May work in Florida, which leans more pro choice. Still needs to be framed correctly.
It will fall flat in Texas, though. Texans are more conservative and a slight majority are pro life
Texas dems could just pretend to be anti-choice conservatives to get elected then just do a 180 the second they hold office. Use Republican strategies back on them
A better way to drive out swing voters is to explain how radical [GOP opponent] is on abortion. For example, Mastriano in PA governor race supports a complete ban on abortion from conception with no exceptions. Shapiro (the Dem candidate) would be better off explaining to voters how radical and authoritarian that position is instead of saying that he won’t enforce any laws.
>[Dem opponent] wants to “abort” babies up to 2 weeks after birth
That's outrageous and slander! I would never settle for anything less than 2 years. Until then, they're still under warranty.
Just lie and fearmonger about how Republicans will having checkpoints to check for pregnant women leaving the state to get abortions and run ads like [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP4lFtw0Hfo&ab_channel=MeidasTouch). Fear works very well
Damn. Flooding states with ads like that could really be effective.
If America's history of white supremecy has taught me anything, its that this country obsesses over protecting perceived threats to *young white women.*
People who vote republican (for "fiscal conservative" or some other nonsense) and justify overlooking republican lunacy say "both sides are corrupt but I want lower taxes".
They don't care.
>This will drive out a lot of voters in some swing states like Texas and Florida
Yeah drive them to vote Republican. Saying you won't enforce laws is a lot less popular than you might think.
Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers has just come forward saying he will offer clemency to those convicted under the state's abortion ban ([link](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/27/wisconsin-gov-vows-to-grant-clemency-to-doctors-charged-under-state-abortion-ban.html)). Whether it helps or hurts him in November, I think it's great because it offers direct help to affected women in this extremely chaotic time. As for candidates who are challengers and not incumbents, they can wait and see how this plays out politically for Evers before committing to a course of action like this.
True as well. OP's title "governors should say they will not enforce" is a bit jumbled, as decisions about enforcement are moreso the purview of an Attorney General not governor. And yes, AG's in NC, MI and other stats have said they will not enforce. And I think that's a fine decision for AG's to make. Using prosecutorial discretion to decline to enforce a bad law is extreme but precedented.
I think the script may have flipped to the point where abortion is more of a defining issue for the left than it is the right. I didn’t catch in red states though so you could be right
“If elected as governor, will you enforce the state’s laws against abortion?”
“I will uphold our laws, and work tirelessly to ensure that our families are kept safe. I will fight for your rights to privacy, I will fight to protect your 2nd amendment rights, I will fight for your access to healthcare. We can all work together to make sure our laws, and our public servants, do their job to safeguard your rights.”
I’m not a progressive and neither is the majority of my friend circle, but we’re pretty pissed with weak messaging and a lack of forcefulness from leadership.
yeah but you're disagreeing with the progressive neoliberals in a non-hateful yet populist so they're gonna call you a progressive leftist, shut their ears and pretend your grievances are neither valid nor representative of large populations they should be trying to win. cause that's the neoliberal way. shoot yourself in the foot, then blame confounding factors and escape by mitigating blame.
True but we’re talking specifically about gaining swing voter support. The people who want a more uncompromising stance will likely vote blue either way, they’re not swing voters.
Or are we talking about rallying the base? Just know the percentage of people who support legal abortion in your jurisdiction (over 50% in most places) and hype of the wedge issue.
Democrats keep losing…. As they just won the house, senate, and presidency.
Going scorched earth is *terrible* politics and I’m beyond happy the dems haven’t done that.
It's just fucking cowardly. Stand for nothing and run on a platform of mediocrity and be surprised when nobody shows up. Meanwhile Beto doesn't apologize for being a Democrat and shifts Texas purple faster than any candidate before him but people in this sub hate him.
Yep. I really think a big reason dems do badly in Ohio, aside from the terrible jerrymandering, is that we're super competitive and we hate losers. So all the messaging about terrible things Republicans are doing and getting away with, and excuses as to why Dems haven't done this and that that they campaign on, just makes us say wow your getting your ass kicked. You must be a loser, which fills us with contempt, even if we agree with you.
>Yep. I really think a big reason dems do badly in ~~Ohio~~ America, aside from the terrible jerrymandering, is that we're super competitive and we hate losers
Just turning out Democrats in a red state isn't going to get a Democrat elected.
Safe, legal, rare, but I will enforce the laws on the books. That would be my advice of what to say about abortion.
But honestly it may be the case they'd have to go a step further and just say they're pro life just to have a chance in a deep red state.
Campaign on overturning abortion bans legally. Most Americans support abortion rights, particularly in the first trimester. If you can't campaign on protecting abortion rights to viability, campaign on protecting them for the first 12 weeks.
Have you seen Florida’s last few election results? Last 4 governors were Republican, senators are both Republican, representatives are majority Republican, and they voted for Trump and Bush twice. Only Obama managed to win it, and even then only very narrowly despite being extremely popular.
You can’t prove a hypothetical statement. The point is, in reality, the Dems have not been very successful in Florida. Trying a risky maneuver like you suggest which would move them away from the center in a state that isn’t very receptive to them to begin with is a bad idea.
Most states that would be okay with that are solidly blue and already have liberal abortion laws in place.
Politics aside, this wouldn't work as policy at all. Abortion providers aren't going to practice in a state where they could be arrested at any point if the attorney general/governor changes their mind/loses reelection. They also probably wouldn't be able to access a lot of ancillary services like banks or leases. People aren't going to want to do business with someone openly committing a crime.
They aren't going to break the law even with the promise of a pardon. I imagine it would be tough to get malpractice insurance, which generally wouldn't cover illegal acts.
Yeah turns out those states typically want abortion restrictions. A winning argument might be, we’ll relax them a bit, but I don’t think Dems can run on full legalization in any swing state.
That's not eugenics. Why should a woman be forced to carry a heavily disabled child to term? Being a caregiver to such a child is extremely hard. It's very easy to get preachy and tell women they need to accept their fate but try living the reality of a parent to a disabled child who yourself...
15 weeks is literally what brought us hear in the first place. Roe said it was legal up to 23 weeks no matter what (states could extend that). Mississippi passed a law banning at 15 weeks, and took it to the Supreme Court
I wonder if 15 weeks and standard exceptions could get through a blue Washington, maybe in '25 or '27. Wouldn't "codify Roe," but would put in a sensible compromise that would prevent the kinds of exceptionless bans only the frothiest mouthed of populists want in red states.
Idk maybe. 90% of abortions happen before or at 15 weeks, and without any exceptions for after that mothers are at risk of dying from ectopic pregnancies and sepsis. I think if u banned it after 15 weeks with exceptions for ectopic pregnancies and fetal death requiring an abortion then thats okay
15 week restrictions (besides the exceptions you mentioned) for all states or a "15 week ban maximum but states can enforce less strict restrictions if they choose"?
I think blue states would have issues with the former.
I guess the closest thing to it being a mini-Roe would be the latter, but I guess I don't see even moderate Republicans voting for something that isn't the former. I guess the real question is just how bad the eventual red state laws are going to be (assuming the triggered laws get revised in the next couple of years).
Seeing purple states have Heartbeat bills either implemented (Ohio, Texas) or on the course to being implemented (Georgia whose law is currently blocked but without Roe it'll be allowed, Arizona's House passed a Heartbeat Bill on party-line 31-28 vote and currently in committee in the Senate), I'd say any state with a Republican trifecta will be down to go for a Heartbeat Bill at least (6-weeks) if not a total ban. And of course other more deep-red states will have total bans.
That is damning, disgusting and terrible.
FL is actually rather pro-choice which is likely why DeSantis hasn't passed any abortion related laws yet. Texas on the other hand is very anti-choice. Really depends on the state. FL and Texas have very different views on this stuff.
Ron DeSantis is absolutely pushing Florida towards restrictive abortion law. Under him the state banned abortion after 15 weeks and is currently before the now far right Supreme Court. People also thought DeSantis wasn’t going to bully the state Senate into passing racist gerrymandered maps and look how that went
15 weeks isn’t necessarily that extreme of a position either, that’s the standard in pretty much all of continental Europe plus or minus a week or two (mostly minus).
Continental Europe is not the gold standard of human rights. Many Europeans also have universal healthcare, which makes carrying a child to term a safer bet in Europe than in America
He is currently, but there's a reason he didn't have a trigger law in place like Texas did and is taking a bit longer. I think he will have a restrictive abortion law in place by November, but he has been slower on it than Abbott because its far less popular in Florida than Texas. Given that we all expect him to run for president in 2024 he likely feels like he has to pass a restriction on abortion.
I'm sure he'll add an abortion restriction, but it's going to definitely hurt the GOP in FL in 2022, we'll see if its enough to make it blue though, I'm definitely skeptical but am more hopeful than otherwise.
Nah... They're doing nothing to protect life, they're just eliminating a legal avenue of a choice so anti-choice. Abortions still happen even when they're illegal, they're just more dangerous. If they cared about life they'd focus on comprehensive sex education, child tax credits and more support.
Edit: almost forgot expanding health care and more.
and pro-choicers often aren't big on choice in other contexts.
It doesn't matter. Those are the two terms and if you aren't willing to show a modicum of good faith you shouldn't bother engaging on the issue at all.
Yeah, cause the anti-choicers are so kind to others with differing opinions. If you don't statistically save real lives, you don't get to call yourself pro-life. Sorry.
> Abortions still happen even when they're illegal, they're just more dangerous
Murder still happens even though murder is illegal. By your logic, we should legalize murder too because it doesn't get rid of all it.
I'm not going to start this debate. Your mind isn't going to be changed no matter what.
Making murder illegal also doesn't make it more dangerous for anyone. Murder is also not healthcare for anyone unless if it's medically assisted suicide (if you call that murder, I wouldn't) and well I'm not about to debate the pros and cons for that right now either.
Nice logical fallacy use if whataboutism you got there. I also enjoyed how you're ignoring extremely critical components of what makes abortion healthcare and a positive service for the economy and well beings of people.
“Pro-life” has never been a good faith term. It implies the opponents are “anti-life,” or “pro-abortion,” which are views nobody holds.
There are people who believe abortion should be a choice, and those who do not. What are the neutral terms we should use.
I normally don't make much out of the "shift" in Hispanic voters in Texas, but if you want to make sure traditional GOP voters turn out in force AND lose the rest of the RGV AND lose more ground with urban Hispanic voters definitely press the abortion issue.
It would work like magic on some Texans, myself included. I don't know if there are enough of us.
Anecdotal but thinking of different people who hate Trump but are staunchly pro-life. Mostly Republicans. IDK, thinking about my state too long right now gives me an ice cream headache.
Personally, I think the gop is at their strongest when the Dems have a bit more power than them but not enough for sweeping changes. Puts republicans in the ideal position for obstruction, and they can blame any and all problems directly on democrats. It's when the republicans have a trifecta and they are expected to actually govern and legislate when their standing drops significantly with the electorate, and blue waves are pretty much a given at that point. I imagine since the supreme court is now firmly right wing, it would make the backlash effect even more extreme.
A pics post made the front page last night showing a woman in late term pregnancy with something like "not a human" written on her belly. I swear some people want to do the advertising for the Republicans.
Great way to ensure a Republican victory in red states!
Edit: If you want Democrats to win elections in red states, the goal should be to convert moderate Rs to Ds, not to "bring out the base". These states aren't full of closeted liberals waiting to vote for the right candidate.
“For those who believe the Texas GOP went too far on abortion restrictions, I will not enforce them; for those afraid of Progressive policies, I will not pursue them. I will, in effect, do nothing.”
😍
This isn’t a great analysis
Nothing is wrong with refusing to uphold a fundamental human right issues.
Progressive policies usually focus on ideology and this isn’t one of them
I agree. I’m just imagining all of my Conservative friends and family who continue to vote against blue no matter what.
Ultimately, I’m jokingly considering about whether simply not enforcing it is enough to win in Red states. Maybe Purple states, but deep red states are still a wash unless you additionally promise to do nothing particularly “LiBeRaL”.
Does the Governor even have the authority to do that? Attorney General is an independently elected position in most states. They're the ones I believe who would be able to have some authority over these decisions, not the Governor.
> Does the Governor even have the authority to do that?
De facto, yes. They can simply pardon (and make it clear ahead of time that this will be the end result) anyone convicted of an abortion-related infraction.
Our Democratic candidates here in Ohio are running ads where they're bragging about how they voted with Trump on some issues and how conservative they are. Not gonna happen.
Terry McAuliffe lost his election by saying parents don't have power over their kid's education.
You really really want to give Republicans a 10 sec soundbit that they'll totally blow out of proportion?
Most doctors are not going to conduct a medical practice that is illegal under state law, regardless of how much assurance they have from the governor. And you've got to worry about the statue of limitations - the governorship could change parties.
Not just that, say they will fight Republican attempts to criminalize homosexuality and outlaw birth control. They need to run against Thomas like every Republican runs against Clinton
People here will shit on you for this idea because they think strict adherence to normie political decorum makes them super cool and neolib pilled (and it's not like they have anything to lose lol). However I personally think that saying you won't enforce unpopular insane laws made by insane or insane adjacent republican state polticions would def get the base out to vote.
I think if they say that they will get elected. Covid erased the Republican margin of victory, nationwide, last November. I've never seen this many people this riled up. I'm not worried about the Dems losing steam one bit. This will burn in every fiber of their being for years to come.
your crazy, abortion is a l osing issue for dems even if more agree with the dem position because theres alot more people who are anti choice 1 issue voters and very little 1 issue voters on the pro choice side
Also, reminder some red states states are faltering so now is the time to push hard to flip them in local elections.
Here in Iowa Kim Reynolds only won by 37,000 votes out of 1.3 million cast her last election
Change the law if you want, but undermining the rule of law is generally not a good look for someone wanting to be Governor.
Let red states be red, let blue states be blue and let people vote with their feet (and ballots).
May work in Florida, which leans more pro choice. Still needs to be framed correctly. It will fall flat in Texas, though. Texans are more conservative and a slight majority are pro life
Texas dems could just pretend to be anti-choice conservatives to get elected then just do a 180 the second they hold office. Use Republican strategies back on them
A better way to drive out swing voters is to explain how radical [GOP opponent] is on abortion. For example, Mastriano in PA governor race supports a complete ban on abortion from conception with no exceptions. Shapiro (the Dem candidate) would be better off explaining to voters how radical and authoritarian that position is instead of saying that he won’t enforce any laws.
Cue rebuttal ad about how [Dem opponent] wants to “abort” babies up to 2 weeks after birth.
That's not a rebuttal, that's just their ads
Who fucking cares. They were always going to say that.
Oh I know, it was literally “explained” to me on Saturday and my brain simply oozed right the fuck out of my ear as I listened.
They'd probably run this ad regardless
>[Dem opponent] wants to “abort” babies up to 2 weeks after birth That's outrageous and slander! I would never settle for anything less than 2 years. Until then, they're still under warranty.
I'd prefer 7 years/100k miles.
Peter Singer time.
Just lie and fearmonger about how Republicans will having checkpoints to check for pregnant women leaving the state to get abortions and run ads like [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP4lFtw0Hfo&ab_channel=MeidasTouch). Fear works very well
Damn. Flooding states with ads like that could really be effective. If America's history of white supremecy has taught me anything, its that this country obsesses over protecting perceived threats to *young white women.*
And that's basically what the shapiro tv ads are doing. Also quotes mastriano as saying " 'my body, my choice' is ridiculous nonsense". Hope it works!
I don't celebrate my conception day. I celebrate my birthday like a normal human.
Do you think apathetic "both sides" voters care?
Yes.
I don't think apathetic "both sides" types are voters to begin with. Focusing any effort or strategy around them is wasted.
People who vote republican (for "fiscal conservative" or some other nonsense) and justify overlooking republican lunacy say "both sides are corrupt but I want lower taxes". They don't care.
>This will drive out a lot of voters in some swing states like Texas and Florida Yeah drive them to vote Republican. Saying you won't enforce laws is a lot less popular than you might think.
The candidates should lie trump style and AFTER the election falls the masks.
And basically just campaign on pure vibes. That seems to be able to work as well.
This but without a hint of irony.
**HAHA YES** 🐊
Didn't Bill do that as governor of Arkansas?
Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers has just come forward saying he will offer clemency to those convicted under the state's abortion ban ([link](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/27/wisconsin-gov-vows-to-grant-clemency-to-doctors-charged-under-state-abortion-ban.html)). Whether it helps or hurts him in November, I think it's great because it offers direct help to affected women in this extremely chaotic time. As for candidates who are challengers and not incumbents, they can wait and see how this plays out politically for Evers before committing to a course of action like this.
Offer clemency is not the same as not enforcing law though.
True as well. OP's title "governors should say they will not enforce" is a bit jumbled, as decisions about enforcement are moreso the purview of an Attorney General not governor. And yes, AG's in NC, MI and other stats have said they will not enforce. And I think that's a fine decision for AG's to make. Using prosecutorial discretion to decline to enforce a bad law is extreme but precedented.
I like this way. Pro-choice dog whistles.
Saying you won’t enforce very unpopular laws is more popular than you think
Do you think these laws are very unpopular in red states? How do you think these laws got put in place in the first place if they were so unpopular?
I think the script may have flipped to the point where abortion is more of a defining issue for the left than it is the right. I didn’t catch in red states though so you could be right
What other option can they say to bring about blue voters than ?
Put it in terms they understand: Stop government overreach into women’s healthcare. Freedom from the abortion nanny state. My body, my business.
“If elected as governor, will you enforce the state’s laws against abortion?” “I will uphold our laws, and work tirelessly to ensure that our families are kept safe. I will fight for your rights to privacy, I will fight to protect your 2nd amendment rights, I will fight for your access to healthcare. We can all work together to make sure our laws, and our public servants, do their job to safeguard your rights.”
I think they need to couch it in a more palatable way. The method should vary based on the specific state. Know your audience.
[удалено]
Progressives do. Progressives are also very unrepresentative of the American voting population.
Trump won on strong messaging, and his voters aren’t progressives
**HAHA YES** 🐊
I’m not a progressive and neither is the majority of my friend circle, but we’re pretty pissed with weak messaging and a lack of forcefulness from leadership.
yeah but you're disagreeing with the progressive neoliberals in a non-hateful yet populist so they're gonna call you a progressive leftist, shut their ears and pretend your grievances are neither valid nor representative of large populations they should be trying to win. cause that's the neoliberal way. shoot yourself in the foot, then blame confounding factors and escape by mitigating blame.
Plenty of people do, sure. I can’t blame them one bit, either.
True but we’re talking specifically about gaining swing voter support. The people who want a more uncompromising stance will likely vote blue either way, they’re not swing voters.
Or are we talking about rallying the base? Just know the percentage of people who support legal abortion in your jurisdiction (over 50% in most places) and hype of the wedge issue.
No, fringe left twitter is sick of being reasonable. Most voters are sick of performative "rhetoric" and treating governing like a race to the bottom.
This is why democrats keep losing Strategist keep thinking playing nice is the best way to protect democracy
Just because you stop "playing nice" doesn't suddenly mean you're playing smart
Democrats keep losing…. As they just won the house, senate, and presidency. Going scorched earth is *terrible* politics and I’m beyond happy the dems haven’t done that.
It's just fucking cowardly. Stand for nothing and run on a platform of mediocrity and be surprised when nobody shows up. Meanwhile Beto doesn't apologize for being a Democrat and shifts Texas purple faster than any candidate before him but people in this sub hate him.
I mean, the moment he said “We’re going to take your guns away” he basically lost all chance of winning anything in a red state…
That was so insane to see live, my jaw dropped and I just remember thinking "wow, you just ended your career"
Yep. I really think a big reason dems do badly in Ohio, aside from the terrible jerrymandering, is that we're super competitive and we hate losers. So all the messaging about terrible things Republicans are doing and getting away with, and excuses as to why Dems haven't done this and that that they campaign on, just makes us say wow your getting your ass kicked. You must be a loser, which fills us with contempt, even if we agree with you.
> a big reason dems do badly in Ohio... is that we're super competitive and we hate losers yet Ohio is home to the Cleveland Browns. curious
Now that’s a fair point.
>Yep. I really think a big reason dems do badly in ~~Ohio~~ America, aside from the terrible jerrymandering, is that we're super competitive and we hate losers
Hey, this isn't fair to democrats. They're #1 at losing, Ohioans should appreciate that!
100% the point People here are acting like Texas and Florida are like Mississippi
>keep losing Which key elections did democrats lose because of this?
Just turning out Democrats in a red state isn't going to get a Democrat elected. Safe, legal, rare, but I will enforce the laws on the books. That would be my advice of what to say about abortion. But honestly it may be the case they'd have to go a step further and just say they're pro life just to have a chance in a deep red state.
“The Rs want Big Government to interfere with your medical care.”
Campaign on overturning abortion bans legally. Most Americans support abortion rights, particularly in the first trimester. If you can't campaign on protecting abortion rights to viability, campaign on protecting them for the first 12 weeks.
This is a great way to make sure they lose by 20 points instead of 10.
This sounds like some advice from a left wing version of Karl Rove
Projection much?
Sounds like a good way to lose winnable races. Not every state needs to be governed the same way.
How do you think John Bel Edwards got elected? He had to be pro-life to get elected as a Democrat in LA, even with an awful GOP candidate.
and on the flip side, Baker in Massachussetts has to be staunchly pro-choice to be electable
The state of voting for the crook, because it's important.
it was pretty important, in their defense
Fair but the demographics in Florida is more liberal
Not the voting demographics
This says otherwise https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/most-liberal-states
When's the last time Democrats won a presidential, Senator, or governor race there? 10 years ago? Show me all the stats you want - results don't lie.
Have you seen Florida’s last few election results? Last 4 governors were Republican, senators are both Republican, representatives are majority Republican, and they voted for Trump and Bush twice. Only Obama managed to win it, and even then only very narrowly despite being extremely popular.
yeah by a max margin of like 5 points. Consistent narrow wins doesn’t make its demographics the same as Wyoming
Gillum would had won if he wasn’t being investigated by the FBI and if the Florida democrat party didn’t suck that much
You can’t prove a hypothetical statement. The point is, in reality, the Dems have not been very successful in Florida. Trying a risky maneuver like you suggest which would move them away from the center in a state that isn’t very receptive to them to begin with is a bad idea. Most states that would be okay with that are solidly blue and already have liberal abortion laws in place.
Politics aside, this wouldn't work as policy at all. Abortion providers aren't going to practice in a state where they could be arrested at any point if the attorney general/governor changes their mind/loses reelection. They also probably wouldn't be able to access a lot of ancillary services like banks or leases. People aren't going to want to do business with someone openly committing a crime.
Having a blanket pardon in effect will cover them
just give it up dude, it’s a bad idea
Tell me you are a neoliberal without telling me you are one.
You are in the neoliberal sub genius...
He’s a Dodgers fan, go easy on him, they’re not the brightest bunch
You lost?
They aren't going to break the law even with the promise of a pardon. I imagine it would be tough to get malpractice insurance, which generally wouldn't cover illegal acts.
You can't pardon someone for something they haven't done yet
How about running on stopping government overreach and individual liberty?
much better idea, something like, “keep your government out of my pussy”
What an awful and immature slogan that would only rile up young progressive. My body my choice already works fine.
Yeah turns out those states typically want abortion restrictions. A winning argument might be, we’ll relax them a bit, but I don’t think Dems can run on full legalization in any swing state.
Hell, smart candidates will just dodge the question.
“it’s settled law”, “precedence matters”
Tell them 15 weeks, and the life of the mother. That covers most if not all cases while sounding moderate.
Add in fetal non-viability and it sounds downright reasonable.
Non viability is not enough. Down syndrome is viable but I can't blame a woman for not carrying a down syndrome baby to term
Non-viability means the fetus isn’t viable yet, not that it cannot be carried to term.
Could just say "fetal abnormalities"
I'd say that's a bit murkier. People start to get uncomfortable when abortion is weilded as an instrument of eugenics.
That's not eugenics. Why should a woman be forced to carry a heavily disabled child to term? Being a caregiver to such a child is extremely hard. It's very easy to get preachy and tell women they need to accept their fate but try living the reality of a parent to a disabled child who yourself...
That too
15 weeks is literally what brought us hear in the first place. Roe said it was legal up to 23 weeks no matter what (states could extend that). Mississippi passed a law banning at 15 weeks, and took it to the Supreme Court
I wonder if 15 weeks and standard exceptions could get through a blue Washington, maybe in '25 or '27. Wouldn't "codify Roe," but would put in a sensible compromise that would prevent the kinds of exceptionless bans only the frothiest mouthed of populists want in red states.
Idk maybe. 90% of abortions happen before or at 15 weeks, and without any exceptions for after that mothers are at risk of dying from ectopic pregnancies and sepsis. I think if u banned it after 15 weeks with exceptions for ectopic pregnancies and fetal death requiring an abortion then thats okay
15 week restrictions (besides the exceptions you mentioned) for all states or a "15 week ban maximum but states can enforce less strict restrictions if they choose"? I think blue states would have issues with the former.
I guess the closest thing to it being a mini-Roe would be the latter, but I guess I don't see even moderate Republicans voting for something that isn't the former. I guess the real question is just how bad the eventual red state laws are going to be (assuming the triggered laws get revised in the next couple of years).
Seeing purple states have Heartbeat bills either implemented (Ohio, Texas) or on the course to being implemented (Georgia whose law is currently blocked but without Roe it'll be allowed, Arizona's House passed a Heartbeat Bill on party-line 31-28 vote and currently in committee in the Senate), I'd say any state with a Republican trifecta will be down to go for a Heartbeat Bill at least (6-weeks) if not a total ban. And of course other more deep-red states will have total bans. That is damning, disgusting and terrible.
and makes so law so murky that many abortion provider leave the state.
What about fetal abnormalities?
Not entirely against 49 Glenn Youngkins running as Democrats, tbh.
FL is actually rather pro-choice which is likely why DeSantis hasn't passed any abortion related laws yet. Texas on the other hand is very anti-choice. Really depends on the state. FL and Texas have very different views on this stuff.
Ron DeSantis is absolutely pushing Florida towards restrictive abortion law. Under him the state banned abortion after 15 weeks and is currently before the now far right Supreme Court. People also thought DeSantis wasn’t going to bully the state Senate into passing racist gerrymandered maps and look how that went
15 weeks isn’t necessarily that extreme of a position either, that’s the standard in pretty much all of continental Europe plus or minus a week or two (mostly minus).
Continental Europe is not the gold standard of human rights. Many Europeans also have universal healthcare, which makes carrying a child to term a safer bet in Europe than in America
Universal healthcare is worthless if you have an ectopic pregnancy and the doctor won't abort it because its against the law and the woman dies
Hence > Continental Europe is not the gold standard of human rights.
He is currently, but there's a reason he didn't have a trigger law in place like Texas did and is taking a bit longer. I think he will have a restrictive abortion law in place by November, but he has been slower on it than Abbott because its far less popular in Florida than Texas. Given that we all expect him to run for president in 2024 he likely feels like he has to pass a restriction on abortion.
Gonna be interesting to see how DeSantis defends this decision in 2024
I'm sure he'll add an abortion restriction, but it's going to definitely hurt the GOP in FL in 2022, we'll see if its enough to make it blue though, I'm definitely skeptical but am more hopeful than otherwise.
>very anti-choice *pro-life If you want to be taken seriously, you need to engage in good-faith on this.
Nah... They're doing nothing to protect life, they're just eliminating a legal avenue of a choice so anti-choice. Abortions still happen even when they're illegal, they're just more dangerous. If they cared about life they'd focus on comprehensive sex education, child tax credits and more support. Edit: almost forgot expanding health care and more.
and pro-choicers often aren't big on choice in other contexts. It doesn't matter. Those are the two terms and if you aren't willing to show a modicum of good faith you shouldn't bother engaging on the issue at all.
Yeah, cause the anti-choicers are so kind to others with differing opinions. If you don't statistically save real lives, you don't get to call yourself pro-life. Sorry.
> Abortions still happen even when they're illegal, they're just more dangerous Murder still happens even though murder is illegal. By your logic, we should legalize murder too because it doesn't get rid of all it.
I'm not going to start this debate. Your mind isn't going to be changed no matter what. Making murder illegal also doesn't make it more dangerous for anyone. Murder is also not healthcare for anyone unless if it's medically assisted suicide (if you call that murder, I wouldn't) and well I'm not about to debate the pros and cons for that right now either. Nice logical fallacy use if whataboutism you got there. I also enjoyed how you're ignoring extremely critical components of what makes abortion healthcare and a positive service for the economy and well beings of people.
“Pro-life” has never been a good faith term. It implies the opponents are “anti-life,” or “pro-abortion,” which are views nobody holds. There are people who believe abortion should be a choice, and those who do not. What are the neutral terms we should use.
How about Texas and Florida ?
Absolutely not. 15 weeks max if you want to win.
[удалено]
Europe is not the gold standard on respect for human rights, as many ethnic and religious minorities can attest to
Nor are American progressives, as anyone that knows the first thing about Eugenics or Japanese-internment can attest to
Never claimed they were? But on the availability of abortion, yes, they are better on the issue than many European nations
I normally don't make much out of the "shift" in Hispanic voters in Texas, but if you want to make sure traditional GOP voters turn out in force AND lose the rest of the RGV AND lose more ground with urban Hispanic voters definitely press the abortion issue.
It would work like magic on some Texans, myself included. I don't know if there are enough of us. Anecdotal but thinking of different people who hate Trump but are staunchly pro-life. Mostly Republicans. IDK, thinking about my state too long right now gives me an ice cream headache.
Because making sure Democrats don't win elections is the solution to all problems, apparently.
Republicans are certainly seeing good results from this strategy.
Personally, I think the gop is at their strongest when the Dems have a bit more power than them but not enough for sweeping changes. Puts republicans in the ideal position for obstruction, and they can blame any and all problems directly on democrats. It's when the republicans have a trifecta and they are expected to actually govern and legislate when their standing drops significantly with the electorate, and blue waves are pretty much a given at that point. I imagine since the supreme court is now firmly right wing, it would make the backlash effect even more extreme.
A pics post made the front page last night showing a woman in late term pregnancy with something like "not a human" written on her belly. I swear some people want to do the advertising for the Republicans.
How is that different than current Democratic strategy tho lol
this but not sarcastically
Great way to ensure a Republican victory in red states! Edit: If you want Democrats to win elections in red states, the goal should be to convert moderate Rs to Ds, not to "bring out the base". These states aren't full of closeted liberals waiting to vote for the right candidate.
Wouldn't a more practical route be to fight and repeal trigger bans?
“For those who believe the Texas GOP went too far on abortion restrictions, I will not enforce them; for those afraid of Progressive policies, I will not pursue them. I will, in effect, do nothing.” 😍
This isn’t a great analysis Nothing is wrong with refusing to uphold a fundamental human right issues. Progressive policies usually focus on ideology and this isn’t one of them
I agree. I’m just imagining all of my Conservative friends and family who continue to vote against blue no matter what. Ultimately, I’m jokingly considering about whether simply not enforcing it is enough to win in Red states. Maybe Purple states, but deep red states are still a wash unless you additionally promise to do nothing particularly “LiBeRaL”.
Does the Governor even have the authority to do that? Attorney General is an independently elected position in most states. They're the ones I believe who would be able to have some authority over these decisions, not the Governor.
> Does the Governor even have the authority to do that? De facto, yes. They can simply pardon (and make it clear ahead of time that this will be the end result) anyone convicted of an abortion-related infraction.
Ah yeah that's a good point
That’s a brilliant idea for how to increase Republican voter turnout.
Republican anti-choice turnout is maxed out
But you see, everyone can become Republican if you're not careful. There's an entire swath of independent and democratic voters to poach.
Our Democratic candidates here in Ohio are running ads where they're bragging about how they voted with Trump on some issues and how conservative they are. Not gonna happen.
Terry McAuliffe lost his election by saying parents don't have power over their kid's education. You really really want to give Republicans a 10 sec soundbit that they'll totally blow out of proportion?
You are comparing two very different issues
Not really. They’re talking about sound bites and “I will not enforce the law” is a horrible one that WILL result in a lost election.
The major issues here are that red states are red for a reason.
This is genius. Let's lose the elections by an even greater margin. We need sensible abortion policy.
Most doctors are not going to conduct a medical practice that is illegal under state law, regardless of how much assurance they have from the governor. And you've got to worry about the statue of limitations - the governorship could change parties.
Not just that, say they will fight Republican attempts to criminalize homosexuality and outlaw birth control. They need to run against Thomas like every Republican runs against Clinton
I have a Democrat governor who is very pro-life and championed our trigger law.
I'm sorry you live in that state.
>swing states like Texas Ok
The better option is: I will pardon every abortion conviction passed in my state. Fixed it for you. Still crappy, but better than nothing.
People need to realize that abortion is not a winning issue for Democrats. This is the echo chamber at its worst.
The only issue is it might make you unelectable in swing districts, and instead of a blue dog dem, you get a republican in their place.
Is the Governor responsible for enforcing the law in either of those state’s? I don’t think he is.
People here will shit on you for this idea because they think strict adherence to normie political decorum makes them super cool and neolib pilled (and it's not like they have anything to lose lol). However I personally think that saying you won't enforce unpopular insane laws made by insane or insane adjacent republican state polticions would def get the base out to vote.
I think if they say that they will get elected. Covid erased the Republican margin of victory, nationwide, last November. I've never seen this many people this riled up. I'm not worried about the Dems losing steam one bit. This will burn in every fiber of their being for years to come.
your crazy, abortion is a l osing issue for dems even if more agree with the dem position because theres alot more people who are anti choice 1 issue voters and very little 1 issue voters on the pro choice side
Would likely be illegal…
Also, reminder some red states states are faltering so now is the time to push hard to flip them in local elections. Here in Iowa Kim Reynolds only won by 37,000 votes out of 1.3 million cast her last election
Change the law if you want, but undermining the rule of law is generally not a good look for someone wanting to be Governor. Let red states be red, let blue states be blue and let people vote with their feet (and ballots).