Can we stop saying the abortion issue is only about Roe v Wade or even abortion itself? Americans like freedom. They kinda love democracy. They want their government to reflect their values. On abortion - it is CLEAR that both the elected R's and the Supreme Court have far different values than the average voter. Abortion is a clear issu…
Can we stop saying the abortion issue is only about Roe v Wade or even abortion itself? Americans like freedom. They kinda love democracy. They want their government to reflect their values. On abortion - it is CLEAR that both the elected R's and the Supreme Court have far different values than the average voter. Abortion is a clear issue that shows the disconnect, and the R party extremism. But voters see MORE than just abortion. They SEE the gerrymandering, they see the extremism (Moms for "Liberty"), they see the weaponization of government (DeeeeSantis using his Election "Integrity" police to arrest people), the limitations being placed on voting that target people of color, and the disconnect on gun rights over human rights. But abortion is the issue that, because so many people have similar mainstream views, gives R's and moderates cover to vote D without being accused of being super liberal - as so many R's also feel that elected R's are way too extreme. Americans are voting for democracy - they are just using abortion to get the point across.
If Republicans want to "crack the code" on abortion, here's a hint: remember when John McCain got criticized for putting air quotes around "health of the mother"? That has a lot to do with what's happening here.
People often point to polls showing that Americans aren't too comfortable with abortion past the first trimester. And it's easy to say in a poll that second trimester abortions should be "illegal in most cases". But Americans still overwhelmingly support exceptions for the health of the mother at this point in a pregnancy.
The problem then, comes when you really start to think about how this would be implemented. As McCain's tone-deaf gaffe indicated, the pro-life movement is averse to unqualified health of the mother exceptions, because they know that these sorts of things can and will be interpreted broadly, as they are in many other countries that have legal time limits on abortions. That's why even though these countries tend to get used as examples from people who advocate for things like 15-week bans, people who understand the American pro-life movement know that such laws would hardly assuage them.
Yet it's not hard to see that placing further qualifications on "health of the mother" would be disastrous for women's health during pregnancy. For doctors to not have complete authority to make such decisions, to have to conform to the strictures authored by some anti-abortion lobbyist, under potential penalty of *murder*, would induce an understandable paranoia in practitioners that would lead to them simply refusing to perform abortions past the allowable limit. And mothers would bear the cost of this, some of them paying with their lives.
The Republicans can't "crack the code" because they won't like the answer. Which is to tell the pro-life movement that attempting to curtail abortion through coercive laws is futile, because people tend to realize how fraught and dangerous they are when they really think about it. That if they really want to reduce abortion, they're going about it all wrong. That they need to focus on persuading people,
which means supporting young and single mothers whose motivations for abortion are primarily poor finances and a lack of resources.
That won't stop all abortions – nothing will. And that's the problem, because the pro-life movement is committed to the delusion that they can drop the number of abortions to zero. To admit otherwise would be to admit that fifty years of struggle have been for naught. That the course of action they would need to embark upon by changing tactics now is something they could have been doing already, something they utterly ignored for half a century as they became fixated on judgemental condemnation as a substitute for actually valuing life. The sunk cost fallacy on steroids.
And since the Republican party clearly has no interest these days in short-term pain for long-term gain, by alienating the core of their base in hopes of someday building a politically healthier constituency, they will do nothing. And (hopefully) continue reaping the electoral consequences until the old guard of American evangelicalism all but dies out, crushed under the weight of its own increasing irrelevance.
When Republican refused life and health exemptions for women, the codified their utter contempt for women into law and women noticed. There is no "code to crack". They blew it and these women voters are not going to start voting Republican again. They wanted to play Roulette with women's lives, and women are not going to hand them back a gun with one bullet in the chamber. It's that freaking simple.
Speaking of guns, I'm waiting to see if the corrupt GOP-led SCOTUS is going to literally hand guns back to domestic abusers (the Rahini case). If so, it's only going to confirm that they literally do not value women's lives.
This is why the won't get a plurality of the youth vote outside of a few super rural and messed up states. School shooting after school shooting, and the response is "your lives aren't worth pissing off the NRA". The cruelty is the point, but contempt is not a winning electoral strategy
As I read that this morning, and I saw she suggested to find a new tactic, I thought, "Yeah, mind your own business. That would surely be a winning tactic."
Remember how Republicans were shrieking about how "Obamacare" would put the government between you and your doctor? Maybe they should think about that.
Maybe Republicans could propose a government panel to decide on a case by case basis when a woman's life is in enough danger to warrant actual medical care. Need to come up with a catchy name though....
If the GOP really wanted to reduce abortions, they should advocate for contraceptives, education, and social services. All of these are proven to reduce abortion. Perhaps abortion isn't really their concern.
Or, as Ramaswamy said last night, we can start holding men accountable in getting women pregnant too. Now that’s sure to be a winning proposal within the R ranks. Will be interesting to see if that comes out at tonight’s debate.
He was asked by Kaitlan Collins on CNN about his (and the Republican party's) stance on Abortion restriction vs. what the voters are loudly saying in deep red states. His comment was at first about needing to craft a better message to sell abortion restrictions. When pressed by Kaitlan "do you think that will really work" he switched to talking up other pregnancy prevention strategies. He then voiced his view that men should be more accountable in the "fun" stage (aka conception) as a means to reduce unwanted pregnancies.
How? We should ask him. I assume he means all the available “tools” to be employed in the heat of the moment. Far chance of that happening for the majority of sexual activity.
He’s still firmly anti-abortion and thinks controlling women is the way to get there. But in the meantime...
I think the issue is simple. I was raised Catholic, so I deeply get opposition to abortion. However, the bumper sticker says it best: " Opposed to abortion? Don't have one." It's that simple... butt out of other people's lives and medical decisions.
Agreed. And while it won't fit on a bumper sticker, I'd like to add to that, "...And don't have a D&C when you're bleeding out from a miscarriage either."
She's exactly right. If the "Pro-Life" folks supported all those things, I'd take them seriously. If I remember my history correctly, Paul VI was going to ok contraception in Humanae Vitae, but the conservative cardinals talked him out of it. What a waste!
I agree; it’s irrefutable in the big picture that it’s about control. Which baffles me; I’ve never had any desire to control anyone - barely even my own children.
Maybe time has run out, for the ploy of naming every movement as its opposite: Moms for “Liberty”; Election “Integrity”. Yeah right. Americans can be pretty dumb, but some are waking up.
And yet the GOP will reject this and double down on its pro-theocracy and anti-democracy rhetoric and actions. "They just need to try harder to get their message across."
To put it another way, **American women** do not want to be lectured by forced birth extremists about how they shouldn't have bodily autonomy based on a highly selective, and suspect, interpretation of the Bible.
Exactly. When life begins is when sperm meets egg and a zygote is formed. When that life becomes human is a religious belief. Zygotes and embryos don't have brains, or hearts, or spinal cords. In this country we don't let the religious beliefs of one or even a majority of people dictate what the law is.
“In this country we don't let the religious beliefs of one or even a majority of people dictate what the law is.” Oh, sure we do. We are technically not supposed to but we do it all the time. From suppression of same sex rights (because it contradicts my favorite holy book) to abortion to blue laws to justification of slavery, religion is at the center of it all.
We add “under god” to money and pledges, we don’t require churches to file 990s at tax time like everybody else, and we pass laws declaring a national day of prayer. We absolutely SWIM in religion based laws and regulations in this country. Don’t be naive enough to think it is otherwise.
Can we stop saying the abortion issue is only about Roe v Wade or even abortion itself? Americans like freedom. They kinda love democracy. They want their government to reflect their values. On abortion - it is CLEAR that both the elected R's and the Supreme Court have far different values than the average voter. Abortion is a clear issue that shows the disconnect, and the R party extremism. But voters see MORE than just abortion. They SEE the gerrymandering, they see the extremism (Moms for "Liberty"), they see the weaponization of government (DeeeeSantis using his Election "Integrity" police to arrest people), the limitations being placed on voting that target people of color, and the disconnect on gun rights over human rights. But abortion is the issue that, because so many people have similar mainstream views, gives R's and moderates cover to vote D without being accused of being super liberal - as so many R's also feel that elected R's are way too extreme. Americans are voting for democracy - they are just using abortion to get the point across.
If Republicans want to "crack the code" on abortion, here's a hint: remember when John McCain got criticized for putting air quotes around "health of the mother"? That has a lot to do with what's happening here.
People often point to polls showing that Americans aren't too comfortable with abortion past the first trimester. And it's easy to say in a poll that second trimester abortions should be "illegal in most cases". But Americans still overwhelmingly support exceptions for the health of the mother at this point in a pregnancy.
The problem then, comes when you really start to think about how this would be implemented. As McCain's tone-deaf gaffe indicated, the pro-life movement is averse to unqualified health of the mother exceptions, because they know that these sorts of things can and will be interpreted broadly, as they are in many other countries that have legal time limits on abortions. That's why even though these countries tend to get used as examples from people who advocate for things like 15-week bans, people who understand the American pro-life movement know that such laws would hardly assuage them.
Yet it's not hard to see that placing further qualifications on "health of the mother" would be disastrous for women's health during pregnancy. For doctors to not have complete authority to make such decisions, to have to conform to the strictures authored by some anti-abortion lobbyist, under potential penalty of *murder*, would induce an understandable paranoia in practitioners that would lead to them simply refusing to perform abortions past the allowable limit. And mothers would bear the cost of this, some of them paying with their lives.
The Republicans can't "crack the code" because they won't like the answer. Which is to tell the pro-life movement that attempting to curtail abortion through coercive laws is futile, because people tend to realize how fraught and dangerous they are when they really think about it. That if they really want to reduce abortion, they're going about it all wrong. That they need to focus on persuading people,
which means supporting young and single mothers whose motivations for abortion are primarily poor finances and a lack of resources.
That won't stop all abortions – nothing will. And that's the problem, because the pro-life movement is committed to the delusion that they can drop the number of abortions to zero. To admit otherwise would be to admit that fifty years of struggle have been for naught. That the course of action they would need to embark upon by changing tactics now is something they could have been doing already, something they utterly ignored for half a century as they became fixated on judgemental condemnation as a substitute for actually valuing life. The sunk cost fallacy on steroids.
And since the Republican party clearly has no interest these days in short-term pain for long-term gain, by alienating the core of their base in hopes of someday building a politically healthier constituency, they will do nothing. And (hopefully) continue reaping the electoral consequences until the old guard of American evangelicalism all but dies out, crushed under the weight of its own increasing irrelevance.
So be it.
I hope this eventually leads to dethroning the outsize influence of a minority (Evangelical voters).
When Republican refused life and health exemptions for women, the codified their utter contempt for women into law and women noticed. There is no "code to crack". They blew it and these women voters are not going to start voting Republican again. They wanted to play Roulette with women's lives, and women are not going to hand them back a gun with one bullet in the chamber. It's that freaking simple.
Amen, sister!
Speaking of guns, I'm waiting to see if the corrupt GOP-led SCOTUS is going to literally hand guns back to domestic abusers (the Rahini case). If so, it's only going to confirm that they literally do not value women's lives.
This is why the won't get a plurality of the youth vote outside of a few super rural and messed up states. School shooting after school shooting, and the response is "your lives aren't worth pissing off the NRA". The cruelty is the point, but contempt is not a winning electoral strategy
As I read that this morning, and I saw she suggested to find a new tactic, I thought, "Yeah, mind your own business. That would surely be a winning tactic."
Remember how Republicans were shrieking about how "Obamacare" would put the government between you and your doctor? Maybe they should think about that.
All Obamacare did was put government between you and your insurance. ;-)
Maybe Republicans could propose a government panel to decide on a case by case basis when a woman's life is in enough danger to warrant actual medical care. Need to come up with a catchy name though....
I was joking a bit there with some gallows humor and Republican fears of 'Death Panels'
I worked for state government in social services for 35 years, speaking of gallows humor. You made me laugh.
Well said.
If the GOP really wanted to reduce abortions, they should advocate for contraceptives, education, and social services. All of these are proven to reduce abortion. Perhaps abortion isn't really their concern.
Or, as Ramaswamy said last night, we can start holding men accountable in getting women pregnant too. Now that’s sure to be a winning proposal within the R ranks. Will be interesting to see if that comes out at tonight’s debate.
He was asked by Kaitlan Collins on CNN about his (and the Republican party's) stance on Abortion restriction vs. what the voters are loudly saying in deep red states. His comment was at first about needing to craft a better message to sell abortion restrictions. When pressed by Kaitlan "do you think that will really work" he switched to talking up other pregnancy prevention strategies. He then voiced his view that men should be more accountable in the "fun" stage (aka conception) as a means to reduce unwanted pregnancies.
How? We should ask him. I assume he means all the available “tools” to be employed in the heat of the moment. Far chance of that happening for the majority of sexual activity.
He’s still firmly anti-abortion and thinks controlling women is the way to get there. But in the meantime...
Their concern is putting women in what they believe to be their rightful place.
Nope. Restoration of patriarchy is the goal.
A thing that women, and our allies, have known for years. it's not about life for MANY folks.
I think the issue is simple. I was raised Catholic, so I deeply get opposition to abortion. However, the bumper sticker says it best: " Opposed to abortion? Don't have one." It's that simple... butt out of other people's lives and medical decisions.
Agreed. And while it won't fit on a bumper sticker, I'd like to add to that, "...And don't have a D&C when you're bleeding out from a miscarriage either."
She's exactly right. If the "Pro-Life" folks supported all those things, I'd take them seriously. If I remember my history correctly, Paul VI was going to ok contraception in Humanae Vitae, but the conservative cardinals talked him out of it. What a waste!
Sister Joan is the best kind of bad-ass.
Try "The Time is Now: A Call to Uncommon Courage." We all like to think that we are uncommonly courageous, especially guys.
I agree; it’s irrefutable in the big picture that it’s about control. Which baffles me; I’ve never had any desire to control anyone - barely even my own children.
Maybe time has run out, for the ploy of naming every movement as its opposite: Moms for “Liberty”; Election “Integrity”. Yeah right. Americans can be pretty dumb, but some are waking up.
Not to mention “pro-life”
Yes, I agree. Americans are voting against theocracy and for democracy.
And yet the GOP will reject this and double down on its pro-theocracy and anti-democracy rhetoric and actions. "They just need to try harder to get their message across."
Amen 🙏
To put it another way, **American women** do not want to be lectured by forced birth extremists about how they shouldn't have bodily autonomy based on a highly selective, and suspect, interpretation of the Bible.
A "book" that has been edited and manipulated since it was first "written".
Basing your 21st century governmental laws on what a group of men from millenia past thought should determine how to live is childish at best.
Theocracy vs. Democracy
Exactly. When life begins is when sperm meets egg and a zygote is formed. When that life becomes human is a religious belief. Zygotes and embryos don't have brains, or hearts, or spinal cords. In this country we don't let the religious beliefs of one or even a majority of people dictate what the law is.
“In this country we don't let the religious beliefs of one or even a majority of people dictate what the law is.” Oh, sure we do. We are technically not supposed to but we do it all the time. From suppression of same sex rights (because it contradicts my favorite holy book) to abortion to blue laws to justification of slavery, religion is at the center of it all.
We add “under god” to money and pledges, we don’t require churches to file 990s at tax time like everybody else, and we pass laws declaring a national day of prayer. We absolutely SWIM in religion based laws and regulations in this country. Don’t be naive enough to think it is otherwise.
Yes, that is so. What the Republicans don't understand is that voters want the government to just stay out of it, and
Waving the bloody shirt just pisses people off.