I wasn't surprised by the Kansas result, but I am a bit shocked by how in denial some anti-abortion types seem today. It's hard to work out how much of it is performative versus how much of it is real. There have already been some vivid examples of how draconian and cruel these near-total bans are in the past several weeks. Did conservatives really believe those weren't going to resonate? Had they actually truly convinced themselves that the general public was going to be like, "Yup, totally fine with forcing a ten-year-old rape victim to give birth?"
If so, this is definitely one of the more dramatic examples of getting high on your own supply that I've seen.
I'm not sure it will work at all, but Yang's Forward Party merger with two small center-right third parties is also a symptom of people's reluctance to work with a Trumpified GOP — lots of politically-minded people want to work with a sane and competitive center-right GOP in the future, but that means working with an insane ideologically-incoherent GOP today. Faced with that choice, it's not weird that some will just defect and take their chances, slim as they might be, on a new party without the branding issues.
70+% of Americans share the same general attitudes towards abortion rights/regulation. The Kansas result is an appropriate reflection of such a stance.
But yet again, news coverage seems dominated by pro-choice advocates clamoring that "this result proves Americans want unfettered access to abortion!" and refusing to consider further nuance. Not constructive whatsoever.
Pro-life advocates subsequently pouting and refusing to recognize the mass of (potential) allies who simply refuse to die on the "Life begins at conception. Hard Stop. No exceptions." hill. All in on the All-Or-Nothing approach. Not constructive whatsoever.
In the end - as we see with so many advocacy efforts - they'll ensure their own long-term viability by ignoring realistic solutions and forever engaging the "struggle!" for the absolutes of their perfected outcomes. The exhausted middle majorities deserve a break.
As to the DCCC meddling...
Not a fan. The Democrats are placing a huge bet on the fact that a vast number of independents will suddenly invert their "A lesser of two evils/South Park-esque Douche-vs-Turd Sandwich" approach to voting. What got Donald Trump elected. A lot of people who essentially just wanted to push their vote away from what they perceive as a far left, drifting farther by the minute, Democratic Party. Do they make life harder for such voters by putting their candidate up against a Trumpy loon? Sure.
Are we yet in a world where those folks are bankable D votes? Not so sure.
In such case where the Trumpy loons best chance to lose is in their own primary (Same bodes for D Trump??), the potential outcomes are unsettling. Moreso because the DCCC bankrolled it all.
I find your commentary on the upsides for DCCC meddling depressing...but it sounds right. Ugh. So does this also mean that D’s can allow the party to continue to drift into the gravitational field of the very progressive caucus, no longer worried about losing elections to moderate, electable republicans?
Re: The DCCC's strategy on Meijer / Gibbs / et al.. I'll preface this by saying that I think this is a risky strategy and one that I probably wouldn't have made. However, there's been a lot of talk about how this is proof that Dem's don't actually view Gibbs and his ilk as serious threats, and thus Dem's don't *really* care about democracy, and it's all politics, etc. etc.. I don't think this is the case. While I don't know what goes on inside the DCCC headquarters, I suspect the people there ARE disturbed by Gibbs et al., but have come to the following conclusion:
There really aren't very many Peter Meijer's in the GOP. There ARE a lot of Gibbs. Thus, risking adding one more Gibbs to an already Gibbs-heavy pool doesn't meaningfully change the GOPs ability to do the terrible things that faction of the party are intent on doing anyway. And, of course, the upsides to removing Meijer's is that increases the chances that you'll have one more D seat. In an election year that will either be a blow out or incredibly close, this means that every seat count. All of which is to say that this strategy - while risky and ethically complicated - feels like a rational cost / benefit analysis for the DCCC to make.
I agree with you 100%, I think that is sort of how we also got Trump.
You can't always predict how people will vote in the future, and you hit the nail on the head that there are already a lot of Gibbs in the GOP right now and while Meijer wasn't a Democrat, he was still a good overall politician. Quality of candidates matters, and bad candidates can become supersized candidates that win elections because they have charisma, or just aren't a Democrat. We can't just assume they will lose. Additionally, once those bad candidates get a bigger and bolder stage it allows them to get even more attention. We've seen where bad candidates get votes simply because of the letter next to their name and simply because they are disliked, so I wouldn't trust it. People in this country will vote for bad candidates if they think the other side will be hurt worse or they'll be better off in my opinion.
Every seat counts, and Democracy counts, it's a very tough strategy and I think the DCCC is playing with fire in this strategy. Of course I'm just an arm chair expert. I'm sure the strategist behind the scenes are hopefully way smarter than me.
You're right that one more whacko Republican legislator won't make much difference in a party already filled with them.
The vibe I get in the criticism of the DCCC's actions is (1) that Democrats should be the noble party and always do the thing that won't even hint at impropriety even if doing that would help achieve the larger cause of keeping Republicans out of power, and/or (b) the Democrats should go out of their way to show their gratitude toward people like Meijer (good vote on impeachment, but far from a Liz Cheney) and this noble action will so charm the Republican party that they will come to their senses and dispense with the crazies in their party.
I probably wouldn't have supported Gibbs, because the odds of any Republican winning MI-3 are too high (though I'm hardly an expert here). But it's not a mortal sin, given the overall state of the Republican party. And in cases where it marginally helps the Democrat's odds (e.g., PA and MD) then I say bring it on!
Extremely disappointed in Kansas. The wording on the ballot was confusing and actually had a type-o. Josh, you're completely right; the Democratic messaging and ads were indeed smart, even if they were fear-mongering. Scare tactics work, and they did here. Republicans should learn some difficult lessons from this. I'm interested to see how each side responds moving forward.
I think one strategy for Republicans is to do what you've called Democrats to do. Get them to vote on popular restrictions. For many, including myself, the desire is for much greater restrictions than in Europe, but force Democrats to either agree with restrictions or take a more politically unpopular stance.
I agree that the wording on the initiative in Kansas was terrible. But it was done purposely to confuse people. Most people, Democrats, Republicans, Independents and non voters already agree with restrictions. There already were restrictions in place with Roe and at the state level. You can't even get an abortion in most cases after a certain date (3rd Trimester) since they baby can survive outside of the womb in most cases. I think the issue is that you seem to indicate that the current or past restrictions aren't restrictive enough, and you probably want the Republican party to be the ones winning these types of engagements with Democrats. Just my 2 cents from the way you worded your comment. For many, including yourself, the restrictions you want aren't actually popular for most people or are willing to go out the window when they are personally affected. The GOP in some states is trying to criminalize birth control and punish women even further, but they still wont provide a mandatory / meaningful parental leave act at the federal level for Mothers. These types of laws are only meant for one portion of their voter base. If you don't want an abortion, just don't get one, forced birth isn't the answer.
Here are 2 links I'd invite you to read which might open your mind to just how nuanced the personal decisions of having an abortion are.
I'm personally going through a pregnancy with my wife and we had a scare at around 20 weeks, right before the anatomy scan. The actual medical term used in our case was "Threatened Abortion", which surprised even me. If things went differently and we had to have an abortion because it was medically necessary, we'd have to travel probably 6 states away to get one. That is just ridiculous. Fortunately, everything ended up being okay on our end but it was still scary when you have a sensitive situation and then you have to worry about possible legal ramifications for a personal medical decision like this. A fetus isn't a baby until it can survive on it's own. The type of restrictions people like you may be looking for can't exist in an imperfect world. Doctors and pregnant women should be able to make those decisions thoughtfully and based on their own real world, situation. Each situation is so different. I think the Republicans have done such a good job of making abortion just sound like a morally bad word, that it takes all nuance about the actual procedure and makes it extremely black and white.
First of all, congratulations on the baby! I'm glad to hear everything is okay after that scare. I'll do my best to address everything you stated here.
1. I do agree the current/past restrictions are not enough. I would like to see many restrictions on abortion, and I'm okay paying a political price for that even if they are unpopular. Additionally, the grounding that the Kansas Supreme Court found for abortion in the state constitution is incredibly dubious and a very poor decision IMO. That decision is exactly what an activist court looks like.
2. I do not agree with criminalizing birth control, nor punishing women who obtain abortions.
3. "If you don't want an abortion, just don't get one" is not a great argument. I believe that life and personhood begin at conception. At the very least, I think it's quite clear that life itself begins at conception as the child at that point contains all the characteristics of life. The value of that life or when personhood begins is certainly up for debate. You appear to define it as "when the baby can survive on its own." This is an insufficient defintion for a few reasons. First, as you will soon find out, a born baby can absolutely not survive on its own. A toddler cannot survive on its own. They need constant care and attention. Second, your definition of personhood is inevitably constantly changing. As technology advances, we can care for and keep alive pre-mature children earlier and earlier. If a baby born prematurely does not survive, does that mean it was never a baby, yet one that does survive is a baby? Unless life and personhood begin at conception, what is and is not a person constantly changes and ends up not being a very useful definition as it ends up being "whenever I feel like it's a person." This baby has an interest in not being killed, so the idea that an abortion only effects the woman is not accurate.
4. I reject the idea that abortion restrictions are "forced birth". Nobody is advocating for forced impregnation; rather, the idea is that if life is created, it ought to be allowed to take its natural course which is extremely likely to end with a born, alive, and healthy child. If you REALLY absolutely do not want to have a child, then I advise using birth control or abstaining from sexual activity that could lead to pregnancy. There are consequences to sex, and one ought to be ready for those consequences before engaging in it. Just because you are not ready to care for a child does not mean you get to terminate it. The child has an interest as well as the mother.
5. I am very sorry to hear about your scare. The term "Threatened abortion" is a medical term. Miscarriages are usually characterized as a "spontaneous abortion". I do not know your situation, but that was likely describing some amount of bleeding taking place that did not end up with the child or mother dying (thank God!!). Now, this brings me to something we will likely agree upon, which is that many of these more restrictive laws are overly broad and creating confusion among the medical community who are understandably afraid of committing a crime. These lawmakers MUST have medical professionals help write these laws and be much more specific about situations where unfortunately an abortion may be necessary. All current restrictive laws on the books call out ectopic pregnancies explicitly, but there are other situations where an abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother. Or an abortive-type procedure may be necessary to remove a child who has sadly died in the womb. The aim of these laws ought to be to ban truly elective abortions (which make up the vast majority of all abortions).
6. I have read those articles you pasted above, and they have not changed my mind. I understand abortions and pregnancy are extremely personal decisions, but I believe this to be a moral issue which we must fight for. And as someone who is fervently pro-life, I also want to and do spend my time and money to help families and mothers in crisis pregnancies as well as children in foster care. We cannot be content to ban abortions and wipe our hands. There are people who desperately will need help, and we have to step up to help them.
Thanks for the congratulations 🎉. Appreciate it, we are super excited and grateful. We are going to be in opposite ends of the spectrum here. Whether or not conception makes a baby vs a fetus is a medical decision in my opinion and a moral decision in yours and you think that you or people like you should dictate that for the everyone else without understanding their personal situation.
For your 2nd point, you say that you personally don't want to criminalize birth control or punish women who get abortions but your political party has in the past and some people have plans to do so in the future and you vote for those people... I guess now you just want to punish providers?
For your 3rd point, telling people to not get an abortion if they don't want one or aren't affected by what other people are doing is a fair point. None of us can survive on our own obviously so I wouldn't say that a premature baby isn't a baby. I was adopted and premature so that's unreasonable lol. Also you clearly say that if a baby is "born", therefore it is a person no?? However not everyone subscribes or should be forced to subscribe to your belief system, and there is no medical procedure that affects men the same way. This women are grossly affected unequally by anti abortion legislation in its current form. I personally don't define life or a baby as once it can live outside the womb. However I do believe that until it can live outside a woman's body then it's rights should never supersede hers. Now you are asking the philosophical person hood question, is anyone fully a person before 18 or 21 in this country? We are all constantly evolving as people and why would it matter if the definition of person hood changes in the future. Life is about change and progress...
Regarding your 4th point, miscarriages occur in about 15% of all pregnancies, so there is a very real risk that you may have a problem. At conception you don't even have a brain, or your own heartbeat though... You can never be pregnant, I don't think it's your place to tell pregnant women what they should do with their body. Additionally, women's bodies are permanently changed after pregnancy and it is considered a preexisting condition. What if you have an ectopic pregnancy or preeclampsia? Your definitions offer no nuance to the reality. Your truth comes out when you say sex should come with a punishment or consequence. You forget married women also have abortions and not everyone is even having sex with the intention of getting pregnant... It's also forced birth if you get raped or pregnant accidently and can't get an abortion... It is forced birth, you can reject the term but that doesn't mean the reality is actually forcing someone to give birth. Just like no one forces people to give up organs or foster children, no one should be forced to carry to term, that is straight punishment and there is no medical equivalent to that happening to men.
Regarding comment 5, thanks for the concern. Fortunately both Mom and the baby are doing well now, went to the Dr and the bleeding went away after a week. (On the other hand, I don't think I'd thank God, if there was a miscarriage though lol). I now know that threatened abortion is a medical term, so you really do learn something new everyday. You and I both agree that medical professionals should be involved in writing these laws, but again you think any abortion that is elective is bad, but again you fail to take in consideration that life changes fast and there are married couples who decide they don't want the risk of a high risk pregnancy, or maybe your partner leaves you after finding out you are pregnant. Live isn't fair and we shouldn't punish people for having sex. In my personal case you glanced a bit over the fact that if the baby was in fact not fine and we needed an abortion we wouldn't have been able to get one in our state based on how the law is currently written. Again, failing to take nuance and real world situations into account. If we got an abortion at 20+ weeks because my wife needed it for a medical reason, her and her Dr in my state would be in legal trouble. That doesn't seem to faze you which is concerning. You are objectively wrong that all current restrictive laws on the books call out ectopic pregnancies... They may not specifically criminalize it but they provide a gray area. Though the legislation generally contains carve-outs for lifesaving (Who defines life saving?), emergency care for the mother, there is still a concern that the legislative language is vague enough that many healthcare professionals are going to talk to a lawyer first before providing drugs or care, because sometimes the drugs overlap. So while you are technically correct, the way it will work out in real life is different. What about IVF? Those eggs fail sometimes after fertilization. At the real heart of the matter you just think that all elective abortion should be illegal, and some states as you can see want near total bans and no exceptions. I think if you started leading with that point originally, we'd have a different conversation. The world you want to live in doesn't exist. Nothing screams the party of small government like forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies or unviable pregnancies to term with a severe risk to their life or health.
On your 6th point. I'm Pro life too, for people that are here and need our help as well as people that are bringing children into this world and need our help. I'm happy that you are doing your part to help make the world a better place, we need more people like you. However you can't say that it's a personal choice and then tell women that their rights to autonomy are outweighed by a potential life growing inside of them because they've been pregnant for less than 12 or 15 weeks. Once you restrict people like you are proposing then it isn't a personal decision... There are people that have been getting pregnant since time began and we have not done enough politically or economically to help them. The party of "family values" makes it a party position to not help people who can be "welfare queens", they could've been helping for decades and decided not too. You read the one article about someone who needed a medical necessary abortion and still didn't change your mind that maybe they should be necessary. Seems like we are at an impasse friend. You want to help people? Help people like her who need a medical abortion but can't find one in their state and offer to drive them before they die of sepsis, they are here and alive. I've met too many people who glorify adoption and foster care but haven't done it themselves yet because they aren't in a good position, but when they needed an abortion or their daughter or sister needed one it was different. Protecting life shouldn't come at the expense of the woman who is being forced to carry an unwanted or unviable pregnancy.
We can obviously respectfully disagree with each other, but I appreciate the fact you're willing to have a conversation.
1. When do you believe that a fetus becomes a person? You say it's a medical decision, but how can that be a medical decision? Does the personhood status of every fetus depend on the medical situation that the child and mother are in? That would not be a good definition. Yes, I believe it is a moral and philosophical decision. You can disagree with me, but you're doing the same thing that you accuse me of by forcing your definition upon me and others who think like me.
2. Please do not assume who I vote for. I vote for Democrats as often as I vote for Republicans. I would not vote for someone who wanted to punish women for abortions.
3. Of course we are people before 18 or 21. We are people from the moment of conception. Just because we grow and change does not make us more or less valuable. We are valuable as human beings from the moment of conception until the moment of death. My definition of human value and worth is very consistent.
4. I'm not telling pregnant women what to do with their bodies. I'm telling them that they cannot kill the other being living inside of them unless absolutely necessary to save the life of that mother. When did I say sex should come with a punishment? I never said that at all. I'm saying sex has consequences and risks. Pregnancy, STI's, etc. are all consequences. Consequences are not necessarily bad as I think pregnancy is a good thing. Just like what you eat has consequences for how your body will change and react, so does sex. When it comes to men, I do think we should hold men more accountable for their children. They should be forced to support their families if they try to abandon them.
5. Life circumstances changing is not an excuse for abortion. I view life beginning at conception (which I believe is the most consistent and defensible definition both from a scientific and religious/philosophical standpoint), so just as we would not allow someone to kill their 3 month old baby if life circumstances changed, so we should not allow someone to abort their child if circumstances change.
Regarding your circumstance, I'm interested to hear you say you wouldn't be able to get an abortion if your wife's life was in danger. I don't want to pry and ask what state you're in, but I'm not aware of a state that wouldn't allow an abortion to save the life of the mother. If that is the case in your state, then I disagree with that law and believe it should be changed. I stated in my previous comments that I think these laws need to be more specific so confusion does not arise in cases where sadly an abortion is required for the sake of the mother's life.
6. Please show me a state where you cannot get an abortion for an ectopic pregnancy.
7. I was clear in my previous post that I think all elective abortions should be banned. I am not shy about that. And this isn't a small government issue. One of the key duties of any government is to protect its citizens, and the unborn have a vested interest in not being killed.
8. I have never said, would never say, and do not say that medically necessary abortions should not take place. I believe those are sadly necessary at times and should be permitted.
9. I'd encourage you not to lump me in with every pro-life person you read about or hear speak. I'm making specific arguments here, and I'm not defending other pro-life people or politicians. I believe life begins at conception. We should protect life and value it at all costs. We should as a community support families and women in crisis pregnancies. If that's through local orgs, great! If that comes through government programs, great!
10. In your penultimate statement, you state "Protecting life shouldn't come at the expense of the woman who is being forced to carry an unwanted or unviable pregnancy."
I agree that if the mother's life is at risk, we should have abortion as an option. However, I vehemently disagree with terminating a pregnancy because the child is unwanted by the mother. By that definition, the mother gets to decide if the child has value or not, and I reject that. All human beings have innate value, and no matter what anyone thinks I believe that to be true. Even if a mother doesn't want her child, that child is valuable and should be allowed to live. It's far better for someone who is unwanted by their parents to live and have a chance of a better life than for their existence to be snuffed out and never given a chance.
I appreciate the responses and respectful disagreement!
Good article. One reason for people who care about Democratic political party health not to engage in this strategy is that it makes it harder for them to cure the sickness in your own party. The thrust of the Democratic Party response to Republican-crazy town antics is to see it as an opportunity to move farther from popularism and moderation on the idea that Republicans are too bleeping crazy to vote for so conflicted voters will have to vote for us. And that strategy has not been an unmitigated success.
Granted, I’ve never voted for a major party candidate. So my advice may not be worth much.
"With the candidate's strong opposition to COVID regulations and history of disparaging remarks about immigrants, Trump endorsed the soon-to-be Senator Clapton..."
My greatest fear about trump is the single-party government he is creating for the democrats.
A dominant single-party, either republican or democrat, will be a disaster given the polarized political world we are in today.
We will swirl into a world of autocracy .... by another name maybe.
Yes, will be the next generation or the generation after .... but it's a scary proposition for someone who has enjoyed the benefits of this already great country.
If you are a party member (isn't that a term used elsewhere in the world?) you are looking forward to a country dominated by your political persuasion.
I am not.
On a side note .... a Thought Exercise.
I would suggest that most folks that opposed Bernie's democratic socialist ideas were not against socialism as much as they are opposed to autocratic rule. After all, that is what we most often "see" when the examples of socialist countries are presented.
Give it some thought.
Bernie's message was OK (after all, we already have many of his notions in place) it is the messaging that misses the mark.
FYI .... I'm no Bern Fan .... but the ideas are not too far off.
I wasn't surprised by the Kansas result, but I am a bit shocked by how in denial some anti-abortion types seem today. It's hard to work out how much of it is performative versus how much of it is real. There have already been some vivid examples of how draconian and cruel these near-total bans are in the past several weeks. Did conservatives really believe those weren't going to resonate? Had they actually truly convinced themselves that the general public was going to be like, "Yup, totally fine with forcing a ten-year-old rape victim to give birth?"
If so, this is definitely one of the more dramatic examples of getting high on your own supply that I've seen.
I'm not sure it will work at all, but Yang's Forward Party merger with two small center-right third parties is also a symptom of people's reluctance to work with a Trumpified GOP — lots of politically-minded people want to work with a sane and competitive center-right GOP in the future, but that means working with an insane ideologically-incoherent GOP today. Faced with that choice, it's not weird that some will just defect and take their chances, slim as they might be, on a new party without the branding issues.
70+% of Americans share the same general attitudes towards abortion rights/regulation. The Kansas result is an appropriate reflection of such a stance.
But yet again, news coverage seems dominated by pro-choice advocates clamoring that "this result proves Americans want unfettered access to abortion!" and refusing to consider further nuance. Not constructive whatsoever.
Pro-life advocates subsequently pouting and refusing to recognize the mass of (potential) allies who simply refuse to die on the "Life begins at conception. Hard Stop. No exceptions." hill. All in on the All-Or-Nothing approach. Not constructive whatsoever.
In the end - as we see with so many advocacy efforts - they'll ensure their own long-term viability by ignoring realistic solutions and forever engaging the "struggle!" for the absolutes of their perfected outcomes. The exhausted middle majorities deserve a break.
As to the DCCC meddling...
Not a fan. The Democrats are placing a huge bet on the fact that a vast number of independents will suddenly invert their "A lesser of two evils/South Park-esque Douche-vs-Turd Sandwich" approach to voting. What got Donald Trump elected. A lot of people who essentially just wanted to push their vote away from what they perceive as a far left, drifting farther by the minute, Democratic Party. Do they make life harder for such voters by putting their candidate up against a Trumpy loon? Sure.
Are we yet in a world where those folks are bankable D votes? Not so sure.
In such case where the Trumpy loons best chance to lose is in their own primary (Same bodes for D Trump??), the potential outcomes are unsettling. Moreso because the DCCC bankrolled it all.
I find your commentary on the upsides for DCCC meddling depressing...but it sounds right. Ugh. So does this also mean that D’s can allow the party to continue to drift into the gravitational field of the very progressive caucus, no longer worried about losing elections to moderate, electable republicans?
Re: The DCCC's strategy on Meijer / Gibbs / et al.. I'll preface this by saying that I think this is a risky strategy and one that I probably wouldn't have made. However, there's been a lot of talk about how this is proof that Dem's don't actually view Gibbs and his ilk as serious threats, and thus Dem's don't *really* care about democracy, and it's all politics, etc. etc.. I don't think this is the case. While I don't know what goes on inside the DCCC headquarters, I suspect the people there ARE disturbed by Gibbs et al., but have come to the following conclusion:
There really aren't very many Peter Meijer's in the GOP. There ARE a lot of Gibbs. Thus, risking adding one more Gibbs to an already Gibbs-heavy pool doesn't meaningfully change the GOPs ability to do the terrible things that faction of the party are intent on doing anyway. And, of course, the upsides to removing Meijer's is that increases the chances that you'll have one more D seat. In an election year that will either be a blow out or incredibly close, this means that every seat count. All of which is to say that this strategy - while risky and ethically complicated - feels like a rational cost / benefit analysis for the DCCC to make.
Happy to hear opposing views though.
I agree with you 100%, I think that is sort of how we also got Trump.
You can't always predict how people will vote in the future, and you hit the nail on the head that there are already a lot of Gibbs in the GOP right now and while Meijer wasn't a Democrat, he was still a good overall politician. Quality of candidates matters, and bad candidates can become supersized candidates that win elections because they have charisma, or just aren't a Democrat. We can't just assume they will lose. Additionally, once those bad candidates get a bigger and bolder stage it allows them to get even more attention. We've seen where bad candidates get votes simply because of the letter next to their name and simply because they are disliked, so I wouldn't trust it. People in this country will vote for bad candidates if they think the other side will be hurt worse or they'll be better off in my opinion.
Every seat counts, and Democracy counts, it's a very tough strategy and I think the DCCC is playing with fire in this strategy. Of course I'm just an arm chair expert. I'm sure the strategist behind the scenes are hopefully way smarter than me.
You're right that one more whacko Republican legislator won't make much difference in a party already filled with them.
The vibe I get in the criticism of the DCCC's actions is (1) that Democrats should be the noble party and always do the thing that won't even hint at impropriety even if doing that would help achieve the larger cause of keeping Republicans out of power, and/or (b) the Democrats should go out of their way to show their gratitude toward people like Meijer (good vote on impeachment, but far from a Liz Cheney) and this noble action will so charm the Republican party that they will come to their senses and dispense with the crazies in their party.
I probably wouldn't have supported Gibbs, because the odds of any Republican winning MI-3 are too high (though I'm hardly an expert here). But it's not a mortal sin, given the overall state of the Republican party. And in cases where it marginally helps the Democrat's odds (e.g., PA and MD) then I say bring it on!
Extremely disappointed in Kansas. The wording on the ballot was confusing and actually had a type-o. Josh, you're completely right; the Democratic messaging and ads were indeed smart, even if they were fear-mongering. Scare tactics work, and they did here. Republicans should learn some difficult lessons from this. I'm interested to see how each side responds moving forward.
I think one strategy for Republicans is to do what you've called Democrats to do. Get them to vote on popular restrictions. For many, including myself, the desire is for much greater restrictions than in Europe, but force Democrats to either agree with restrictions or take a more politically unpopular stance.
I agree that the wording on the initiative in Kansas was terrible. But it was done purposely to confuse people. Most people, Democrats, Republicans, Independents and non voters already agree with restrictions. There already were restrictions in place with Roe and at the state level. You can't even get an abortion in most cases after a certain date (3rd Trimester) since they baby can survive outside of the womb in most cases. I think the issue is that you seem to indicate that the current or past restrictions aren't restrictive enough, and you probably want the Republican party to be the ones winning these types of engagements with Democrats. Just my 2 cents from the way you worded your comment. For many, including yourself, the restrictions you want aren't actually popular for most people or are willing to go out the window when they are personally affected. The GOP in some states is trying to criminalize birth control and punish women even further, but they still wont provide a mandatory / meaningful parental leave act at the federal level for Mothers. These types of laws are only meant for one portion of their voter base. If you don't want an abortion, just don't get one, forced birth isn't the answer.
Here are 2 links I'd invite you to read which might open your mind to just how nuanced the personal decisions of having an abortion are.
https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion/
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/01/us/abortion-journey-crossing-states.html?smid=url-share
I'm personally going through a pregnancy with my wife and we had a scare at around 20 weeks, right before the anatomy scan. The actual medical term used in our case was "Threatened Abortion", which surprised even me. If things went differently and we had to have an abortion because it was medically necessary, we'd have to travel probably 6 states away to get one. That is just ridiculous. Fortunately, everything ended up being okay on our end but it was still scary when you have a sensitive situation and then you have to worry about possible legal ramifications for a personal medical decision like this. A fetus isn't a baby until it can survive on it's own. The type of restrictions people like you may be looking for can't exist in an imperfect world. Doctors and pregnant women should be able to make those decisions thoughtfully and based on their own real world, situation. Each situation is so different. I think the Republicans have done such a good job of making abortion just sound like a morally bad word, that it takes all nuance about the actual procedure and makes it extremely black and white.
First of all, congratulations on the baby! I'm glad to hear everything is okay after that scare. I'll do my best to address everything you stated here.
1. I do agree the current/past restrictions are not enough. I would like to see many restrictions on abortion, and I'm okay paying a political price for that even if they are unpopular. Additionally, the grounding that the Kansas Supreme Court found for abortion in the state constitution is incredibly dubious and a very poor decision IMO. That decision is exactly what an activist court looks like.
2. I do not agree with criminalizing birth control, nor punishing women who obtain abortions.
3. "If you don't want an abortion, just don't get one" is not a great argument. I believe that life and personhood begin at conception. At the very least, I think it's quite clear that life itself begins at conception as the child at that point contains all the characteristics of life. The value of that life or when personhood begins is certainly up for debate. You appear to define it as "when the baby can survive on its own." This is an insufficient defintion for a few reasons. First, as you will soon find out, a born baby can absolutely not survive on its own. A toddler cannot survive on its own. They need constant care and attention. Second, your definition of personhood is inevitably constantly changing. As technology advances, we can care for and keep alive pre-mature children earlier and earlier. If a baby born prematurely does not survive, does that mean it was never a baby, yet one that does survive is a baby? Unless life and personhood begin at conception, what is and is not a person constantly changes and ends up not being a very useful definition as it ends up being "whenever I feel like it's a person." This baby has an interest in not being killed, so the idea that an abortion only effects the woman is not accurate.
4. I reject the idea that abortion restrictions are "forced birth". Nobody is advocating for forced impregnation; rather, the idea is that if life is created, it ought to be allowed to take its natural course which is extremely likely to end with a born, alive, and healthy child. If you REALLY absolutely do not want to have a child, then I advise using birth control or abstaining from sexual activity that could lead to pregnancy. There are consequences to sex, and one ought to be ready for those consequences before engaging in it. Just because you are not ready to care for a child does not mean you get to terminate it. The child has an interest as well as the mother.
5. I am very sorry to hear about your scare. The term "Threatened abortion" is a medical term. Miscarriages are usually characterized as a "spontaneous abortion". I do not know your situation, but that was likely describing some amount of bleeding taking place that did not end up with the child or mother dying (thank God!!). Now, this brings me to something we will likely agree upon, which is that many of these more restrictive laws are overly broad and creating confusion among the medical community who are understandably afraid of committing a crime. These lawmakers MUST have medical professionals help write these laws and be much more specific about situations where unfortunately an abortion may be necessary. All current restrictive laws on the books call out ectopic pregnancies explicitly, but there are other situations where an abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother. Or an abortive-type procedure may be necessary to remove a child who has sadly died in the womb. The aim of these laws ought to be to ban truly elective abortions (which make up the vast majority of all abortions).
6. I have read those articles you pasted above, and they have not changed my mind. I understand abortions and pregnancy are extremely personal decisions, but I believe this to be a moral issue which we must fight for. And as someone who is fervently pro-life, I also want to and do spend my time and money to help families and mothers in crisis pregnancies as well as children in foster care. We cannot be content to ban abortions and wipe our hands. There are people who desperately will need help, and we have to step up to help them.
Hi Ben!
Thanks for the congratulations 🎉. Appreciate it, we are super excited and grateful. We are going to be in opposite ends of the spectrum here. Whether or not conception makes a baby vs a fetus is a medical decision in my opinion and a moral decision in yours and you think that you or people like you should dictate that for the everyone else without understanding their personal situation.
For your 2nd point, you say that you personally don't want to criminalize birth control or punish women who get abortions but your political party has in the past and some people have plans to do so in the future and you vote for those people... I guess now you just want to punish providers?
For your 3rd point, telling people to not get an abortion if they don't want one or aren't affected by what other people are doing is a fair point. None of us can survive on our own obviously so I wouldn't say that a premature baby isn't a baby. I was adopted and premature so that's unreasonable lol. Also you clearly say that if a baby is "born", therefore it is a person no?? However not everyone subscribes or should be forced to subscribe to your belief system, and there is no medical procedure that affects men the same way. This women are grossly affected unequally by anti abortion legislation in its current form. I personally don't define life or a baby as once it can live outside the womb. However I do believe that until it can live outside a woman's body then it's rights should never supersede hers. Now you are asking the philosophical person hood question, is anyone fully a person before 18 or 21 in this country? We are all constantly evolving as people and why would it matter if the definition of person hood changes in the future. Life is about change and progress...
Regarding your 4th point, miscarriages occur in about 15% of all pregnancies, so there is a very real risk that you may have a problem. At conception you don't even have a brain, or your own heartbeat though... You can never be pregnant, I don't think it's your place to tell pregnant women what they should do with their body. Additionally, women's bodies are permanently changed after pregnancy and it is considered a preexisting condition. What if you have an ectopic pregnancy or preeclampsia? Your definitions offer no nuance to the reality. Your truth comes out when you say sex should come with a punishment or consequence. You forget married women also have abortions and not everyone is even having sex with the intention of getting pregnant... It's also forced birth if you get raped or pregnant accidently and can't get an abortion... It is forced birth, you can reject the term but that doesn't mean the reality is actually forcing someone to give birth. Just like no one forces people to give up organs or foster children, no one should be forced to carry to term, that is straight punishment and there is no medical equivalent to that happening to men.
Regarding comment 5, thanks for the concern. Fortunately both Mom and the baby are doing well now, went to the Dr and the bleeding went away after a week. (On the other hand, I don't think I'd thank God, if there was a miscarriage though lol). I now know that threatened abortion is a medical term, so you really do learn something new everyday. You and I both agree that medical professionals should be involved in writing these laws, but again you think any abortion that is elective is bad, but again you fail to take in consideration that life changes fast and there are married couples who decide they don't want the risk of a high risk pregnancy, or maybe your partner leaves you after finding out you are pregnant. Live isn't fair and we shouldn't punish people for having sex. In my personal case you glanced a bit over the fact that if the baby was in fact not fine and we needed an abortion we wouldn't have been able to get one in our state based on how the law is currently written. Again, failing to take nuance and real world situations into account. If we got an abortion at 20+ weeks because my wife needed it for a medical reason, her and her Dr in my state would be in legal trouble. That doesn't seem to faze you which is concerning. You are objectively wrong that all current restrictive laws on the books call out ectopic pregnancies... They may not specifically criminalize it but they provide a gray area. Though the legislation generally contains carve-outs for lifesaving (Who defines life saving?), emergency care for the mother, there is still a concern that the legislative language is vague enough that many healthcare professionals are going to talk to a lawyer first before providing drugs or care, because sometimes the drugs overlap. So while you are technically correct, the way it will work out in real life is different. What about IVF? Those eggs fail sometimes after fertilization. At the real heart of the matter you just think that all elective abortion should be illegal, and some states as you can see want near total bans and no exceptions. I think if you started leading with that point originally, we'd have a different conversation. The world you want to live in doesn't exist. Nothing screams the party of small government like forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies or unviable pregnancies to term with a severe risk to their life or health.
On your 6th point. I'm Pro life too, for people that are here and need our help as well as people that are bringing children into this world and need our help. I'm happy that you are doing your part to help make the world a better place, we need more people like you. However you can't say that it's a personal choice and then tell women that their rights to autonomy are outweighed by a potential life growing inside of them because they've been pregnant for less than 12 or 15 weeks. Once you restrict people like you are proposing then it isn't a personal decision... There are people that have been getting pregnant since time began and we have not done enough politically or economically to help them. The party of "family values" makes it a party position to not help people who can be "welfare queens", they could've been helping for decades and decided not too. You read the one article about someone who needed a medical necessary abortion and still didn't change your mind that maybe they should be necessary. Seems like we are at an impasse friend. You want to help people? Help people like her who need a medical abortion but can't find one in their state and offer to drive them before they die of sepsis, they are here and alive. I've met too many people who glorify adoption and foster care but haven't done it themselves yet because they aren't in a good position, but when they needed an abortion or their daughter or sister needed one it was different. Protecting life shouldn't come at the expense of the woman who is being forced to carry an unwanted or unviable pregnancy.
We can obviously respectfully disagree with each other, but I appreciate the fact you're willing to have a conversation.
So a few things.
1. When do you believe that a fetus becomes a person? You say it's a medical decision, but how can that be a medical decision? Does the personhood status of every fetus depend on the medical situation that the child and mother are in? That would not be a good definition. Yes, I believe it is a moral and philosophical decision. You can disagree with me, but you're doing the same thing that you accuse me of by forcing your definition upon me and others who think like me.
2. Please do not assume who I vote for. I vote for Democrats as often as I vote for Republicans. I would not vote for someone who wanted to punish women for abortions.
3. Of course we are people before 18 or 21. We are people from the moment of conception. Just because we grow and change does not make us more or less valuable. We are valuable as human beings from the moment of conception until the moment of death. My definition of human value and worth is very consistent.
4. I'm not telling pregnant women what to do with their bodies. I'm telling them that they cannot kill the other being living inside of them unless absolutely necessary to save the life of that mother. When did I say sex should come with a punishment? I never said that at all. I'm saying sex has consequences and risks. Pregnancy, STI's, etc. are all consequences. Consequences are not necessarily bad as I think pregnancy is a good thing. Just like what you eat has consequences for how your body will change and react, so does sex. When it comes to men, I do think we should hold men more accountable for their children. They should be forced to support their families if they try to abandon them.
5. Life circumstances changing is not an excuse for abortion. I view life beginning at conception (which I believe is the most consistent and defensible definition both from a scientific and religious/philosophical standpoint), so just as we would not allow someone to kill their 3 month old baby if life circumstances changed, so we should not allow someone to abort their child if circumstances change.
Regarding your circumstance, I'm interested to hear you say you wouldn't be able to get an abortion if your wife's life was in danger. I don't want to pry and ask what state you're in, but I'm not aware of a state that wouldn't allow an abortion to save the life of the mother. If that is the case in your state, then I disagree with that law and believe it should be changed. I stated in my previous comments that I think these laws need to be more specific so confusion does not arise in cases where sadly an abortion is required for the sake of the mother's life.
6. Please show me a state where you cannot get an abortion for an ectopic pregnancy.
7. I was clear in my previous post that I think all elective abortions should be banned. I am not shy about that. And this isn't a small government issue. One of the key duties of any government is to protect its citizens, and the unborn have a vested interest in not being killed.
8. I have never said, would never say, and do not say that medically necessary abortions should not take place. I believe those are sadly necessary at times and should be permitted.
9. I'd encourage you not to lump me in with every pro-life person you read about or hear speak. I'm making specific arguments here, and I'm not defending other pro-life people or politicians. I believe life begins at conception. We should protect life and value it at all costs. We should as a community support families and women in crisis pregnancies. If that's through local orgs, great! If that comes through government programs, great!
10. In your penultimate statement, you state "Protecting life shouldn't come at the expense of the woman who is being forced to carry an unwanted or unviable pregnancy."
I agree that if the mother's life is at risk, we should have abortion as an option. However, I vehemently disagree with terminating a pregnancy because the child is unwanted by the mother. By that definition, the mother gets to decide if the child has value or not, and I reject that. All human beings have innate value, and no matter what anyone thinks I believe that to be true. Even if a mother doesn't want her child, that child is valuable and should be allowed to live. It's far better for someone who is unwanted by their parents to live and have a chance of a better life than for their existence to be snuffed out and never given a chance.
I appreciate the responses and respectful disagreement!
Good article. One reason for people who care about Democratic political party health not to engage in this strategy is that it makes it harder for them to cure the sickness in your own party. The thrust of the Democratic Party response to Republican-crazy town antics is to see it as an opportunity to move farther from popularism and moderation on the idea that Republicans are too bleeping crazy to vote for so conflicted voters will have to vote for us. And that strategy has not been an unmitigated success.
Granted, I’ve never voted for a major party candidate. So my advice may not be worth much.
As a reader in Missouri I can confirm, Eric won.
"With the candidate's strong opposition to COVID regulations and history of disparaging remarks about immigrants, Trump endorsed the soon-to-be Senator Clapton..."
How sad it is that we can't have a 3rd option that recognizes the value of both lives at stake here.
The abortionists can't admit the baby is a human because their argument completely collapses.
If the militant lifers admit the mother's life is of equal importance to the baby's their argument collapses.
We would be interesting to see an exit poll about how those who voted against in Kansas actually see themselves.
I suspect it is more subtle than just pro-abortion or pro-life.
My greatest fear about trump is the single-party government he is creating for the democrats.
A dominant single-party, either republican or democrat, will be a disaster given the polarized political world we are in today.
We will swirl into a world of autocracy .... by another name maybe.
Yes, will be the next generation or the generation after .... but it's a scary proposition for someone who has enjoyed the benefits of this already great country.
If you are a party member (isn't that a term used elsewhere in the world?) you are looking forward to a country dominated by your political persuasion.
I am not.
On a side note .... a Thought Exercise.
I would suggest that most folks that opposed Bernie's democratic socialist ideas were not against socialism as much as they are opposed to autocratic rule. After all, that is what we most often "see" when the examples of socialist countries are presented.
Give it some thought.
Bernie's message was OK (after all, we already have many of his notions in place) it is the messaging that misses the mark.
FYI .... I'm no Bern Fan .... but the ideas are not too far off.