I'm sorry, but whoever thinks the reaction against Dobbs was only a mirage and went away just because DeSantis bussed some immigrants to Martha's Vineyard is . . . frankly, delusional.
The only ones distracted by the DeSantis stunt and had their attention pulled away from just how badly Dobbs is going to hurt Republicans are people with punditbrain and journalists who can't resist chasing the dragon of rightwing disinformation.
And this time Lucy is really going to let Charlie Brown kick that football after all!
I have watched Republicans beat Democrats on the abortion issue year after year. Every election Democrats are fooled by the media narrative (is there a single even remotely pro-life person at CNN or MSNBC?) that the abortion issue will be a winner for them...this time. And it never works out.
I do agree with Dobbs that the Dems are finally going to be on more equal footing when it comes to the abortion issue. I would even agree that Dobbs will probably give the Ds an advantage on the abortion issue. But is it a killer issue for Ds? Absolutely not. Very few people vote on the abortion issue and the electorate is pretty split on which side they support. Ds refuse to accept the fact that there are a lot of women on the pro-life side. In fact, the pro-life movement has always been dominated by women. Men are actually more pro life than women.
Your last two sentences contradict one another. To be clear, women's and men's views on abortion have historically been within fairly close range of one another, depending on how you ask the questions. But women have never "dominated" the pro-life movement - men have typically been at least marginally more pro-life.
Furthermore, as far as pro-choice vs. pro-life self identification, women have trended overwhelmingly toward the pro-choice side in the past couple of years, opening up a yawning 61-33 pro-choice margin among women in a recent Gallup poll, with men still evenly split at 48-47.
What remains to be seen is just how much of an effect this will have on voting preferences, but there is little question that this has changed the political dynamics considerably. When abortion was still a constitutionally protected right, and seemed as though it always would be, it understandably didn't really motivate pro-choice voters to get to the polls, because they could take it for granted. Needless to say, that has now changed. We just don't know how much.
You are 100% correct. I know most women I talk to, are still outraged. Maybe Republican women don't care because Republican women don't care about anyone else's issues. They just want to please their pastors and the men in their lives.
In my estimation, liberal leaning people are endowed with more empathy than conservatives. Conservatives can be converted to a righteous cause ONLY when they or someone they love is affected. Nancy Reagan championed stem cell research - but only after Ronnie got AlzheimerтАЩs. Nevada ranchers became virulent environmentalists - but only when their wells were tainted from toxins from uranium mines. IтАЩm pretty sure Republican women are secretly pro-choice, when itтАЩs THEIR choice at stake.
My family member asked why his Martha's Vineyard stunt is a problem when the federal government sends refugees to live in different states all the time? Try explaining what the federal government does after registering refugees compared to DeSantis inserting Florida into the process with no authorization or viable plan for the refugees.
Taking what you say at simple face value, I think it's true. It has to be denting Republican support and will do so in this election and future ones. However, if what you say is intended to imply that other issues, like immigration, aren't salient or that the Democrats are going to do as well in *this* election as polls were indicating a couple of months ago, well, I'm afraid that would be wishcasting.
My guess is that Dobbs plays out in ways reminiscent of the controversies in Ireland in the decades between its pro-life amendment in 1983 and its repeal in 2018. That is, high profile court cases and awful incidents that change people's minds over time and make the anti-choice position far less tenable.
I don't think it will take as long as Ireland, as the pro-life amendment passed there with 2/3 of the vote in '83. US voters are more pro-choice than that, although far more ambivalent as a whole than either party's position on the issue. Nevertheless, my guess is that it will take an accumulation of both personal experiences and high profile instances of bad results (with savvy communications by pro-choicers) to make it a *widely* compelling voting issue that supersedes concerns about the economy, crime, or the border crisis.
That's all your fault. I don't know if you remember, but I was having a bad day once and was just posting really snarky stuff at another poster. Then you came along and chided me very nicely that maybe that wasn't the best way to communicate to others.
I listened.
Now I save my piss, vinegar and snark for Twitter. ;)
Aw, thatтАЩs very sweet of you to say! I vaguely remember doing that a couple times a while ago. I value this space; itтАЩs unique for the quality of interaction. My son majored in тАЬpositive psychologyтАЭ in undergraduate and he used to deliberately engage in challenging forums to try to alter the tone, almost as an academic exercise that was close to his heart. Since I helped pay for that education, I figured to use it! Thank you.
Actually, this has me wondering if there isn't a strategy to put forward a bunch of ballot initiatives in 2024 on abortion rights in various states. 2022 was too soon and not as consequential as 2024. I don't know about all the states, but I know that Ohio can have constitutional issues on the ballot. Or, do they do it in off year elections to better go for the win?
I don't know on any of the questions you raise, but they are great questions! Worth Democrats giving a lot of thought to. I'm wondering if the Kansas vote against the abortion ban would have translated into some votes for democratic candidates, if it hadn't been held during the primaries, but in next week's general.
Admire your consistent optimism in these comments. Wish I could share it. Hope my pessimism proves to just be some perverse belief on my part that the universe is out to punish me.
I'm with you there. What's worse, and I hope I'm wrong, the media seems complicit in saying the Republicans will overwhelmingly, which will cause another Jan 6th if the Republicans don't.
Hope the story will be similar to the story in France in the last election. The voters weren't happy with Macron, but were mature enough to reject the far right opposition.
That was our 2020. The wagons were circled around Biden, almost no one's 1st choice. But we did it for the same reason that France chose Macron. I can only hope that the coalition here holds in 2022 and 2024.
Would it be crass to dub this phenomenon "penis bias"? Because women of childbearing age have not forgotten about Dobbs.
Remember how worked up everyone was about the ACA "death panels" that didn't exist? The Republicans put up a slate of "no exemptions" candidates that essentially decided half of the US population don't even get the privilege of a death panel, because the state has already rendered it's decision: Your fetus takes priority over you. Even if you have three other kids to care for, even if you're too disabled to work, and even if you fear for your life because your violent and delusional boyfriend wants to coerce you into an abortion. (I'm sorry, did that last example sound far fetched? Am I fearmongering based on an abstraction? Or is there a walking, breathing example of a man like that running for a toss up senate seat?)
"Penis bias?" Again with the erroneous assumption that the opposition to abortion is driven by men. It's driven chiefly by women. Women dominate the pro-life movement. And when it comes to abortion, women who have given birth are much more pro-life than women, particularly younger women, who have not had children.
None of that is correct, but you keep repeating it. What polls youтАЩve cited to have been cherry-picked.
None are saying men are more pro-life. WeтАЩre saying theyтАЩre indifferent. Your desire to blame women just puts you at a more hostile end of the spectrum.
Having your boyfriend insist on an abortion for an unplanned pregnancy because it would inconvenience him, is probably the only exemption the Republicans would agree to.
Exactly correct. The men and Sarah (who has no chance of an accidental pregnancy) have just dismissed Dobbs as some sort of flight of fancy.
Women have not forgotten and I guarantee that some Republican women are voting for Democrats and against abortion bans.
The pundits on The Bulwark seem to forget that everyone knows a woman who has had an abortion or will need one in the future, whether she has shared that or not.
Because men and lesbians donтАЩt. And with TB, apparently believe that they donтАЩt know anyone who does. As the father of a daughter, Tim seems really clueless about the impact of Dobbs.
It's a long story, but my son spent the first 18 months of life decked out in hand-me-downs from a lesbian couple that ended up with a surprise on their hands. Not even lesbians can plan everything ;)
You apply my epidemiology background to polling, that's why I think there's major "social desirability bias" in the polls. Abortion is not a "kitchen table issue". It is an issue most women prefer to discuss anonymously, or with their closest girlfriends, or with a trusted family member. Not in the public square, not over Facebook, not with their neighbors. Everything related to reproduction, your talking about literally the most personal aspect of a women's life. Some women can't even have discussions about birth control, menstruation, or pregnancy with their sexual partners. That doesn't mean it wont affect voting patterns.
Crass or not doesn't matter to men, so let's not worry about it ourselves. I think you nailed it!
And please understand that women no longer of childbearing age have not forgotten about Dobbs either - we are pissed that rights we fought for 50 years ago have been taken away from our daughters and granddaughters.
I believe it. I've seen very insightful comments by people who lived "pre-Roe". It's all just very fresh for me, because I was a perfectly healthy, marathon running, 60-hour-a-week working physician when I got pregnant, and ended up having multiple unforeseeable complications. In term's of being "personally pro-life" I've put my money where my mouth is. But the idea of the state making these calls is just...grotesque. Arguing their shouldn't be "health" exemptions is baffling to me, given that so many of potential complications (pre-eclampsia, hemorrhage, clotting abnormalities) have neurologic ramifications. It's viscerally disturbing. Especially in a country with the worst maternal safety net in the developed world.
The idea that "government shouldn't be involved" makes for a nice soundbite but doesn't make any sense in practice.. Obviously a policy choice is going to be made about abortion, even if the policy choice is to have no limits And when it comes to that policy choice, virtually every industrialized country has gestational limits of 12-15 weeks for abortion. (That covers 95% of abortions) It's illegal to have abortion after that in those countries, except for the exceptions of rape, incest, threat to the life of the mother. When people say the "state should not make these calls" that is a policy that in application would allow abortion on demand for the full 9 months of pregnancy. Only a very small percentage of people believe that should be the policy. The slogan doesn't match what people really support.
Some months ago Michael Gerson wrote an opinion column regarding abortion in the Washington Post. Below is a modified version of my comment on that article.
As with Gerson, I think you are exaggerating the difference between the US and other Western countries. Many European countries allow abortion *well* past 12 weeks - in some cases extending to viability or near it - for some combination of economic/social reasons, the health/life of the mother, fetal abnormality, and rape. In the majority of European countries, 12 weeks is only the deadline to get an abortion without citing any specific reason, e.g. тАЬabortion on demand.тАЭ
ItтАЩs also worth noting that abortion laws in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea - to cite a handful of first-world countries outside Europe - are not that different from those in the US.
I think there is a conversation to be had about European abortion laws vs. American ones, but itтАЩs odd to see a pro-lifer (which I take you to be) claim that the GOP position represents the broad Western consensus on the issue.
ThatтАЩs what I wrote re: the Gerson article. But I had to add a bit more too.
Finally - and I cannot stress this enough; in fact, IтАЩm going to all-cap it - NO ONE IS ADVOCATING тАЬABORTION ON DEMANDтАЭ UP UNTIL BIRTH. Abortions late in pregnancy are done ONLY for serious medical reasons (e.g. the mother *will* die in childbirth; the baby *will* die in agony minutes or hours after birth; the fetus literally does not have a *brain*, etc.) usually after consultation with MULTIPLE doctors who have to sign off on it as being medically warranted. OKAY??!!
(And yes, it is done in a lot of Western jurisdictions, not just the US.)
Sorry to shout at you, but the obscene тАЬabortion on demand until birthтАЭ lie is one I just canтАЩt countenance. I defy you to find a Democrat, any Democrat, who actually advocates this. Either you will not find one, or - far more likely - you will not find one, BUT youтАЩll give an alleged example whose position you do not actually understand.
By all means, continue advocating for stricter abortion policies if thatтАЩs what you think is right. But do not, and I mean DO NOT, try to say that those who disagree with you want to smash in the heads of full-term babies in the name of тАЬabortion.тАЭ It is a grotesque lie.
There is a lot of stuff here that is just misleading. "Threat to life" is very different from "life". It's impossible to predict who will die from a condition, up until the are irreversibly and terminally ill. And ultimately exemptions in those countries go to a review board of physicians, not politicians. I have not heard a single "pro-lifer" elucidate how they would determine who gets exemptions. I have heard many "pro-lifers" cast doubt on physician's ability to make that determination.
Can you give me one reason to believe that, should the Republicans get the chance, they would make calls about women's health based on science or medicine? I can't. They reject credible science on vaccines, climate change, infectious disease mitigation, on hurricane mitigation, on butterfly migrations, on air quality, on food regulation, on substance abuse treatment...
And all of those "industrialized countries" you refer to largely have single payer healthcare systems, paid maternity leave, and oftentimes child allowances. The US has a patchwork system where women can be on hook for 1000's of dollars of medical bills, no paid maternity leave, and a childhood poverty rate that is the shame of the industrialized world. 6 years ago, I probably would have agreed with you. But I'm unwilling to give the government the benefit of the doubt here.
You are 100% right. The party that hates governmental intrusion into an individual's personal decision about anything seems blithely approving in telling little women what they can do with their lady parts.
I watch video clips of the protests in Iran, and feel such an odd paradox, that here in the U.S. we are moving towards the controlling, moralistic society they are literally dying to change.
They may make birth control illegal, but you can bet thst there will be a silent exemption for politicians because, God forbid, their mistresses get pregnant.
I agree with that, but I do wonder if it isn't going to take some time. We've had months of stories, what about when we add two years to that? Right now, a Dem president means no national legislation on the issue for the next two years. Also on that two year angle, two more years of convincing potential Dobbs voters of the importance of local elections.
I think there is going to be an impact, but I think it may take time to build. I also wonder if the Kansas impact is being over-sold. About 400K fewer voters than the Presidential election on that issue and it was a single issue vote (no voting for an evil democrat required).
Thanks for the reminder that the Kansas voter reaction to Dobbs was a single issue vote; I tend to forget that. It makes me wonder what life would be like if we could vote individually on these pivotal issues, in a тАЬdirect democracyтАЭ framework. Probably chaos, which is why we have a representative democracy instead; but it is muddy.
Actually, I think it could work. I posited this a few weeks ago, but if you had some of these social issues on a schedule and had ranked choice voting from say 10 choices. Choices crafted and put forward by various groups (any party getting more than 10% of the vote, the President, something from the Senate, something from the House, etc.). Then you'd have the ability to set policy on things like Marijuana through direct democracy.
Plenty of bugs to work out, and if we were talking about abortion policy I can certainly understand the case of those not wanting their rights up to vote every 10 years. On the other hand, short of a constitutional amendment, those rights (and plenty of others) are pretty much up to voter discretion as it is now (Kansas being a prime example, where it could be back on the ballot again at any point).
I remember reading about a small government jurisdiction that tried direct democracy but gave up because of the way it got larded up with minutiae. There was a video clip of an administrator describing how they couldnтАЩt purchase a conference table without a vote of the people.
But I think you are right; there might be an effective mechanism for it. Unfortunately we seem to be in a moribund phase of democracy when tweaking the system feels impossible. Will we ever again have an amendment to the Constitution? Doubtful. But Republicans are unabashed about big changes to established programs like Medicare and Social Security. Maybe their brashness works, but in this case I hope not. ItтАЩs beyond bizarre that they would propose ending two programs that are very popular. I no longer worry about them crushing the ACA, because now thereтАЩs significant business support for it. True power lies with business, not the people.
You aren't wrong, and I'm no lawyer, but I think you could have what I'm talking about without a constitutional amendment. A simple (actually pretty complicated) law passed that says the policy is going to be result of the ranked choice issue election. It would have to be for things laws can be passed on already, and I think extra caution would need to be taken around constitutional issues, but otherwise, I don't think there is a legal barrier to it.
It is just conjecture of course, but we citizens seem to like being about to decide on certain things by referendum (state ballot initiatives) and I think once people start getting the hang of ranked choice, they'd like more than two options on some of these major issues.
I can picture it working in smaller democracies, possibly. Maybe even in our own fractious monstrosity, on a few issues. I wonder if if would help citizens feel listened to, and alleviate some of the generalized anger out there. The weak part is the low information voter, who tend to have strong, fact-free opinions.
Kansas is a unicorn. A few years ago, then Republican governor Brownback subjected the state to the Republican's wet dream of drastic tax cuts. This turned out to be a disaster and the people, in disgust, subsequently elected a Democratic governor. So the voters in Kansas are a bit more savvy. Not to be applied to other states.
I live in Kansas. Gov. Brownback put those drastic tax cuts in place, and he destroyed our economy. It was so bad, that a couple years later, they had to increase taxes again. It was indeed a disaster. Brownback's poll numbers were in the tank. Former President Trump threw him a lifeline when he appointed him to something, enabling him to resign and get the heck outa Dodge. The next election, our current, moderate D governor Kelly, beat Kobach in the general election. Her current approval rating hovers around 50%. She's been a great governor. Kansas is unicorn as Ben says. Living here, I can't say either, what-if any-significance the Aug. vote will have on next week's outcomes.
I don't think the Kansas effect is being oversold. The Trump ride or die crowd didn't turn out for an election where dear leader wasn't on the ballot, and he ain't on the ballot at midterms.
I think this points to a weakness of the Trump movement in general. They are high on their own supply. They are so convinced that their fringe opinions are majority views, that it might suppress voter turnout on their side.
I'm sorry, but whoever thinks the reaction against Dobbs was only a mirage and went away just because DeSantis bussed some immigrants to Martha's Vineyard is . . . frankly, delusional.
The only ones distracted by the DeSantis stunt and had their attention pulled away from just how badly Dobbs is going to hurt Republicans are people with punditbrain and journalists who can't resist chasing the dragon of rightwing disinformation.
Dobbs is coming.
And this time Lucy is really going to let Charlie Brown kick that football after all!
I have watched Republicans beat Democrats on the abortion issue year after year. Every election Democrats are fooled by the media narrative (is there a single even remotely pro-life person at CNN or MSNBC?) that the abortion issue will be a winner for them...this time. And it never works out.
I do agree with Dobbs that the Dems are finally going to be on more equal footing when it comes to the abortion issue. I would even agree that Dobbs will probably give the Ds an advantage on the abortion issue. But is it a killer issue for Ds? Absolutely not. Very few people vote on the abortion issue and the electorate is pretty split on which side they support. Ds refuse to accept the fact that there are a lot of women on the pro-life side. In fact, the pro-life movement has always been dominated by women. Men are actually more pro life than women.
Your last two sentences contradict one another. To be clear, women's and men's views on abortion have historically been within fairly close range of one another, depending on how you ask the questions. But women have never "dominated" the pro-life movement - men have typically been at least marginally more pro-life.
Furthermore, as far as pro-choice vs. pro-life self identification, women have trended overwhelmingly toward the pro-choice side in the past couple of years, opening up a yawning 61-33 pro-choice margin among women in a recent Gallup poll, with men still evenly split at 48-47.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/abortion-trends-gender.aspx
What remains to be seen is just how much of an effect this will have on voting preferences, but there is little question that this has changed the political dynamics considerably. When abortion was still a constitutionally protected right, and seemed as though it always would be, it understandably didn't really motivate pro-choice voters to get to the polls, because they could take it for granted. Needless to say, that has now changed. We just don't know how much.
God I hope you're right.
You are 100% correct. I know most women I talk to, are still outraged. Maybe Republican women don't care because Republican women don't care about anyone else's issues. They just want to please their pastors and the men in their lives.
In my estimation, liberal leaning people are endowed with more empathy than conservatives. Conservatives can be converted to a righteous cause ONLY when they or someone they love is affected. Nancy Reagan championed stem cell research - but only after Ronnie got AlzheimerтАЩs. Nevada ranchers became virulent environmentalists - but only when their wells were tainted from toxins from uranium mines. IтАЩm pretty sure Republican women are secretly pro-choice, when itтАЩs THEIR choice at stake.
What would we do without you LC? But just in case you are wrong, I'm stocked up on Malbec, my adult bev of choice, as you suggested.
I have a cousin that likes DeSantis. She doesn't even know about the stunt at Martha's Vineyard because...wait for it...she only watches Fox.
My family member asked why his Martha's Vineyard stunt is a problem when the federal government sends refugees to live in different states all the time? Try explaining what the federal government does after registering refugees compared to DeSantis inserting Florida into the process with no authorization or viable plan for the refugees.
Yeah, now I'm feeling the depression again:-)
Taking what you say at simple face value, I think it's true. It has to be denting Republican support and will do so in this election and future ones. However, if what you say is intended to imply that other issues, like immigration, aren't salient or that the Democrats are going to do as well in *this* election as polls were indicating a couple of months ago, well, I'm afraid that would be wishcasting.
My guess is that Dobbs plays out in ways reminiscent of the controversies in Ireland in the decades between its pro-life amendment in 1983 and its repeal in 2018. That is, high profile court cases and awful incidents that change people's minds over time and make the anti-choice position far less tenable.
I don't think it will take as long as Ireland, as the pro-life amendment passed there with 2/3 of the vote in '83. US voters are more pro-choice than that, although far more ambivalent as a whole than either party's position on the issue. Nevertheless, my guess is that it will take an accumulation of both personal experiences and high profile instances of bad results (with savvy communications by pro-choicers) to make it a *widely* compelling voting issue that supersedes concerns about the economy, crime, or the border crisis.
My hope is that the Kansas Dobbs тАЬsurpriseтАЭ strikes again, and polling is clueless.
Love the comments in particular, yours. Thank you for sharing!
Me too. I think Liberal Cynic is a perfect example of how to influence without combat.
That's all your fault. I don't know if you remember, but I was having a bad day once and was just posting really snarky stuff at another poster. Then you came along and chided me very nicely that maybe that wasn't the best way to communicate to others.
I listened.
Now I save my piss, vinegar and snark for Twitter. ;)
Aw, thatтАЩs very sweet of you to say! I vaguely remember doing that a couple times a while ago. I value this space; itтАЩs unique for the quality of interaction. My son majored in тАЬpositive psychologyтАЭ in undergraduate and he used to deliberately engage in challenging forums to try to alter the tone, almost as an academic exercise that was close to his heart. Since I helped pay for that education, I figured to use it! Thank you.
"Dobbs is coming."
To a ballot box near you!
Actually, this has me wondering if there isn't a strategy to put forward a bunch of ballot initiatives in 2024 on abortion rights in various states. 2022 was too soon and not as consequential as 2024. I don't know about all the states, but I know that Ohio can have constitutional issues on the ballot. Or, do they do it in off year elections to better go for the win?
I don't know on any of the questions you raise, but they are great questions! Worth Democrats giving a lot of thought to. I'm wondering if the Kansas vote against the abortion ban would have translated into some votes for democratic candidates, if it hadn't been held during the primaries, but in next week's general.
Admire your consistent optimism in these comments. Wish I could share it. Hope my pessimism proves to just be some perverse belief on my part that the universe is out to punish me.
That's fine, but why does the Universe have to punish the rest of us?
I really hope you are right. I do want to think people are smarter than the pundits are assuming.
Shit in one hand, hope in the other. See which one fills up first.
Amen Bonnie. I want to think that, too. Recently the news has made me too maudlin to even offer my comments here..
I'm with you there. What's worse, and I hope I'm wrong, the media seems complicit in saying the Republicans will overwhelmingly, which will cause another Jan 6th if the Republicans don't.
Hope the story will be similar to the story in France in the last election. The voters weren't happy with Macron, but were mature enough to reject the far right opposition.
Unfortunately until proven wrong, I agree with suzc. I believe the French may be more mature than a lot of us.
I lived in France. French people vote at very high percentage. Even teens understand the issues and care about them.
Hey, if we were on our 5th Republic, we might be more mature about things too!
I find Europeans essentially more mature than the American voter.
That was our 2020. The wagons were circled around Biden, almost no one's 1st choice. But we did it for the same reason that France chose Macron. I can only hope that the coalition here holds in 2022 and 2024.
So far t here is no evidence of it.
Would it be crass to dub this phenomenon "penis bias"? Because women of childbearing age have not forgotten about Dobbs.
Remember how worked up everyone was about the ACA "death panels" that didn't exist? The Republicans put up a slate of "no exemptions" candidates that essentially decided half of the US population don't even get the privilege of a death panel, because the state has already rendered it's decision: Your fetus takes priority over you. Even if you have three other kids to care for, even if you're too disabled to work, and even if you fear for your life because your violent and delusional boyfriend wants to coerce you into an abortion. (I'm sorry, did that last example sound far fetched? Am I fearmongering based on an abstraction? Or is there a walking, breathing example of a man like that running for a toss up senate seat?)
"Penis bias?" Again with the erroneous assumption that the opposition to abortion is driven by men. It's driven chiefly by women. Women dominate the pro-life movement. And when it comes to abortion, women who have given birth are much more pro-life than women, particularly younger women, who have not had children.
None of that is correct, but you keep repeating it. What polls youтАЩve cited to have been cherry-picked.
None are saying men are more pro-life. WeтАЩre saying theyтАЩre indifferent. Your desire to blame women just puts you at a more hostile end of the spectrum.
Might be crass, wouldn't be wrong.
Having your boyfriend insist on an abortion for an unplanned pregnancy because it would inconvenience him, is probably the only exemption the Republicans would agree to.
Exactly correct. The men and Sarah (who has no chance of an accidental pregnancy) have just dismissed Dobbs as some sort of flight of fancy.
Women have not forgotten and I guarantee that some Republican women are voting for Democrats and against abortion bans.
The pundits on The Bulwark seem to forget that everyone knows a woman who has had an abortion or will need one in the future, whether she has shared that or not.
Because journalists don't have unplanned pregnancies.
Because men and lesbians donтАЩt. And with TB, apparently believe that they donтАЩt know anyone who does. As the father of a daughter, Tim seems really clueless about the impact of Dobbs.
It's a long story, but my son spent the first 18 months of life decked out in hand-me-downs from a lesbian couple that ended up with a surprise on their hands. Not even lesbians can plan everything ;)
Wow. That would be a shock. Perhaps to just one of them, of course.
You apply my epidemiology background to polling, that's why I think there's major "social desirability bias" in the polls. Abortion is not a "kitchen table issue". It is an issue most women prefer to discuss anonymously, or with their closest girlfriends, or with a trusted family member. Not in the public square, not over Facebook, not with their neighbors. Everything related to reproduction, your talking about literally the most personal aspect of a women's life. Some women can't even have discussions about birth control, menstruation, or pregnancy with their sexual partners. That doesn't mean it wont affect voting patterns.
Crass on!
Not crass at all.
Crass or not doesn't matter to men, so let's not worry about it ourselves. I think you nailed it!
And please understand that women no longer of childbearing age have not forgotten about Dobbs either - we are pissed that rights we fought for 50 years ago have been taken away from our daughters and granddaughters.
Yay, sister!
1000x Yes!!!!
I believe it. I've seen very insightful comments by people who lived "pre-Roe". It's all just very fresh for me, because I was a perfectly healthy, marathon running, 60-hour-a-week working physician when I got pregnant, and ended up having multiple unforeseeable complications. In term's of being "personally pro-life" I've put my money where my mouth is. But the idea of the state making these calls is just...grotesque. Arguing their shouldn't be "health" exemptions is baffling to me, given that so many of potential complications (pre-eclampsia, hemorrhage, clotting abnormalities) have neurologic ramifications. It's viscerally disturbing. Especially in a country with the worst maternal safety net in the developed world.
The idea that "government shouldn't be involved" makes for a nice soundbite but doesn't make any sense in practice.. Obviously a policy choice is going to be made about abortion, even if the policy choice is to have no limits And when it comes to that policy choice, virtually every industrialized country has gestational limits of 12-15 weeks for abortion. (That covers 95% of abortions) It's illegal to have abortion after that in those countries, except for the exceptions of rape, incest, threat to the life of the mother. When people say the "state should not make these calls" that is a policy that in application would allow abortion on demand for the full 9 months of pregnancy. Only a very small percentage of people believe that should be the policy. The slogan doesn't match what people really support.
Some months ago Michael Gerson wrote an opinion column regarding abortion in the Washington Post. Below is a modified version of my comment on that article.
As with Gerson, I think you are exaggerating the difference between the US and other Western countries. Many European countries allow abortion *well* past 12 weeks - in some cases extending to viability or near it - for some combination of economic/social reasons, the health/life of the mother, fetal abnormality, and rape. In the majority of European countries, 12 weeks is only the deadline to get an abortion without citing any specific reason, e.g. тАЬabortion on demand.тАЭ
ItтАЩs also worth noting that abortion laws in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea - to cite a handful of first-world countries outside Europe - are not that different from those in the US.
I think there is a conversation to be had about European abortion laws vs. American ones, but itтАЩs odd to see a pro-lifer (which I take you to be) claim that the GOP position represents the broad Western consensus on the issue.
ThatтАЩs what I wrote re: the Gerson article. But I had to add a bit more too.
Finally - and I cannot stress this enough; in fact, IтАЩm going to all-cap it - NO ONE IS ADVOCATING тАЬABORTION ON DEMANDтАЭ UP UNTIL BIRTH. Abortions late in pregnancy are done ONLY for serious medical reasons (e.g. the mother *will* die in childbirth; the baby *will* die in agony minutes or hours after birth; the fetus literally does not have a *brain*, etc.) usually after consultation with MULTIPLE doctors who have to sign off on it as being medically warranted. OKAY??!!
(And yes, it is done in a lot of Western jurisdictions, not just the US.)
Sorry to shout at you, but the obscene тАЬabortion on demand until birthтАЭ lie is one I just canтАЩt countenance. I defy you to find a Democrat, any Democrat, who actually advocates this. Either you will not find one, or - far more likely - you will not find one, BUT youтАЩll give an alleged example whose position you do not actually understand.
By all means, continue advocating for stricter abortion policies if thatтАЩs what you think is right. But do not, and I mean DO NOT, try to say that those who disagree with you want to smash in the heads of full-term babies in the name of тАЬabortion.тАЭ It is a grotesque lie.
There is a lot of stuff here that is just misleading. "Threat to life" is very different from "life". It's impossible to predict who will die from a condition, up until the are irreversibly and terminally ill. And ultimately exemptions in those countries go to a review board of physicians, not politicians. I have not heard a single "pro-lifer" elucidate how they would determine who gets exemptions. I have heard many "pro-lifers" cast doubt on physician's ability to make that determination.
Can you give me one reason to believe that, should the Republicans get the chance, they would make calls about women's health based on science or medicine? I can't. They reject credible science on vaccines, climate change, infectious disease mitigation, on hurricane mitigation, on butterfly migrations, on air quality, on food regulation, on substance abuse treatment...
And all of those "industrialized countries" you refer to largely have single payer healthcare systems, paid maternity leave, and oftentimes child allowances. The US has a patchwork system where women can be on hook for 1000's of dollars of medical bills, no paid maternity leave, and a childhood poverty rate that is the shame of the industrialized world. 6 years ago, I probably would have agreed with you. But I'm unwilling to give the government the benefit of the doubt here.
You are 100% right. The party that hates governmental intrusion into an individual's personal decision about anything seems blithely approving in telling little women what they can do with their lady parts.
I watch video clips of the protests in Iran, and feel such an odd paradox, that here in the U.S. we are moving towards the controlling, moralistic society they are literally dying to change.
The party that hates governmental intrusion into a [white] man's personal decisions.
They may make birth control illegal, but you can bet thst there will be a silent exemption for politicians because, God forbid, their mistresses get pregnant.
I agree with that, but I do wonder if it isn't going to take some time. We've had months of stories, what about when we add two years to that? Right now, a Dem president means no national legislation on the issue for the next two years. Also on that two year angle, two more years of convincing potential Dobbs voters of the importance of local elections.
I think there is going to be an impact, but I think it may take time to build. I also wonder if the Kansas impact is being over-sold. About 400K fewer voters than the Presidential election on that issue and it was a single issue vote (no voting for an evil democrat required).
Thanks for the reminder that the Kansas voter reaction to Dobbs was a single issue vote; I tend to forget that. It makes me wonder what life would be like if we could vote individually on these pivotal issues, in a тАЬdirect democracyтАЭ framework. Probably chaos, which is why we have a representative democracy instead; but it is muddy.
Actually, I think it could work. I posited this a few weeks ago, but if you had some of these social issues on a schedule and had ranked choice voting from say 10 choices. Choices crafted and put forward by various groups (any party getting more than 10% of the vote, the President, something from the Senate, something from the House, etc.). Then you'd have the ability to set policy on things like Marijuana through direct democracy.
Plenty of bugs to work out, and if we were talking about abortion policy I can certainly understand the case of those not wanting their rights up to vote every 10 years. On the other hand, short of a constitutional amendment, those rights (and plenty of others) are pretty much up to voter discretion as it is now (Kansas being a prime example, where it could be back on the ballot again at any point).
I remember reading about a small government jurisdiction that tried direct democracy but gave up because of the way it got larded up with minutiae. There was a video clip of an administrator describing how they couldnтАЩt purchase a conference table without a vote of the people.
But I think you are right; there might be an effective mechanism for it. Unfortunately we seem to be in a moribund phase of democracy when tweaking the system feels impossible. Will we ever again have an amendment to the Constitution? Doubtful. But Republicans are unabashed about big changes to established programs like Medicare and Social Security. Maybe their brashness works, but in this case I hope not. ItтАЩs beyond bizarre that they would propose ending two programs that are very popular. I no longer worry about them crushing the ACA, because now thereтАЩs significant business support for it. True power lies with business, not the people.
You aren't wrong, and I'm no lawyer, but I think you could have what I'm talking about without a constitutional amendment. A simple (actually pretty complicated) law passed that says the policy is going to be result of the ranked choice issue election. It would have to be for things laws can be passed on already, and I think extra caution would need to be taken around constitutional issues, but otherwise, I don't think there is a legal barrier to it.
It is just conjecture of course, but we citizens seem to like being about to decide on certain things by referendum (state ballot initiatives) and I think once people start getting the hang of ranked choice, they'd like more than two options on some of these major issues.
I can picture it working in smaller democracies, possibly. Maybe even in our own fractious monstrosity, on a few issues. I wonder if if would help citizens feel listened to, and alleviate some of the generalized anger out there. The weak part is the low information voter, who tend to have strong, fact-free opinions.
Kansas is a unicorn. A few years ago, then Republican governor Brownback subjected the state to the Republican's wet dream of drastic tax cuts. This turned out to be a disaster and the people, in disgust, subsequently elected a Democratic governor. So the voters in Kansas are a bit more savvy. Not to be applied to other states.
I live in Kansas. Gov. Brownback put those drastic tax cuts in place, and he destroyed our economy. It was so bad, that a couple years later, they had to increase taxes again. It was indeed a disaster. Brownback's poll numbers were in the tank. Former President Trump threw him a lifeline when he appointed him to something, enabling him to resign and get the heck outa Dodge. The next election, our current, moderate D governor Kelly, beat Kobach in the general election. Her current approval rating hovers around 50%. She's been a great governor. Kansas is unicorn as Ben says. Living here, I can't say either, what-if any-significance the Aug. vote will have on next week's outcomes.
Think the tax disaster was the work of Governor Brownback.
Thanks (both Lewis and Karen) I have made the correction. Kobach ran but didn't win. He's his own brand of pathology.
I don't think the Kansas effect is being oversold. The Trump ride or die crowd didn't turn out for an election where dear leader wasn't on the ballot, and he ain't on the ballot at midterms.
I think this points to a weakness of the Trump movement in general. They are high on their own supply. They are so convinced that their fringe opinions are majority views, that it might suppress voter turnout on their side.
Kansas has a Democratic governor. This is not a typical red state right now.
A good point, but also an Aug 2nd election in a non-presidential year.
Don't get me wrong, I think there is and will be a Dobbs effect. I'm just not sure the Kansas example is a perfect predictor on level of intensity.
I have begun to absolutely despise pundits. Their job seems to be to direct trends rather than report them.