comprehend. The decision should be between a woman and her doctor. even if it is late term. A fetus is not viable until 32 weeks without increasingly intensive medical intervention. The Founding generation had witnessed first had the evil when any religion became involved in governance. It is always a tyranny to be destroyed.
Jesus Christ the consultant class is exhausting. Stop triangulating, stop trying to craft the perfectly bespoke message every election cycle. Voters are tired of being managed by phony sounding politicians, they want someone to lead. That is not something the feckless consultant class and political operatives who spend all this time arguing over how much Democrats should center abortion are even capable of doing. We need people who have the conviction of their beliefs and are then guided by those convictions, not people who believe nothing except whatever they think they need to say and the correct way to say it to get elected. You want an abortion message, it’s very simple.
Get the government, lawyers, bureaucrats, zealot, and ideologues out of the ER, the delivery room, and women’s bodies. Leave women and their doctors the fuck alone and stop threatening to prosecute healthcare providers, women, and their friends and family members for murder over miscarriages and pregnancy outcomes that don’t check a bunch of boxes to the states satisfaction. Mind your own fucking business.
This isn’t some academic moralist issue that requires careful messaging. It’s literal state sponsored terror and tyranny in the name of religious and moral zealotry and the misogynistic control and submission of women, and it’s destroying the availability and quality of reproductive healthcare and obstetrics in this country. And getting women killed.
Great reporting as always. It is frustrating that the Democratic party is run by consultants who are afraid of their own shadows. It was telling that a lot of the conventional wisdom of 2025 was to "moderate" and sacrifice women's ability to make their own healthcare decisions for some phantom voters. It was a cruel and unnecessary. Anyone watching red states enact cruel bans could make the case that pointing out Republican's extremism might be sound politics. Remember that the "Weird" attacks DID work in 2024 but that the consultants were uncomfortable so a successful attack was abandoned. Glad the consultants have woken up to the idea that protecting women's rights is good politics and moral to boot.
How does one “moderate” on this issue? These idiots do not think any of these things through, as legislative bans with conditions and exceptions or any kind all create and lead to the exact same problems, which is the delay, withholding, and chilling of standard of care reproductive healthcare because doctors are worried about being criminally prosecuted or professionally ruined and need to consult with a lawyer or administrator before providing care for their patients.
Either way, women will be traumatized, injured, and die. Children will be orphaned. Husbands widowed. Families destroyed. All while the consultants triangulate over the perfect message to win an election, thus showing how little they actually care about the real people affected.
Women should not die or be traumatized by pregnancy complications because the state is sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong and interfering with their healthcare. End of story.
More attention should be paid to Article VI of the Constitution that prohibits religious tests as a qualification to hold public office. Meaning that self-proclaimed "pro-lifers" can't require that of candidates they support for office.
Dobbs created the circumstances for inequality. Because of Dobbs the rights of girls and women flicker on and off like faulty light bulbs purely as a function of which side of a state line one happens to be on (some zealots are trying to make sure those rights flicker off even in states that are attempting to protect them).
Tens of thousands of doctors--most, but by no means all, specialists in OB/GYN and related fields--are leaving the Republican states that enacted draconian bans following Dobbs. Applications for medical residencies in red state hospitals are measurably down. There's a real brain drain going on.
Clinics and maternity wards have closed as a direct consequence of Dobbs. This is having a negative impact on women experiencing complex pregnancies as well as on women who want abortions.
Dobbs has created quite the mess, in short. Politicians should be talking about the mess the Roberts Six have caused---the stupidity and wastefulness and unintended consequences, the harm done to women's health, to public health and to the economies of red states---rather than reviving the old, noisy debate about abortion itself.
People know how they feel about abortion. But people are now beginning to learn that how they feel about abortion may matter less than how they feel about effective, equitable governance.
It did a lot worse than that. Roe and its progeny were all based on the notion that women have a liberty interest that restrains the state from intruding into their bodies. All of the abortion case law between Roe and Dobbs was about the precise scope of that liberty interest and the outer contours of permissible intrusions. Dobbs erased the idea that women have any liberty interest that restrains the state in its entirety. This is critical, bc the difference across state lines isn’t about rights and liberty. It’s really just about outcomes, which are better in Blue states that protect women under state law and provide better healthcare. As far as women’s rights and liberty interests are concerned Dobbs applies equally across state lines. Red state or blue, Dobbs says women have none. If the federal government ever came after abortion access or reproductive healthcare in blue states, Dobbs would be the precedent relied upon to establish that no women in this country anywhere has the basic rights and liberty interests to be free from government tyranny their entire lives. And let there be no question, they would do it in a second if they had the political power to pull it off.
A major problem with the right to lifers abortion bans is that maternal mortality rates have increased because forced births with no prenatal care kills mothers.
The anti abortion people don’t give a damn about women enough to prevent avoidable deaths of mothers. Another inflicted conservative cruelty.
Perhaps pro-abortion is not the correct position. The whole idea of women losing all their rights is much bigger an includes more women.
It seems natural to also tie the loss of abortion care with the loss of healthcare in general that the country is experiencing, even and especially in Red states.
Abortion is a fringe issue in 2026, and beyond. For decades, Republicans fretted over overturning Roe v Wade, not because we thought there was some "right" to abortion inherent in the constitution, but because we thought repeal of Roe would unleash a tectonic shift in voting patterns, akin to what happened in the Great Depression, or the 1960's, due to the passing of the civil rights legislation. Then Trump unleashed his reckless superpower (he and MAGA don't give a shit what anybody thinks or says about them, or how they judge them), and the Court just did it. It was his one and only gift to the Evangelicals who made him president.
Those of us practical conservatives, who argued to leave Roe alone cringed, ducked, held our breath...and basically nothing happened. Yes, the red wave in 2022 was diminished, but that can be attributed as much to lower GOP turnout than to frenzied turnout by abortionists. And we still won the House. In 2024, Trump, despite 34 felony convictions and January 6th, was re-elected and won every swing state,...running against a pro-abortion woman, who tried to savage Kavanaugh in his hearings. The GOP held the House and won the Senate. Voters. Didn't. Care.
What we learned invalidates this leftwing hopium that somehow abortion is going to be a salient issue again. In polls, abortion ranks even lower as an "issue people care most about" than it did before Dobbs. It seems most people have accepted, or at least resigned themselves to it. Why doesn't move the needle?:
1. Abortion is still legal in the vast majority of states. Nothing has changed in most of those states, so the average person there sees no infringement on their personal access to abortion. Americans are self-centered, even Democrats.
2. Where abortion has been restricted, elections are typically not competitive, because there generally aren't enough Democrats to make a difference, no matter how pissed-off they get over abortion. Who cares if a GOP candidate wins by 17% instead of 18%?
3. Everybody who was flaming hot mad over repeal of Roe was already voting lockstep for Democrats, and they were typically located in states or districts where the GOP isn't competitive anyway. Again, who cares if a GOP candidate loses by 20% instead of by 15%?
So please proceed, Dems. You're going to win (maybe bigly) in 2026, because as Kos said yesterday on his site, "Trump is just that awful", but abortion is a virtual non-issue electorally, post Dobbs. Thank God, too. I was getting really tired of having to listen to SCOTUS nominees and GOP candidates twist themselves into pretzels to avoid revealing their disdain for the bad law that was Roe v Wade.
I agree Roe v. Wade was flawed, we should have had a Bodily Autonomy amendment instead.
But I think you vastly underestimate how women are experiencing the elimination of Roe v. Wade and how angry it has made them to slide backwards.
Women's healthcare has been heavily impacted in rural areas especially--and not just pregnant women. Even contraception is targeted now in some of these red states. Right now the federal government is working on eliminating mailing of abortion drugs through USPS, which will eliminate abortions from all the red states in one devastating blow.
Try getting out of your bubble and read Jessica Valenti's Abortion, Everyday newsletter https://jessica.substack.com/. Excellent reporting from states, on the ground, on what eliminating Roe v. Wade has wrought. Overreach is the operational word out there. And it is not popular. Definitely not 'practical' conservatism.
Reading a pro-choice newsletter may not be your cup of tea, but I read people like you a lot to try and understand where they are coming from. You should try it yourself.
I appreciate your response. My post was not intended as a judgment on the act of abortion, just as a commentary on the practical impact the abortion issue has had on elections, and why.
For the record, I am not against abortion, and I don't think it should be illegal. If I was a SCOTUS Justice, I would absolutely have voted to repeal Roe, because it was bad law, fantasy law - made by a radical Court that did no better than what liberals accuse the current Court of doing, inventing law to justify policy.
OTOH, if I was a state (or federal) legislator, I would not vote for any bill that banned abortion. Restrict it somewhat? Fine. Ban it? No. Like Bill Clinton, I'd like abortion to be available (legal), safe, and rare. Not necessarily "easy", because it should not be a routine get-out-of-jail-free card for bad behavior (and that goes for women AND men, since it still takes two to tango, and child support payments can be a bitch), but safe and available. I don't approach it from a religious perspective, just a moral and practical one. Is it a bad thing to do? Yes-always. Is it sometimes necessary? Yes-sometimes. As a sophisticated thinker, I can hold both opinions simultaneously. Sometimes we have to do bad things for good reasons.
I am not interested in "pro-choice" literature anymore than I am interested in being lectured to by Evangelicals about abortion being the devil's work. I know it's not a "right", like life, religious freedom, property rights, etc., but I'm uncomfortable with defining it as "murder". As an issue, it's complicated - grey, not black and white. Anybody who doesn't agree with that sentence, I consider wrong.
But it's a loser issue electorally, if just because the people who care are unpersuadable and already voting one way or the other. There are no new votes there - at least in states where it matters. If there were, Trump would never have been re-elected.
Important for media to once again and regularly have sufferers (ncluding men! And grandmothers) tell their heart-wrenching stories about loss of women's health care and abortion access, to keep the real costs and their scale front-of-mind for the public. They have been displaced by the "Strait of Warm Ooze" boondoggle, etc.
Well, the morbidly good news is you’re in luck. As long as Dobbs remains the law and Republicans keep being a bunch of anti-abortion death cultists, horrible stories about dead women and ruined families will proliferate.
How does one become a political consultant? How are they not just another layer of grift that has become ingrained in our system? How are they in ANYWAY a positive part of the discourse?
Oh my god this consultant class will do anything - anything - to avoid talking about the issue that affects 99% of voters - economic inequality and the cost of living. These people are deluding themselves if they think abortion is going to be a more salient message than the rich should pay their fair share, we shouldn't have trillionaires when people are dying from lack of health care, etc. They have their own economic security, they have their donors bankrolling them, they will be just fine as long as we all collectively look the other way from the biggest issue this country is facing and which crosses the right/left divide - the inherent unfairness in this system they barely want to tinker with, much less change.
Agreed. Having children is the most expensive thing you can do, aside from buying a house these days. Average of $250,000 over the child's lifetime, often more.
And abortion and contraception is healthcare--for women, granted, so perhaps men dismiss it, but it obviously impacts men who want to have families, or don't want to have families.
So if we really cared about family welfare, family values, and correcting economic inequalities, we would make certain women are healthy enough to bear and care for their children, and avoid having children when they can't afford it.
Especially since minority women, poor women, are disproportionately affected by lack of healthcare for women; rich men's mistresses and wives and daughters always get what they need, including abortions. Rich people can afford female contraception, which amazingly is still not covered in most states, and is pricey compared to overseas.
So this issue is actually integrally tied to rich paying their fair share and economic inequality.
Thank you, Lauren. Your reporting and the comments for this piece are excellent. I have always been dismayed how the issue of reproductive freedom has been mired in hypocrisy: men pontificating about ANY part of it, supercilious controllers who think they have a direct link to the will of the Divinity for instructing the rest of us how to conduct our lives. The supreme irony is that “right-to-life” concern generally extends basically inutero. Before and after that, pre-natal and post-natal care, decent housing, living wages, actual respect for people, is scarcely of interest. And heaven forbid they should be expected to make any financial contribution for these no doubt lazy, shiftless and careless creatures.
While I agree with the points made, what does trouble me is the reliance on Democratic consultants. Please Democrats, stop the consultants and just speak to the issues from your heart. Be authentic on abortion and other issues and stop listening to consultants and Democratic aligned groups. Voters respond to authenticity, much less so to canned answers.
Preach. The consultant quotes in this piece should be exhibit A for how worthless they are and how the Democrats need to stop relying on them to tell their politicians what to believe in and say as they campaign. Until they ditch all the reliance on consultants and operatives, they will never stop coming across as utterly phony politicians who are focused solely on trying to win elections by crafting the perfectly bespoke message for this and only this particular election. Since they don’t actually believe in the consultant speak they’ve been fed they won’t deliver on any of it anyway, and they’ll get tossed out of office when they don’t deliver anything of importance and start the whole process of trying to triangulate once again. Ditch the consultants, find some conviction in what you believe, and lead, otherwise get out of the damn way for someone who can
Democrats can only win on abortion if they understand that a baby is a life too. The Clinton messaging worked on abortion because it was seen as humane respecting women while doing everything to reduce the number of abortions.
Jared Polis has been one of the best on this following in Barack Obama’s footsteps. Abortion is not the only option. Democrats can link access to abortion, promoting adoption as an alternative, and continuing to push for support so young mothers choose to keep their babies through the continuing of child tax credits and support programs like CHIP and other helpful programs.
The problem with the post 2018 messaging from the Democrats is it is hyper-focused on abortion and not the alternatives the party used to champion. As a result the political benefits were more energizing the already staunch Democrats when if messages better it could really actually swing the voters they need that just want to hear the issue spoken of in a humane way. You don’t have to be religious to understand that unborn babies deserve protections and abortion should only be a last resort.
All true. Polis could be a formidable presidential candidate, if that is what he wants to do.
At what point does that "baby" deserve personhood, when is it really "life"? The moment the sperm fertilizes the egg? Is an ectopic pregnancy, where the fertilized egg is stuck in the fallopian tube, endangering the mother's life, still a person that requires protection? Is a little girl raped by her father, so young a caesarean would be necessary since her pelvis isn't wide enough to deliver the child, less valuable than the baby?
Do you want to prosecute God for allowing 'natural' abortions to slough off fertilized eggs, often up to 70% of the pregnancies? https://biologyinsights.com/what-percent-of-fertilized-eggs-fail-to-develop/
You go down this path, and you inevitably end up treating women as little more than incubators and you will force young vulnerable girls to give birth when they are children themselves. All the while sanctimoniously telling them this is good for them. It often isn't. They should be given the choice to weigh the dangers of pregnancy and make the decision for themselves. Because only they know their situation fully. Not you. Not the government, and not your Church.
We need a bodily autonomy amendment. Nobody, but nobody, should be making the decision for the woman carrying the child except that woman, and yes, right up to birth since pregnancy has all sorts of turns and twists and problems people must face. I faced this decision two months before the due date, and chose to have the child, but it was touch and go for both of us, and I would NEVER deny another woman that choice. I had plenty of support, so I was lucky.
You describe it as if it is a nice little jaunt, just a 'natural' thing. Pregnancy is a major medical event, women don't just pop babies out easily. Spent two months in bedrest at the hospital then two solid months in the NICU, day after day, so I understand this fact profoundly. It was a gift, but it was also an big eye opener.
Your religious beliefs--which by the way the majority of other religions do not share on this subject--do not trump my right to decide what to do with my body and any child gestating inside it. Full stop.
As for whether this country will ever decide to treat women as independent human beings, and take female health care seriously, the jury still seems to still be out on that. I do wish Democrats would screw up their courage and talk more honestly about the situation.
I highly recommend subscribing to and reading Jessica Valenti's "Abortion, Every Day" newsletter, where she tracks what the red states and federal government and SCOTUS are doing to women right now in the wake of overturning Roe v. Wade. It's monstrous how many women have already died or been harassed and blamed for the 'natural' course their pregnancy took. It will give you a clear picture of where anti-abortion groups want to lead us.
Nowhere good, that is for certain.
I agreed with Clinton. 30 years ago. Here's the thing...
Adoption is an alternative to taking care of a child after it's born, but it's not an alternative to 9 months of having another entity using your body (your food, your bloodstream, your organs, etc). There's a bodily autonomy issue. We don't require people (even after they've died) to donate organs, even when it means other people who need them die.
Pregnancy has profound health implications, inherent health risks, and I think that's become more widely appreciated since the Clinton era. Once you get the state involved in an individual's healthcare, it gets messy. There are a lot more situations and ambiguity than you might think.
It goes without saying there should be support for mothers (young or older -- 60% getting abortions have already had children), and support for adoption, and promotion of birth control to reduce unwanted pregnancies as much as possible. I'm 100% behind that.
But I can't get behind Clinton's "it should be rare" (what number is "rare," and who determines that, based on what?). Or "a last resort," it makes it sound too simple. Suppose a woman has two children who depend on her, gets pregnant, but she has some risk factors that increase the chance she'll die. Is there some point it's not a "last resort" and some point it is? 0.1% chance? 1% chance? 10% chance? 50%? Is it actually possible to write a coherent policy that covers this situation, and all others? Or should it just be between her and her doctor?
I think the conversation has changed because people have been more exposed to the healthcare aspect, and it IS seen as a humane way to talk about it.
An unborn baby has moral value as potential human life. It does not have rights, and the baby’s potential life is not and can never be treated by the state as more important or valuable than the actual life of the mother. None of those statements should be remotely controversial, and they were the bedrock underlying principles of abortion jurisprudence for years before Dobbs flipped that on its head by declaring that women had no relevant liberty interest or right at all, and that the state may subordinate them to an unborn child. Thats not prolife. It’s dystopian, as we have all seen in the aftermath of Dobbs.
If you want to be pro-life, and provide protections to the value and potential life of the unborn, and reduce the occurrence of elective abortions, then your policy solutions need to focus on ensuring access and availability of quality reproductive healthcare, and create a society with a culture of support for women, families, and young children. That would create a pro-life culture and society.
You claim that there is an alleged hyper focus by Democrats on abortion without regards for any alternatives and that swing voters need to hear democrats speak about the issue more humanely. I don’t think that is remotely true in reality, but the most problematic aspect of this framing is that it ignores just how inhumane, cruel, deadly and destructive the Republican response to Dobbs has been to women’s healthcare and pregnancy outcomes in this country.
The Republican imposition of draconian abortion bans with bureaucratic legal exceptions that require the establishment of legal proofs to the states satisfaction under threat of criminal penalties and professional ruin in the name of protecting the unborn has been an absolute disaster of public policy that can in no way be described as remotely pro-life. The inhumane and cruel zealotry of state legislatures and the anti-abortion groups that write that bans for them and slander any and all objections, criticisms, and warnings about what these bans will do show us exactly why that the state has no business intruding in healthcare issues in the name of restricting abortion.
These red state bans have resulted in a wealth of data on maternal mortality rates, infant mortality rates, and pregnancy outcome statistics, that portray the policy outcomes of these as more akin to a death cult than a movement that has any business calling itself prolife. And this is made worse by the fact that those in charge of drafting, implementing, and enforcing these bans and the systems they create can often be seen reveling in their cruelty, inhumanity, and disregard for the life of pregnant women and their babies in the event of pregnancy complications and outcomes that challenge the assumptions underlying their anti-abortion zealotry or where they were accurately warned about such consequences. When they refuse to acknowledge any responsibility for their policy outcomes and instead try to blame the people who warned them for staging awful outcomes like some false flag driven by our dedication to killing babies, it just adds an exclamation point to their unhinged, inhumane cruelty and zealotry.
These people, and by extension the government they control, need to get the hell out of the doctors office and stay out of women’s healthcare as they have quickly proven how little they care about women or their babies and how much they cannot be trusted. So please, skip me with the need for humanity pep talk when every GOP controlled state government is fanatically dedicated to controlling, subjugating, and killing their women without regard for the babies they allegedly exist to protect
Ask any mother who doesn't want an abortion if her unborn baby "has no rights".
It doesn’t. Certainly none that a state can weaponize the rights of a baby’s potential life against the rights and actual life of the mother.
You people actually still think an abstract appeal to emotion like this flies, when youve lost it. Actual emotionally wrought stories are far more devastating and dramatic on the other side now…
That's what you believe. I doubt that's a majority opinion. Most people think abortion should be legal (somewhere around 70-80%), but most people also think abortion is wrong and shameful, because "a baby has to be killed" - that's why people other than radical feminists don't go around advertising their abortions.
The nuanced position is that abortion is bad, but should be available, since sometimes it is necessary to do a bad thing for an otherwise good reason. Rape. Incest. Abuse. Two 18-year olds with their whole lives ahead of them, who hook-up and do something irresponsible and stupid. Sometimes we have to swallow hard and do something that is wrong, because it rights a greater wrong. As Bill Clinton said "Legal (available), safe, and rare".
That is the correct position on abortion. Maybe it's not a sin before the eyes of somebody's God, but it sure as hell shouldn't be a sacrament of the feminist church, either.
It’s kinda cute that you do not realize how that is exactly the position I am stating. Its also consistent with the rationale that undergirds the legal framework of Roe, the case that you so confidently declare to have been wrong without seemingly understanding its underlying premises at all.
Like you have spent so many decades engrossed in a blind ideology that you have clearly abandoned if you now believe what you just stated is the correct position on abortion, yet you are unable to get over that last hump and recognize how this translates into applicable law or the American legal tradition. Keep working on it. If you've gotten this far, you'll get there.
I appreciate your rude, condescending tone. Enjoy the next two and half years.
It's not a baby, it is a bunch of cells with the potential to become a child. Not everyone wants to bear a child and then put it up for adoption. That is traumatic for the woman and the child. Women who are not ready to bear a child need more than just child tax credits and CHIPS. I teach in prison and see the result of what happens when women bear children and are unprepared. It creates a lifetime of scars. When a woman is pregnant, it should be her decision alone on how to proceed. Not yours and not a politician.
I’m not talking biologically I’m talking culturally. I have no problem with legal abortion I’ve never considered myself against abortion. That being said, Democrats used to be a lot more thoughtful on the issue and their messaging was far more inclusive and less aggressive.
Expectant mothers never refer to their soon to be born child as a fetus or a clump of cells. And while adoption isn’t for everyone, neither is IVF, neither is surrogacy, etc. But all of these options should be talked about and to an extent championed.
If they want to win the votes of the highly active Bulwark boards, then talk about abortion the same way as 2024. But if you want to have an open tent with potential for large majorities like in 2008, then do it the way President Obama did where he didn’t vote for any legal abortion restrictions but spent a significant amount of effort working with people across the ideological spectrum to culturally reduce the number of abortions. And it worked.
Like your comments regarding having a conversation with people across the ideological spectrum to CULTURALLY reduce the number of abortions. It seems that people would behave more responsibly. And, yet, safe abortions are still available.
It seems that people who are opposed to abortions have very limited perspectives. Many do not have the awareness that you have in your work.
Just as bad are the guys who, firstly, aren’t the ones pregnant, and secondly, then try to impose their own “silly” beliefs on someone else.
Seriously, religious beliefs are just dogma, unless one “walks the talk”. And, the only “walk” is to treat ALL with loving kindness. 🙏
Until “born”: just a bunch of cells…No clinging…🙏
Until viable outside the womb, maybe "just a bunch of cells", but certainly not once the baby could live independently. At that time, it's a person, and the mother has a responsibility to protect it, like they have a responsibility to protect any child, even at the risk of her own life. That's what mothers (and not just human mothers) do, or at least most of them do.
He goes too far to be sure, but an unborn baby is more than a clump of cells and has real moral value. He is right that rejecting this entirely is a mistake, but he’s also wrong to suggest this should empower the state to violate a woman’s liberty in the name of banning or directly restricting the availability of abortion. Whatever the value of potential human life of an unborn child, it cannot override the value of the actual human life of the mother, and the government has no legitimate business intruding in that relationship to elevate the value of the unborn child over the mother, as Alito expressly does in Dobbs.
We can all agree that we should want to build a society in which women experience few unplanned pregnancies and are supported in the community, family, and society with enough healthcare, services, and resources that limits the instance of elective abortions as much as possible in the front end, while we also reject the legitimacy of any attempt by the state to restrict or ban abortion on the back end for all the destructive consequences it unleashes
I’ve never supported any legislation to have the government restrict abortions. I’m not sure what in my post suggested that.
I am mirroring the Barack Obama approach that tried to use cultural institutions across the board to reduce the number of abortions and fight child poverty.
Amy Klobuchar and Jared Polis have taken this same approach. While many Democratuc politicians choose to focus exclusively on legislative abortion bans, others have taken a more wholistic approach. They affirm the legal right to abortion in their state on a level similar to Roe vs. Wade, but go further and also support the people that choose to have babies instead of abortions.
A narrow message with the usual slogans may appeal to a portion of the electorate, but Democrats know now that isn’t enough and maybe it’s time to adopt a more comprehensive message that goes beyond simple bumper stickers and provides a more comprehensive plan to help young mothers as well as support those that choose to have abortions.
Ninety percent of abortions are performed at 13 weeks or earlier. At that stage of development, the fetus does not look like a miniature baby. It is approximately two and a half inches in length and shares the same physical characteristics of other mammals. While it has the potential to become a human baby, it is not a baby. This might seem like an issue of semantics, but it isn't. Language matters as having an abortion is never a casual decision.
That is true but language is complicated too. In most states (35+ I think) including ones like California, if someone assaults an expectant mother and ends her pregnancy, they can be charged with homicide (not feticide I think that’s only a couple states). Federally it’s a crime no matter what gestational age.
So in cases of domestic violence or violent assaults that cause the death of an unborn baby, the state does recognize the life as a life and I think Democrats support that. They traditionally have supported that classification.
Touché! Data is data. 🙏
Don't care what stage its performed in and whether the fetus looks like a miniature baby yet or not. That's not my point.
At any stage I would simultaneously maintain that (1) a fetus has moral value that is unproductive and foolish to deny in this conversation; and (2) whatever degree of moral value a fetus has as potential human life at any stage of the pregnancy, that value would never justify overriding the rights and liberty interests of the woman so that the ability to make decisions about her own body and health might be taken away from her by the state or anyone else.
Democrats need to run on the 4 C's: Costs, Competence, Corruption, and Cruelty.
We know which category the abortion bans and draconian limits which endanger women's lives fall under.
The competence and corruption are what can appeal to swing voters and Indies.
People are internalizing the costs, and political candidates can't do much about them anyway. The voters will resent insincere promises that can't be fulfilled. Remember, Trump was going to lower costs on day one? How'd that work out? Plus, Democrat economic and social policies, if implemented, will cost more money, not less, and result in tax increases. See NYC.
As for the cruelty? I am beginning to believe that most people don't care, unless it is happening directly to them. Who didn't know Trump was cruel in 2024? Who hadn't heard him talking about deportations that sounded like plans from the Wannsee Conference? They voted for him anyway, because they are sick of illegals and DEI. The "Trump is mean" argument has been made by the GOP Establishment since 2016, and it falls on deaf ears. Apparently, a lot of Americans have a mean streak.
But, there is a seething out there among normie Republicans and Indies over the incompetence of his buffoonery, ballroom, tariffs, and the debacle in Iran, and the overt theft, graft, and corruption displayed everyday by the Trump administration. It makes most people's blood curdle, regardless of political party. Those are the things American voters want to see stopped.
Costs and corruption are what brought Viktor Orban down, despite support from Trump and campaigning by JD Vance.
I would argue costs are externalized and very real to people, as Americans’ bank account balances drop because of Trump’s tariffs, and a large portion of families are less secure as each month passes. Democrats can run on passing legislation to revoke Trump’s ability to impose specific tariffs or rescind bogus national emergency tariffs.
Here’s a salient example: almost all shoes and socks are made outside the U.S., so parents buying clothes for their kids are hit with higher costs due to Liberation Day tariffs (and its tariffs successors).
Cruelty and current Republican tax policy are also linked (tax cuts for corporations and those at the top, while making health care unaffordable and stripping food benefits for hungry children).
As for Reagan, an AI summary correctly notes: “historians and advocacy groups broadly agree that the Reagan administration actively ignored and delayed responding to the HIV/AIDS epidemic during its critical first years. This inaction is widely considered a major stain on his presidency.”
It seems weird for me to downplay the impact of costs on elections. I was there live for “it’s the economy, stupid”. That said, I used to think the economy was everything until 2022. Then inflation was 9% and interest rates doubled, and the red wave was still just a trickle. I’m starting to believe that the only economic indicator that moves people these days is unemployment, and that has remained low under both Biden and Trump, at least since the covid layoffs were all rehired.
I’m still not convinced that arguing that Trump is cruel is going to move many votes. He was elected twice despite it being painfully obvious.
Nobody whose votes were persuadable in the 1980’s thought Reagan was cruel, at least not in real time.
All reasons voiced by cultural and religious conservatives are based on there christian beliefs. the 1st of the 1st amendments states very clearly that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion " .This should be clear enough for the low intellect Justices to comprehend. The decision should be between a woman and her doctor. even if it is late term. A fetus is not viable until 32 weeks without increasingly intensive medical intervention. The Founding generation had witnessed first had the evil when any religion became involved in governance. It is always a tyranny to be destroyed.
Jesus Christ the consultant class is exhausting. Stop triangulating, stop trying to craft the perfectly bespoke message every election cycle. Voters are tired of being managed by phony sounding politicians, they want someone to lead. That is not something the feckless consultant class and political operatives who spend all this time arguing over how much Democrats should center abortion are even capable of doing. We need people who have the conviction of their beliefs and are then guided by those convictions, not people who believe nothing except whatever they think they need to say and the correct way to say it to get elected. You want an abortion message, it’s very simple.
Get the government, lawyers, bureaucrats, zealot, and ideologues out of the ER, the delivery room, and women’s bodies. Leave women and their doctors the fuck alone and stop threatening to prosecute healthcare providers, women, and their friends and family members for murder over miscarriages and pregnancy outcomes that don’t check a bunch of boxes to the states satisfaction. Mind your own fucking business.
This isn’t some academic moralist issue that requires careful messaging. It’s literal state sponsored terror and tyranny in the name of religious and moral zealotry and the misogynistic control and submission of women, and it’s destroying the availability and quality of reproductive healthcare and obstetrics in this country. And getting women killed.
💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯
Great reporting as always. It is frustrating that the Democratic party is run by consultants who are afraid of their own shadows. It was telling that a lot of the conventional wisdom of 2025 was to "moderate" and sacrifice women's ability to make their own healthcare decisions for some phantom voters. It was a cruel and unnecessary. Anyone watching red states enact cruel bans could make the case that pointing out Republican's extremism might be sound politics. Remember that the "Weird" attacks DID work in 2024 but that the consultants were uncomfortable so a successful attack was abandoned. Glad the consultants have woken up to the idea that protecting women's rights is good politics and moral to boot.
How does one “moderate” on this issue? These idiots do not think any of these things through, as legislative bans with conditions and exceptions or any kind all create and lead to the exact same problems, which is the delay, withholding, and chilling of standard of care reproductive healthcare because doctors are worried about being criminally prosecuted or professionally ruined and need to consult with a lawyer or administrator before providing care for their patients.
Either way, women will be traumatized, injured, and die. Children will be orphaned. Husbands widowed. Families destroyed. All while the consultants triangulate over the perfect message to win an election, thus showing how little they actually care about the real people affected.
Women should not die or be traumatized by pregnancy complications because the state is sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong and interfering with their healthcare. End of story.
More attention should be paid to Article VI of the Constitution that prohibits religious tests as a qualification to hold public office. Meaning that self-proclaimed "pro-lifers" can't require that of candidates they support for office.
Dobbs created the circumstances for inequality. Because of Dobbs the rights of girls and women flicker on and off like faulty light bulbs purely as a function of which side of a state line one happens to be on (some zealots are trying to make sure those rights flicker off even in states that are attempting to protect them).
Tens of thousands of doctors--most, but by no means all, specialists in OB/GYN and related fields--are leaving the Republican states that enacted draconian bans following Dobbs. Applications for medical residencies in red state hospitals are measurably down. There's a real brain drain going on.
Clinics and maternity wards have closed as a direct consequence of Dobbs. This is having a negative impact on women experiencing complex pregnancies as well as on women who want abortions.
Dobbs has created quite the mess, in short. Politicians should be talking about the mess the Roberts Six have caused---the stupidity and wastefulness and unintended consequences, the harm done to women's health, to public health and to the economies of red states---rather than reviving the old, noisy debate about abortion itself.
People know how they feel about abortion. But people are now beginning to learn that how they feel about abortion may matter less than how they feel about effective, equitable governance.
It did a lot worse than that. Roe and its progeny were all based on the notion that women have a liberty interest that restrains the state from intruding into their bodies. All of the abortion case law between Roe and Dobbs was about the precise scope of that liberty interest and the outer contours of permissible intrusions. Dobbs erased the idea that women have any liberty interest that restrains the state in its entirety. This is critical, bc the difference across state lines isn’t about rights and liberty. It’s really just about outcomes, which are better in Blue states that protect women under state law and provide better healthcare. As far as women’s rights and liberty interests are concerned Dobbs applies equally across state lines. Red state or blue, Dobbs says women have none. If the federal government ever came after abortion access or reproductive healthcare in blue states, Dobbs would be the precedent relied upon to establish that no women in this country anywhere has the basic rights and liberty interests to be free from government tyranny their entire lives. And let there be no question, they would do it in a second if they had the political power to pull it off.
A major problem with the right to lifers abortion bans is that maternal mortality rates have increased because forced births with no prenatal care kills mothers.
The anti abortion people don’t give a damn about women enough to prevent avoidable deaths of mothers. Another inflicted conservative cruelty.
Damn straight. There is nothing pro-life about the anti-abortion zealots and there never has been. It’s actually about control, and it always was.
Thank you. This is the crux and the truth of the matter.