1). “The GOP's Plan to Ban IVF”, Sep 27, 2024, Jessica Valenti, Abortion, Every Day, at < https://jessica.substack.com/
2). “Despite Trump's flip-flops, anti-choice activists think he'll sign 'any' new abortion restrictions: Speaking to Salon, anti-abortion campaigners said Trump is just playing politics by 'softening on life' ”, Sep 26, 2024, Nandika Chatterjee, Salon, at < https://www.salon.com/2024/09/
3). “ 'He is just getting started': Another Trump presidency could totally destroy reproductive freedom: Women in red states know just how bad things can get when Republicans are in charge of healthcare decisions”, June 21, 2024, Nandika Chatterjee, Salon, at < https://www.salon.com/2024/06/
4). “House GOP lawmakers introduce bill imposing near-total ban on abortion in Kansas: Legislation draws objections from abortion rights proponents and opponents”, January 11, 2024, Tim Carpenter, The Kansas Reflector, at < https://kansasreflector.com/
5). “Why I Drive Out of State for Prenatal Care”, Sep 27, 2024, Danielle Campoamor, The Nation, at < https://www.thenation.com/
6). “ 'I wasn't dead enough for an abortion': Texas mom blames Trump for almost losing her life: If Trump wins in November, 'he will make this nightmare a reality nationwide', says Lauren Miller”, June 3, 2024, Nandika Chatterjee, Salon, at < https://www.salon.com/2024/06/
7). “How quickly would abortion return to Missouri if voters approve amendment in November?”, Sep 27, 2024, Kacen Bayless, Kansas City Star, at < https://www.kansascity.com/
8). “Why a conservative Texas mayor defied his peers and put the brakes on an abortion 'travel ban': Amarillo Mayor Cole Stanley calls himself 'pro-life.' But the proposal to police the streets for women traveling out of state to get an abortion is overreach, he said”, Sept. 26, 2024, The Texas Tribune, at < https://www.texastribune.org/
~~ recommended by dmorista ~~
Introduction by dmorista: We are a bit over 37 Days and 11 hours until the November 5th, 2024 election day arrives. Time grows short, early voting has already started in numerous states. Many critics on the far-left have rightly pointed out that, on many important issues, there is little or no difference between the Harris / Walz and Trump / Vance tickets. They are both loyal defenders of Capitalism and in some cases, such as the Ukraine War, Harris / Walz have a worse policy agenda than Trump / Vance does.
But let's not be daft. The domestic policies of Trump / Vance are far worse than those of Harris / Walz. The biggest difference is between the harsh anti-women and girls agenda of Trump / Vance and the pro-woman agenda of Harris / Walz. In the past couple of weeks ProPublica posted articles about 2 documented cases of women dying in Georgia, because they could not access timely abortion care, and in fact that there are now 4 documented cases of women dying for that reason, the other 2 having died in Texas. And this is only the beginning, the cases from Georgia were the first cases reviewed from the period shortly after the Dobbs Decision and Georgia's harsh Forced-Pregnancy / Forced-Birth laws were passed in enforced. There have already been reports that the Maternal Death rate in Texas has risen by 56% in the past 2 years. And Texas and Idaho have announced new statistical gathering techinques; in the case of Texas the statisical data is skewed to try to blame abortions for deaths that had nothing to do with an abortion; and in Idaho they just quit collecting data. Texas is a big state and a 56% rise in Maternal Deaths will amount to hundreds of women. One Third of American women and Girls now live under reactionary / fascist controlled regimes that make pregnancy and birth in those places very dangerous, with Third-World like conditions for women. If returned to power a Trump / Vance would take measures to make abortion a crime nationwide. Various aspects of this situation are discussed in Item 1)., “The GOP's Plan to Ban IVF”, Item 2)., “Despite Trump's flip-flops, ….”, Item 3)., “ 'He is just getting started': ….”, Item 4)., “(Kansas dm) House GOP lawmakers ….”, Item 5)., “Why I Drive Out of State ….”, and Item 6)., “ 'I wasn't dead enough for an abortion': ….”, all look at different aspects of the Abortion Rights and the harsh Forced-Pregnancy / Forced-Birth laws passed in many Red States.
Item 7)., “How quickly would abortion return to Missouri ….”, and Item 8)., “Why a conservative Texas mayor ….”, both discuss political struggles; and legal obstructions by the forces that support the harsh Forced-Pregnancy / Forced-Birth regimes. Just winning a vote for a State Consitutional Amendment protecting Abortion, Birth Control, and other Reproductive Healthcare is not the end of the fight to provide American Women with a decent milieu for having babies. And in the case of Amarillo Texas local Abortion Rights activists stopped the City Council there from declaring that Amarillo is a “Sanctuary City for the Unborn”. The mayor, a Republican and a supporter of Forced-Pregnancy / Forced-Birth laws agreed to let many people speak on the issue at Amarilllo City Council Meetings, and he decided it was outside of his authority to declare Amarillo a “Sanctuary City for the Unborn”; and the issue will be voted upon by the city's electorate on November 5th of this year.
Unlike some people here, I have the luxury of being able to vote for President in a state without any chance of the Harris / Walz ticket winning, so I will vote for Cornel West and Melina Abdullah. But I state clearly here that I would inevitably, if reluctantly, vote for the Harris / Walz ticket if they had any chance of winning my Red State.
xxxxxxxxx
The GOP's Plan to Ban IVF
Click to skip ahead: In Anti-Abortion Strategy, conservatives have launched a full scale attack claiming that pro-choicers are responsible for two Georgia women’s deaths. In the States, news out of Iowa, Texas, South Dakota, New York and Idaho. In Attacks on IVF, anti-abortion leaders give up the game. I have some Ballot Measure Updates from Missouri and Florida. In the Nation, the Republican panic over abortion. Finally, 2024 news looks at the Trump campaign’s dossier on JD Vance.
Anti-Abortion Strategy: Post-Dobbs Deaths
There’s a lot to get angry about these days, but I can’t remember the last time I’ve been this furious. Watching the anti-abortion movement blame pro-choicers for the deaths of Candi Miller and Amber Nicole Thurman is just mind-blowing. Even though I knew it was coming!
I predicted in 2022 that anti-abortion politicians and organizations would blame doctors and claim abortion rights activists had ‘scared’ them out of providing care—but I never could have foreseen just how shameless they would be. Since ProPublica’s report, anti-abortion organizations and activists have launched a full-scale media attack against the pro-choice movement.
As I reported earlier this week, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America (SBA-PLA) put out a half million dollar ad campaign insisting that “the Left’s scare tactics are deadly.” (Remember: this is a group that lobbied Tennessee lawmakers not to include an exception for women’s lives in the state’s abortion ban.) Since then, some of the most powerful anti-abortion players have been making the same claim all over conservative media.
First up there’s extremist OBGYN Ingrid Skop, who tells Fox News that “it’s the fearmongering and lies that have led us to this place.”
“The lies about pro-life laws are hurting women. The pro-life laws are not hurting women, but the lies are hurting women. Because in many cases, the women do not understand. And we’ve seen that sometimes even the doctors don’t understand. They’re not reading the law. They’re listening to the pro-abortion media.”
Christina Francis, president of American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG), made the same accusation on Fox & Friends, saying, “we are seeing the direct results of spreading lies and misinformation about these laws.
Basically, Skop and Francis would like Americans to believe that doctors are taking their cues from pro-choicers rather than the many hospital lawyers who know how to read the law. (In fact, that’s their whole job!)
Just a quick reminder about who these women are: Francis is an absolute maniac who believes abortion is never necessary to save a patient’s life and that doctors should give women c-sections instead of abortions, even before fetal viability. Skop thinks the same. In fact, she’s so radical that Texas Republicans put her on the state’s maternal mortality board. That’s because like Francis, she doesn’t believe abortion is ever necessary and because she wants to count deaths like suicides in maternal mortality data even when there’s no connection to abortion.
AAPLOG board chair Christina A. Cirucci also wrote an op-ed at Newsweek. She says, “until we stop the lies about these dangerous drugs, women will continue to suffer harm.” Again, this is a group that would gladly torture women in service of their politics. In addition to forcing women into unnecessary c-sections, AAPLOG recommends that in cases of deadly complications like massive placental abruption, women shouldn’t be given an abortion but made to go into vaginal labor in order to deliver “an intact fetal body.”
So excuse me if I don’t take any of their feigned concern for women seriously.
I’m not done yet! In The Washington Examiner, Isaac Schorr blames “abortion disinformation” for Miller and Thurman’s deaths and says that Georgia law allowed for care. (Schorr also does something I’ve been warning about for a while now—he insists that ending a dangerous pregnancy is not really an abortion.) In addition to blaming pro-choicers and abortion medication, Schorr also points a finger at one of the women herself. He writes that “Miller’s pregnancy was not without risks given her age and preexisting conditions…she suffered from lupus, diabetes, and hypertension.”
We saw the same bullshit after The New Yorker reported on the death of Yeniifer Alvarez-Estrada Glick: anti-abortion groups blamed the young woman’s weight and health conditions.
Finally, the anti-abortion movement trotted out two Georgia Republican lawmakers who are also doctors to help shirk blame. Reps. Rich McCormick and Mark Newton say—despite having never treated these women—that their deaths were caused by abortion medication and pro-choice misinformation.
McCormick did let something telling slip in this Fox News interview, however:
“The mother's life is always protected. With that said, it doesn't mean it's easy to get an abortion just because you have a complication or because something goes wrong."
Yeah, we wouldn’t want to make it too easy to save a woman’s life!
In the States
Republicans have a trifecta of power in Iowa, with control of the governor’s office and both legislative chambers, but that isn’t stopping Democrats from trying to restore abortion rights. Yesterday, Iowa House Democrats unveiled their legislative priorities, which include repealing the state’s 6-week ban should they gain a majority come November.
Iowa House Democratic Leader Jennifer Konfrst predicted her Republican colleagues “are going to have a different attitude when they come to the Legislature in January about the importance of listening to voters, because they will have just seen some of their colleagues lose their elections because they didn’t.” (The majority of Iowans want abortion to be legal.)
As you likely know, the anti-abortion movement has been hard at work trying to pass travel ban ordinances in Texas, which they call ‘anti-trafficking’ policies. Most recently, anti-abortion assholes like Mark Lee Dickson have targeted Amarillo—where activists gathered signatures to put the ordinance on the ballot after the city council declined to pass it. This week, the Texas Tribune profiled Amarillo Mayor Cole Stanley, who calls himself ‘pro-life’ but is taking heat for stopping the ordinance from moving forward. “That’s just not my job,” he said.
To hear from local abortion rights activists, read this guest column from the Amarillo Reproductive Freedom Alliance:
Danielle Campoamor has published a harrowing but important piece at The Nation about why she drives an hour out of South Dakota to get her prenatal care in Minnesota. Campoamor outlines having to sketch out an “oh-shit plan”—what to do if she goes into early labor or has some other kind of emergency pregnancy complication. She needs to plan for who will take care of her children, and who will drive her across state lines if she can’t drive herself.
”I am one severe pregnancy complication away from landing in a South Dakota emergency room where a doctor is too afraid to help me because of state politicians and their cruel anti-abortion policies. I know my joyfully oblivious sons, who cannot wait to meet their future sibling, are unaware that the legislators in charge of their home state believe it’s ‘pro-life’ to allow their mother to die.”
It’s hard to fathom that this is what it takes to be safe as a pregnant person in America.
A federal judge has blocked New York Attorney General Letitia James from taking action against anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers that lie to women about ‘abortion reversal.’ The judge ruled in favor of the Thomas More Society, which claims that preventing the religious groups from misleading women is a violation of their free speech rights. (First Amendment suits are the latest legislative trend of crisis pregnancy centers.)
Finally, a judge in Idaho heard augments this week about whether to dismiss a legal challenge against the state’s abortion ban. The lead plaintiff in the suit is a woman who was denied an abortion for her doomed and dangerous pregnancy; the suit was brought by the Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of women whose health and lives were endangered by the state ban.
Remember, Idaho’s law allows for life-saving care, but abortions to save someone’s health remain illegal. As Idaho Capital Sun reporter Mia Maldonado put it: “This means even if a pregnant patient faces organ loss, paralysis, or loss of fertility, they still would not be able to seek an abortion in the state.”
It doesn’t get much starker than that.
The attorney for Idaho, however, Jim Craig, says, “I don’t know how much clearer we can get…You do not have to wait to provide life saving care.” He didn’t say anything about the whole loss-of-organs and paralysis bit.
As a reminder: Idaho Republicans went in front of the Supreme Court to argue against a federal law requiring hospitals to give women life-saving abortions, and the Attorney General Raúl Labrador claimed that doctors who said they had to helicopter women out of the state to save their lives were lying.
“The truth is, pregnancy is complicated. It involves life-changing decisions, deeply personal medical considerations, and in some cases, matters of life and death. Politicians are not equipped to make these decisions, and they shouldn’t be interfering in such intimate matters.”
- Florida family medicine physician Dr. Aparna Asher in the Tampa Bay Times
Attacks on IVF
One of the anti-abortion movement’s biggest weaknesses is their opposition to IVF. Remember what happened when the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos were ‘extrauterine children’? I do! The backlash was immediate. Since then, Republicans and anti-abortion groups have been doing their best to pretend to support IVF in order to avoid voters’ ire.
As I’ve pointed out previously, their primary strategy is to claim that they simply want to implement “health and safety standards” for fertility clinics. (This is the language that Sens. Katie Britt and Ted Cruz used in their bullshit IVF ‘protection’ bill, for example.) What are those standards? Well, probably something similar to the onerous and unnecessary anti-abortion TRAP laws we’ve seen Republicans impose on abortion clinics.
The other thing to watch out for is the “tracking” of embryos. For example, I’ve reported before that the anti-abortion group, the Charlotte Lozier Institute submitted a public comment to the CDC advising them to report and regulate the embryos used in fertility treatments—which is just another way that anti-abortion ‘data’ collection is going to come into play.
Every once in a while, however, anti-abortion activists don’t bother hiding their extremism. In this terrific Salon piece about how anti-abortion groups expect Trump to give them any policy they want, SBA-PLA president Marjorie Dannenfelser tells reporter Nandika Chatterjee, “We believe human embryos should not be destroyed.”
Dannenfelser goes on to repeat talking points about “basic safety standards” and “negligence”—all keywords she can use to feign caring about women and families while actually opposing IVF. Kristi Hamrick from Students for Life offered similar language, telling Chatterjee, “IVF is an industry that needs strong oversight and regulation.”
Ballot Measure Updates
You all know by now that Republicans across the country have been attacking democracy in order to ban abortion or keep in banned. The Missouri GOP is one of the worst offenders, pulling out all the stops to stop voters from having a say on abortion rights entirely. Now, one Republican lawmaker reveals his plan for how to get around voters’ wishes should they decide to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution.
Rep. Brian Seitz says, “We will do everything to protect the innocent life in the womb if Amendment 3 happens to pass,” telling the Kansas City Star that he plans to file a bill to define life at conception. Seitz insists that the legislation would “pass court muster” because it does not specifically mention abortion.
These assholes will try anything.
A few bits of news in Florida: Floridians Protecting Freedom brought their suit against Gov. Ron DeSantis and the state Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) in front of a judge this week. As I’ve reported previously, the state agency and Republican leaders are using taxpayer dollars to campaign against Amendment 4—which is illegal! But Republican Attorney General Ashley Moody says that they’re exempt from the law prohibiting interference in elections. Terifying.
In better news, the campaign for Amendment 4 released its first-ever Spanish-language TV ad in support of the measure, and the Associated Press looks at the abortion rights groups courting Latino voters in the state.
In the Nation
It’s incredible that after more than two years since the end of Roe, Republican men still don’t know how to keep their mouths shut on abortion rights. Earlier this week, it came out that Bernie Moreno, the Republican U.S. Senate candidate in Ohio, said that women who care about abortion rights are “crazy,” especially if they’re over 50 years-old. “I don’t think that’s an issue for you,” he quipped at a campaign event.
Independent and Republican women voters really didn’t like those comments, according to the Ohio Capital Journal. Sixty-three year old Tammy Krings told the publication, “When I turned 50, I didn’t stop caring about my daughter’s body and her choices and her rights.” And Republican voter Lea Maceyko says, “Bernie said I was crazy, but really, I think he’s a little crazy to be mocking people that he wants to represent.”
This comes at the same time, by the way, that The Columbus Dispatch found that in 2023, Moreno said that the Founding Fathers would “murder you” for supporting abortion rights. But that’s not even the best favorite part! In the same event, Moreno chastised pregnant women for not taking responsibility: “You don’t get pregnant because you were at the checkout line at Kroger.”
NBC News looks at the trend of Republican abortion gaffes more broadly, with GOP strategists worrying that candidates are “falling into the same trap of what happened in 2022” and not talking proactively on abortion rights. Instead, most have been ignoring the issue, scrubbing their campaign websites of mentions of abortion, and—in many cases—just plain fucking it up.
Some Republicans, like Kari Lake in Arizona and Sam Brown in Nevada, have strategically ‘softened’ their views (at least publicly). We’ll have to wait to see just how successful that tactic will be.
Fellow Substacker Chris Geidner has a good breakdown of the ruling from a federal judge that allows Catholic employers to discriminate against people who have abortions or need gender-affirming care.
Ms. magazine looks at Republicans’ obsession with abortion surveillance—from Project 2025 to Senate legislation seeking additional “abortion data reporting.” You all know this is something I’m obsessed with; abortion reporting, attacks on privacy, and the collection of skewed data are the centerpiece of anti-abortion strategy right now.
Both the Associated Press and Susan Rinkunas at The New Republic look at the financial crisis that’s hit abortion funds across the country. Make sure to read both and donate to your local fund.
Finally, in the least surprising news of all time, it turns out that the director of Project 2025 didn’t resign from the Heritage Foundation as had been previously reported—but was fired for mistreating employees, women in particular. I know, truly shocking.
2024
According to the dossier that Donald Trump’s campaign complied on JD Vance, they knew exactly how radical the now-vice presidential candidate is on abortion. Thanks to Substacker Ken Klippenstein, who published the dossier, we can see that the campaign not only knew that Vance was an anti-abortion extremist—but understood that his views wouldn’t go over well with voters.
The campaign flagged that Vance doesn’t believe rape and incest victims should have access to abortion, that he called pregnancy after rape an “inconvenience,” and that he compared abortion to slavery. The dossier also says that “Vance is noted as having expressed that divorce is too common and that women in violent marriages should stay in them for the sake of their children.”
In other words, the Trump campaign knew very, very well just how dangerously sexist Vance is. Let’s be honest, I’m sure for the disgraced former president, that was a selling point. And as I noted when Vance’s candidacy was announced, Trump never really cared about having a running mate who was moderate on abortion rights (despite political predictions to the contrary).
I’m still making my way through the dossier and will update you if I come across anything else, but I did find this tidbit interesting: The campaign seemed concerned that while Vance opposed providing childcare assistance to low income families, “after his wife gave birth to their first child, Vance was living in Columbus while his wife lived in Washington, D.C. with her mother.” Hmm.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Despite Trump's flip-flip, anti-choice activists think he'll sign "any" new abortion restrictions
Former President Donald Trump has accused Vice President Kamala Harris of flip-flopping on her policies this electoral cycle. But the Republican nominee has himself publicly shifted his positions on a woman's right to choose, opposing and then supporting Florida's six-week abortion ban while coming out in favor of state-funded fertility treatments. Believing that it's a losing issue, he's also tried to change the topic, preferring to demonize Haitian immigrants rather than discuss his shifting stances on reproductive freedom.
The former president boasts about his role in overturning Roe v. Wade, claiming that abortion bans are best sorted by the states instead of at a federal level. He's also expressed support for the morning-after pill and promised, without providing details, that he'd make the government and insurance companies pick up the costs of in-vitro fertilization (IVF).
Despite all his attempts at striking a moderate pose, many in the anti-abortion movement believe Trump's just playing politics and that he will do as the movement wishes when back in power, deriving comfort from his refusal at this month's debate to say that he would veto a national abortion ban. An ardent anti-abortion activist told Salon that “of course” Trump will sign “any” restrictions that Republicans send his way when he wins the White House.
Related
In fact, Lila Rose — who started the anti-choice group Live Action when she was 15 years old — believes that voters like her shouldn’t lose too much sleep over the claims Trump makes when he's in campaign mode.
"One of the things that's been so compelling for so many people about President Trump is that he's a fighter," she said in an interview.
Rose acknowledged that her “fighter” and his running mate, Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, have shown a “softening on life." The Republican ticket has balked at explicitly endorsing a national abortion ban, preferring strategic ambiguity, and even suggested that IVF should be funded by taxpayers.
But she believes that Trump and Vance just need some critical support; she's not too concerned that their campaign proposals will be reflected in actual policy.
“Minds are still being made up and, policies are actively changing. President Trump seems to be actively introducing policy proposals and changing stances,” Rose told Salon. “So I think now's the time for pro-life Americans to say, 'Listen, if you want the pro-life votes, fight for life.'"
While anti-choice activists may not like everything Trump says on the trail and believe there should be some pushback, they see a wide gulf between him and his Democratic opponent. Harris, in their view, is a non-starter, the vice president having pledged to restore the national right to an abortion. Trump, by contrast, is just trying to win an election — and will have to lean on a base, and Republicans in Congress, who are adamantly opposed to moderation on questions of "life."
“It's a very difficult election cycle because we're dealing with one party, the Democratic Party, whose nominee is passionately pro-abortion,” Rose told Salon, calling Harris and Walz “the most pro-abortion ticket in American history.”
That leaves anti-choice campaigners with the Republican Party, which in turn cannot afford to alienate a key constituency. That could portend a rollback of rights that the Trump-Vance ticket is today claiming it will protect as it seeks to maintain the GOP coalition.
Rose, like other anti-choice activists, has extreme views on when life begins that are out of step with scientific understanding of human development. These activists claim to not see any difference between an embryo, a fetus and a live baby. And they are not alone: such extreme views are reflected in Republican-led states such as Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri and Oklahoma, where laws assert that life begins from the moment of fertilization.
However, medical experts are clear that an embryo is not a fetus and a fetus is not a child.
“It’s not until about 10 weeks that there is an actual structure that has four tubes and connects to the lungs and major vascular system like we would think of as a heart,” Dr. Sarah Prager, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington Medicine, told NBC.
Additionally, it is only at about 10 weeks of pregnancy that an embryo becomes a fetus, which is the state it remains in until birth. The debate over when "life" begins impacts not just abortion policy, but efforts to produce a child via IVF, which activists like Rose see as tantamount to murder.
We need your help to stay independent
IVF refers to a process wherein mature eggs are collected from ovaries and fertilized by sperm in a lab, as explained by the Mayo Clinic. Often this fertility treatment is sought out by individuals who have trouble conceiving children on their own.
“Every child created using IVF is a precious, irreplaceable human being and deserves every protection and has all the dignity of every other human being, and these lives are incredibly precious,” Rose told Salon. “That's why IVF is so problematic, because according to the research, it's about 93% of all children created through IVF, but don't make it to birth. They're killed via embryo destruction, or they are miscarried, or they're in deep freeze. They're frozen indefinitely, or they end up being donated for human experiments, and, in laboratories."
According to the national and clinic-specific data from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART), an association of America’s fertility clinics dedicated to the practice of assisted reproductive technologies (ART), released in April of this year, 2.5% of all births in the country are a result of successful ART cycles. In 2022, the number of babies born from IVF increased from 89,208 the year before to 91,771.
Among the GOP base, the Live Action president is not alone in her belief that IVF effectively kills more "children" than it creates.
“We believe human embryos should not be destroyed,” Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, told Salon in a statement. “All too often, proposals on this issue go too far by giving blanket immunity to IVF clinics — even for rogue practitioners who switch human embryos, fail to follow basic safety standards, or negligently destroy human embryos desired by infertile couples.”
“IVF is an industry that needs strong oversight and regulation, especially considering its standard operating procedure of force fertilizing young life and then destroying them when no longer desired,” Kristi Hamrick, vice president of media and policy at Students for Life Action, told Salon in a statement. “Such callous disregard for the humanity of the preborn isn't part of every nation's practices. This emphasis on IVF among the Democratic Party is the very definition of cognitive dissonance, as the party both celebrates the destruction of human life in abortion while trying to embrace families who would welcome those children.”
Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.
Asked to comment on Trump’s own stated support for IVF, including state funding for the procedure, Hamrick told Salon: “J.D. Vance went on Fox & Friends shortly after Trump's remarks to media and said that the conscience rights of Americans would not be violated with a new mandate, but we need the details to know that.”
And therein lies the crux of the issue. Although Trump has tried to distance himself from the more extreme views in the anti-choice movement, those views are widespread among the GOP's core voters —and those voters think Trump is one of them. At the very least, foes of abortion and IVF are reasonably convinced that Trump will sign any restrictions sent his way by a Republican Congress.
What's more, despite the former president's more moderate claims as of late, few in his party have lent those claims their support.
Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., speaking on a recent press call hosted by the Harris-Walz campaign, said that Democrats want to work with Republicans to protect IVF. On Sept. 17, however, all nine Republican senators running for reelection voted against the Right to IVF Act, which would create a federal, statutory right to fertility treatment. Vance did not show up (a spokesperson said he was busy campaigning).
"If he was on the phone last night urging people [to vote] 'yes,' then I'll take him seriously," Stabenow said. "This is just excuse after excuse after excuse because they don't believe women and their families should have their own freedom to make decisions using IVF," she concluded.
Steven Miller, a father from Wisconsin who used IVF to start a family, said that was no shock.
"It's no surprise to me that JD Vance couldn't be bothered to show up for it for today's vote. We know he voted against IVF access the last time he had a chance. Just like Donald Trump appointed an anti-IVF judge to the federal bench as president," Miller, who noted that he is a Christian, said on the press call.
"Vance loves to talk about family values and has plenty of time to degrade childless people in the press, but when it comes to real action to support families' access to IVF, he's not just missing action he's working with his Project 2025 allies to undermine our families rights to make their own health care decisions," the father of twins who are now starting kindergarten said.
Anti-choice activists and Democrats do seem to converge on one point: Trump and the GOP are anti-choice, and despite their campaign rhetoric, their actions — overturning the federal right to an abortion and failing to protect IVF — reflect their dim view of reproductive freedom.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
“He is just getting started": Another Trump presidency could totally destroy reproductive freedom
Donald Trump continues to brag about almost single-handedly demolishing Roe v. Wade, the constitutional right to an abortion that was thrown out by the Supreme Court on June, 24 2022. Two years since, Trump and his anti-abortion allies are continuing their step-by-step efforts to whittle down reproductive rights, extending their attack to in vitro fertilization (IVF), birth control pills and other vital reproductive healthcare.
“They're not going to stop at that,” Silvina Alarcón, political director at the advocacy group Reproductive Freedom For All, told Salon. “That is just the beginning.”
In the last two years, women all across America, and especially in red states, have been stripped of the power to decide what happens to their bodies. In Alabama, the state's highest court ruled that frozen embryos were literal children, raising the prospect that couples using IVF to have a child, and the medical professionals assisting them, could face criminal penalties. In Idaho, a near-total ban on abortion provides no exceptions for the life of a mother.
Related
Recent polling suggests as many as one in five voters blame President Joe Biden for the 2022 Dobbs decision, when three Trump appointees joined with the Supreme Court's other conservative justices and overturned Roe v. Wade. But Alarcón explained that Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris have in fact “done more to protect reproductive freedom than any other administration,” arguing that the contrast between the Biden and previous Trump administration couldn’t be “starker.”
There's also reason to hope for a better future. If Biden were to win another term, Alarcón said, and "we are able to flip the House, hold the Senate, have four more years of the White House, we are going to have a [Democratic] trifecta that is going to allow us to have a path to be able to codify Roe into law, into the Constitution."
There's also reason for alarm. If Trump wins, regardless of the color of the state — red, blue or purple — women and others who need access to reproductive care will suffer the consequences.
Trump has boasted of his role in rolling back reproductive freedom, saying that Republican-led states imposing abortion bans in the wake of the Dobbs decision has been “a beautiful thing to watch.” He also recently suggested he would favor state limits on birth control, comments he backtracked from following widespread criticism.
We need your help to stay independent
Democrats, for their part, have been seeking to highlight some of the dangers of another Trump presidency, seeing these broadly unpopular policies as a vulnerability for Republicans. At a press conference Friday, Democrats from the red states of Alabama, Kansas, and Idaho shared the harsh reality of the ongoing fight for reproductive freedom in the places they call home.
“MAGA Republicans following in the footsteps of Donald Trump, who has bragged repeatedly about his role in the Supreme Court’s decision have waged war on reproductive healthcare in this nation,” Alabama state Rep. Marilyn Lands said at a press conference, describing her state as "ground zero” in “Trump’s war against women and families.”
“What starts in Alabama seems to spread rapidly to other states,” Lands said. “Our maternal outcomes are the worst in this country because we could be the last state to extend Medicaid," she added, noting that Republicans who claim to support life have denied healthcare, including prenatal care, to its poorest residents.
Kansas Democratic Party Chair Jeanna Repass spoke emphatically about the state bans that, in Republican eyes, “are working the way they should.” She drew attention to Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly and her role in blocking aggressive Republican proposals to further roll back reproductive rights in the state, including a near-total ban on abortion and drugs such as mifepristone.
Idaho Democratic Party Chair Lauren Necochea likewise noted that Republicans in her state do not even want exemptions to their abortion ban that would protect mothers. She said she has discouraged her own daughters from raising a family in Idaho, noting that women there must be "airlifted" to other states if they face life-threatening complications during pregnancy.
Democrats also know that the issue of reproductive freedom is a winner for them, politically, and an albatross for many Republican politicians, who have sought to portray themselves before a national audience as more moderate than they are in real life.
Alarcón told Salon that Democrats are right to focus on the issue for moral reasons, but it could also help keep the party in the White House and help it regain complete control of Congress in November.
"We know that eight in 10 Americans are with us, including 58% of Republicans that say that we should have legal access to abortion," she said.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
House GOP lawmakers introduce bill imposing near-total ban on abortion in Kansas • Kansas Reflector
House GOP lawmakers introduce bill imposing near-total ban on abortion in Kansas
Legislation draws objections from abortion rights proponents and opponents
By: Tim Carpenter - January 11, 2024 3:05 pm
Several people took advantage of the scheduled movement of members of the Kansas Supreme Court, Kansas Court of Appeals the Kansas Legislature on Wednesday at the Capitol to share views on abortion rights. (Tim Carpenter/Kansas Reflector)
TOPEKA — Eight Kansas House Republicans introduced a bill crafted to implement a near-total ban on clinical abortions and forbid distribution of pharmaceutical drugs to end pregnancies, while also authorizing individuals to file lawsuits against doctors and others who helped someone obtain an abortion.
Concepts folded into the 59 pages of House bill 2492 were endorsed by Reps. Trevor Jacobs of Fort Scott, Brett Fairchild of St. Johns, Randy Garber of Sabetha and others — all hardline opponents of abortion. The bill introduced Wednesday on the first day of the annual session did include an exemption allowing legal abortion for the purpose of saving the life of a pregnant woman involved in a medical emergency.
A bill criminalizing abortion was introduced during the 2023 legislative session in Kansas, but it failed to gain broad traction. These types of bills have been viewed as “messaging” tools given likelihood of a veto by Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly and the 2019 abortion decision by the Kansas Supreme Court.
The state’s highest court determined the Kansas Constitution’s Bill of Rights included a fundamental right of women to make decisions about bodily autonomy that included termination of a pregnancy. The state Supreme Court’s decision was tied to the Legislature’s ban on a common second-term abortion procedure.
“Ultimately, I believe that we should provide equal protection under the law for all unborn children,” Fairchild said. “I believe that science proves that life begins at conception, and the government has a responsibility to protect that life from conception until natural death.”
In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court set aside nearly 50-years of precedent and overturned the Roe v. Wade decision that gave rise to a national right to abortion. The reversal meant states were free to set individual standards on reproductive health care. In Kansas, however, abortion would remain legal due to the Hodes v. Nauser decision by the state Supreme Court.
Voters in Kansas overwhelmingly decided in August 2022 to reject a proposed amendment to the Kansas Constitution that would have nullified the Hodes language and would have made it easier for the GOP-led Legislature to pass abortion bans or otherwise undercut abortion rights.
Amber Sellers, advocacy director of Trust Women, said only 16 months had elapsed since Kansas voters were the first in the nation to reject a ballot measure developed to restrict abortion rights. The Value Them Both amendment was “handily” defeated by more than 20 percentage points, she said.
“Kansans spoke — loudly — on the issue,” Sellers said. “No more abortion bans. No more government barriers between pregnant people and their health care providers. No more time and resources wasted on go-nowhere bills when there are real and serious problems that our government must address for the health and safety of all of our Kansas communities.”
“It’s time for anti-abortion lawmakers to wake up, remember and finally listen to the message that voters continue to send,” she said.
Mackenzie Haddix, deputy communications director of Kansans for Life, said the new House bill had no chance of surviving in the 2024 legislative session.
“Kansans for Life is focused on what the abortion industry does not do: Showing authentic care and compassion for women facing unexpected pregnancies,” Haddix said. “Now, more than ever, is the time to focus on policies that actually save lives instead of proposals that have zero chance of becoming law and will never save a single life due to the Kansas Supreme Court’s extreme 2019 Hodes ruling.”
The bill was introduced on the same day Kansans for Life released its legislative agenda that excluded support for a potentially unconstitutional limit on abortion. The state’s largest organization said it would campaign for state statutes requiring child support to start at conception, protecting women from “coerced” abortions, safeguarding health of women with the “ultrasound safety act” and enacting “life-affirming” tax changes.
“It is clear far too many women are being pushed to believe abortion is their only choice. Our legislative agenda seeks to provide compassionate help for any woman in need,” Haddix said.
Under the House bill, Kansas would make it unlawful for a person to knowingly attempt or perform an abortion “except when necessary to preserve the life of a pregnant woman in a medical emergency.” The state constitutional amendment rejected by Kansas voters by a 60-40 margin didn’t include such an exemption.
The new bill would make it illegal for a person in Kansas to prescribe, distribute, sell or donate mifepristone, mifegyne, mifeperex or any other similar generic abortion drug.
Civil enforcement lawsuits could be filed against people who assisted women with an abortion prohibited by Kansas law, but the woman receiving the abortion wouldn’t face liability. Physicians and others found to have broken the law would face a minimum $10,000 penalty for each abortion performed in Kansas. The House legislation would establish a six-year statute of limitations.
The bill said a medical professional would carry the burden to proof that a reasonable investigation was conducted to determine the abortion necessary to preserve the life of a woman in “imminent harm arising from the pregnancy by a physical disorder, illness or injury.”
In addition, a person named in an abortion lawsuit wouldn’t be able to rely on arguments the woman consented to the procedure or that state law limiting abortion was unconstitutional, the bill said.
The number of abortions performed in Kansas has risen as surrounding states adopted bans or substantive limitations on reproductive health care. In 2022, Kansas set a record with 8,475 abortions for women or girls residing outside the state. It was more than twice the 3,912 abortions provided out-of-state clients in 2021.
The Kansas Department of Health and Environment reported a total of 12,318 abortions during 2022. That represented a surge from 7,849 abortions in 2021, KDHE said.
Why I Drive Out of State for Prenatal Care
An abortion ban in my home state of South Dakota is likely to leave doctors unable to treat me should I experience a severe complication.
I’m driving down I-90 on a beautiful, cloud-free day, desperately looking for the Highway 34 exit that will take me north to Pipestone, Minnesota. Somehow, I managed to successfully drop off my two sons, 10 and 5, at their respective schools on time—a miracle by any supernatural standard—but that accomplishment feels shallow now that I will no doubt be late to my ob-gyn appointment. Again.
As I anxiously eye the clock on my dashboard and silently will the driver in front of me to step on the gas, I find myself sinking further into something resembling a rage-induced depression. It shouldn’t be this way, I tell myself.
I should be driving a carefree 15 minutes from my sons’ schools to Sioux Falls, South Dakota, in order to receive standard, necessary prenatal care. I should be scheduling ob-gyn appointments with a team of qualified physicians located in my home state. I should be cared for by members of my own community, closer to my house where I work and my children play and I feel the most safe.
But as a 37-year-old woman with a high-risk pregnancy and a history of devastating pregnancy-related complications, I do not feel safe seeking care in South Dakota, a state with a near-total abortion ban. So I drive nearly an hour away to nearby Minnesota every two weeks (soon to be once a week), where abortion access is legal.
On June 24, 2022, immediately after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade, South Dakota banned all abortions, with a very narrow exception when “there is appropriate and reasonable medical judgment that performance of an abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant female.” It is a Class 6 felony to administer, prescribe, or procure an abortion in the state illegally.
Like the 21 other states that ban or severely restrict abortion in a post-Roe world, South Dakota physicians are now left confused by vague abortion exception language, leaving many too afraid to treat pregnant patients facing severe complications, including hemorrhages, miscarriages, and ectopic pregnancies.
As Erica Schipper. Sioux Falls physician and former chair of the South Dakota chapter of American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, told the local paper South Dakota Searchlight, “It’s impossible to itemize every situation where ending a pregnancy might be necessary to protect the health of the mother, and we shouldn’t have to demonstrate evidence of imminent death to care for these patients without fear of a felony charge.”
But that’s exactly what is happening, and it is proving to be a deadly calculus. Studies have found that abortion bans are linked to increased mortality rates and have resulted in increased morbidity as well as long-term health effects, like “loss of fertility, chronic pelvic pain due to infection or surgery, heart attack, stroke, uncontrolled hypertension as well as effects on mental health.”
So far, two women—28-year-old Amber Nicole Thurman and 41-year-old Cindi Miller—have died as a direct result of Georgia’s abortion ban. Miller was too afraid to visit a doctor after she experienced an incomplete abortion—a rare complication—“due to the current legislation on pregnancies and abortions,” according to her surviving family.
Thurman was denied care after she experienced the same complication—she waited 20 hours in a hospital bed before doctors were willing to conduct a routine procedure to clear the remains of a terminated pregnancy in her uterus. “By then it was too late,” ProPublica reports.
Repro Nation
If abortion is banned nationwide—a policy floated and endorsed by many Republican legislators, including the Republican nominee for president—researchers believe maternal deaths would rise by at least 24 percent among white women and 39 percent among Black women.
These are the concerns that overwhelm my mind whenever my stomach tightens and I try to calmly breathe through another Braxton-Hicks contraction. It’s why I have an “oh-shit plan”—the carefully detailed steps my family members will be forced to take should I go into early labor or start bleeding or experience some other impossible-to-foresee pregnancy complication.
My cousin—an hour and a half away—will take my children, probably from her mother- and father-in-law who, thankfully, only live five minutes away. If I can, I will drive to Minnesota myself—how hard is it to wash blood out of a driver’s seat? I often wonder—and if I can’t, my brother or (maybe if he’s home from his travel job) my husband or perhaps my cousin’s brother-in-law will drive me across state lines.
This intricate web of family support is now part of my “birth plan.”
When I’m driving a two-hour round trip to make an hour- or two-long ob-gyn appointment in the middle of a work day while my children are at school, I think of all the women who do not have the same burdensome and potentially life-saving option.
Women like Amanda Zurawski, Jaci Statton, Kaitlyn Joshua, and the untold number of pregnant people who were and are at the mercy of their home state’s cruel abortion restrictions. Women like Amari Marsh, Brittany Watts, and the 210 women who had their pregnancy outcomes criminalized in the first year after Roe was overturned.
An estimated 25 million women now live in a state without access to abortion services, many of whom cannot carry the financial, logistical, or emotional burden of traveling out of state for adequate medical care. Nor should they have to.
I don’t know how much money I have spent on gas, or how many hours I have wasted ensuring that my health insurance covers out-of-state medical costs. I can’t decipher what percentage of the decline of my mental health is just a history of perinatal and postpartum depression rearing its ugly head and what is a direct result of feeling inherently unsafe in a state helmed by legislators who claim to “value all life”… just not my own.
I don’t know if my body will let me down as it has before, and fail to carry my very wanted pregnancy safely to term so that I can give birth in a hospital I have never visited in a state I do not call home. But I do know that I am incredibly lucky to live so close to the Minnesota border. I know that I am privileged to be able to afford to travel out of state and to have insurance and a doctor relatively nearby who will help me, no matter the circumstance.
I also know that I am one severe pregnancy complication away from landing in a South Dakota emergency room where a doctor is too afraid to help me because of state politicians and their cruel anti-abortion policies. I know my joyfully oblivious sons, who cannot wait to meet their future sibling, are unaware that the legislators in charge of their home state believe it’s “pro-life” to allow their mother to die.
I know that there is hope—that Dakotans for Health, a group of grassroots organizers, are fighting for South Dakota Ballot Measure G, which would codify the right to an abortion in the state’s Constitution. I know that even though Measure G will come too late for me, it could help prevent the next pregnant person from traveling out of state for care.
And I know that just like today, I’ll probably be 30 minutes late to my next ob-gyn appointment, too.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
How quickly would abortion return to Missouri if voters approve amendment in November?
Reality Check is a Star series holding those with power to account and shining a light on their decisions. Have a suggestion for a future story? Email our journalists at RealityCheck@kcstar.com.
Millions of dollars have poured into a campaign to overturn Missouri’s near-total abortion ban, energizing voters across the state. Polling has suggested the constitutional amendment currently has enough support to pass in November
But, if the measure does pass on Nov. 5, what happens in the days, weeks and months after the vote? For all of the excitement, the actual process and timeline of restoring abortion access remains incredibly murky.
Even before it banned nearly all abortions in 2022, Missouri had for decades enacted restrictions on providers that whittled down access to just one clinic by 2019. Those laws, as well as the abortion ban itself, would likely have to be struck down in court if the amendment, called Amendment 3, passes.
“I do think it will be frustrating to Missourians that they don’t have restored rights the day after the vote,” said Emily Wales, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Plains Votes. “We’ll be working to make clear to the court that the people of Missouri want to have this right restored. They want to have care available again and the courts have to move quickly.”
At the same time, providers would be returning to a Republican-controlled state that has been unabashedly hostile to abortion. Some Republican lawmakers are already floating the idea of filing a measure that would ask voters to strike down the amendment in 2026 if it passes in November.
“We will do everything to protect the innocent life in the womb if Amendment 3 happens to pass,” said Rep. Brian Seitz, a Branson Republican.
Interviews with constitutional experts, lawmakers and abortion rights supporters and opponents emphasized the fact that abortion access will not return to Missouri overnight if the amendment passes. But it would offer a pathway to tear down the ban and years of restrictions, allowing providers to eventually offer the procedure again.
“These would be the strongest protections for private medical decisions related to abortion that we’ve ever had,” said Wales.
The amendment, which would take effect 30 days after the vote, would almost certainly kick off a series of legal battles that will decide how soon those protections will actually allow abortion access.
Similar courtroom fights are playing out across the country in states that have voted to expand abortion access such as Ohio and Michigan. But Missouri would be the first state, or among the first, to overturn a near-total ban — a law that abortion rights supporters will immediately move to strike down after the vote.
A cluster of TRAP laws, or “targeted regulation of abortion providers,” will also be a major hurdle to getting clinics to reopen in the state. Those restrictions include a requirement that women wait 72 hours between seeing a doctor and having an abortion and another that requires doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital no more than 15 minutes away.
The years-long patchwork of regulations effectively caused the number of abortions in Missouri to drop from 6,163 in 2010 to 150 in 2021 before the ban was enacted.
Pamela Merritt, a longtime abortion rights activist originally from Missouri now heads Medical Students for Choice, an international group that trains students about reproductive health care. A self-described pessimist, Merritt cautioned that it could be years before clinics reopen in the state.
Missouri, she predicted, could have “abortion in name only” for years.
“What I predict is that we’re likely going to get certain TRAPs struck down, but not enough TRAP to allow…for Planned Parenthood on either side (of the state) to open up a new clinic,” she said. “And that’s not going to be permanent, but that’ll probably be the pattern for five to 10 years.”
Wales, in response, said she understood where Merritt was coming from but that her prediction was not accurate. She pointed to the significant momentum behind the campaign to overturn the ban, saying that the effort has to start somewhere.
“It will be frustrating that every single day, care is not restored,” she said. “Missourians’ lives are at risk, but we will be telling that to the courts who have to make these decisions, and we will do everything we can to restore access as quickly as possible.”
A spokesperson for Planned Parenthood Great Rivers, which offers abortion access on the Illinois side of Missouri, also emphasized the urgency of striking down the ban, saying “no one should have to go without care or cross state lines to get it.”
“After Missouri voters pass this ballot measure, we’ll work swiftly to ensure patients can come to our health centers for the broad range of reproductive care, including safe, legal abortion,” spokesperson Nick Dunne said in a statement.
Striking down restrictions
Planned Parenthood Great Plains stopped providing abortions at its Kansas City, Missouri clinic in 2018 amid the web of restrictions passed by state lawmakers.
“It was years of working to comply with the latest nonsensical, medically unnecessary restriction, and then a new thing would be passed, and you’d be trying to comply with that,” said Wales.
If voters approve the amendment in November, supporters will file lawsuits to have those restrictions and the 2022 ban struck down in court for providers to be able to offer abortions.
The effects of the measure were the focus of a lawsuit from abortion opponents who argued the amendment did not sufficiently describe what laws it would repeal. The Missouri Supreme Court rejected that argument and in a 4-3 decision ruled the amendment could stay on the ballot.
The amendment would prohibit lawmakers from banning abortion until fetal viability, defined in the measure as the point in pregnancy when there’s a significant chance the fetus can survive outside the womb without extraordinary medical measures.
A key passage in the amendment that could allow for courts to strike down Missouri’s restrictions states that “the right to reproductive freedom shall not be denied, interfered with, delayed or otherwise restricted unless the government demonstrates that such action is justified by a compelling governmental interest achieved by the least restrictive means.”
The language in the ballot measure gives abortion rights supporters “real firepower” to remove the restrictions on providers and puts the burden on state officials to provide a reason for the restrictions, said Mary Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California-Davis.
But the complicating factor is that the state Supreme Court will ultimately have the final say over whether they get struck down, she said.
The first immediate impact of the amendment could center on reproductive care in emergency departments, in which some doctors fear legal consequences for providing care to people in cases such as miscarriages, said Nicole Huberfeld, a law professor and co-director of the Boston University Program on Reproductive Justice.
“Hopefully those go first so that people are no longer dying from abortion bans,” Huberfeld said. But it will be harder for providers to ramp up access to abortion because that involves restarting access to clinics, Huberfeld said.
Betsy Wickstrom, an OB-GYN from Kansas City, emphasized the impact of the ban on emergency situations. She said she’s most concerned about delays in treating ectopic pregnancies, a life-threatening situation in which a pregnancy develops outside of a person’s uterus.
“You can schedule surgery for an ectopic pregnancy in the OR but you have to have clearance from the legal and ethical people to do that because there’s a flicker of what will be a heart,” she said. “Meanwhile, delaying any ectopic pregnancy treatment is asking for disaster.”
Will GOP fight amendment?
The amendment allows but does not require, lawmakers to restrict abortion after viability and the GOP-controlled legislature would almost certainly pass a ban on abortions late in pregnancy.
Any post-viability ban would be required to allow at least three exceptions – for the life, physical and mental health of the woman.
Seitz, the Branson Republican, said that he plans to file a bill next legislative session that would define a fetus as a human upon conception. Seitz, who filed a similar bill last session, claimed that the legislation would “pass court muster,” because it does not specifically mention abortion.
Anti-abortion activists and state lawmakers are also previewing another potential strategy if the amendment passes: a competing ballot measure in 2026.
Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, an Arnold Republican, Sam Lee, an anti-abortion lobbyist in Jefferson City, and Seitz each said that they expect lawmakers to pass legislation to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to strike down Amendment 3 if it passes.
“That’s certainly going to be a priority of mine,” said Coleman, who did not offer specifics about what the measure would say.
Missouri voters will also decide on Nov. 5 who will become the state’s next governor, a decision that could have significant consequences for access to abortion. Whoever wins will influence how quickly — or slowly — access is restored in the state, including administrative decisions such as approving licenses for abortion providers.
The two major candidates — Republican Lt. Gov. Mike Kehoe and Democratic House Minority Leader Crystal Quade — offer starkly different positions on abortion. Kehoe opposes it while Quade supports the right to choose to end a pregnancy.
Kehoe, in a recent radio interview, promised to work with lawmakers to “protect innocent life” if the amendment passed.
“I will do everything I can to work with legislators and other folks around the state to find ways to make sure we continue to do that in some form or fashion,” Kehoe said. His campaign did not respond to questions for this story.
Quade emphasized that it was critical for voters to elect a governor who would respect the amendment if it’s approved.
“As governor, I’ll work with medical providers to ensure they have what they need to return to the state,” Quade said in a statement. “I’ll always veto legislation that attempts to overturn the will of voters and work to overturn existing laws that make it difficult for people to access care, like laws around waiting periods or hallway size.”
Quade also attacked Kehoe’s stance on abortion, saying Kehoe “won’t listen to voters and will work with lawmakers in Jefferson City to do everything they can to find ways to keep women in Missouri from accessing the healthcare they need.”
Access to abortion is poised to be one of the most consequential issues facing Missourians as the November election inches closer. The abortion rights amendment will be centered in TV ads, on campaign fliers and in political debates.
But the immediate results of that vote — and the timeline of restoring access to the state — are less clear.
Wales, with Planned Parenthood, said the coalition of abortion rights supporters would move quickly to restore access. Providers, she said, have heard numerous stories of people denied care due to the abortion ban.
“As soon as we can end those stories in Missouri, we’re going to do it,” she said.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Why a conservative Texas mayor defied his peers and put the brakes on an abortion “travel ban”
Amarillo Mayor Cole Stanley calls himself “pro-life.” But the proposal to police the streets for women traveling out of state to get an abortion is overreach, he said.
:quality(75)/https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/551770e5087d426b5954911eecaa4168/0528%20Abortion%20Update%20MR%2010%20TT.jpg)
Subscribe to The Y’all — a weekly dispatch about the people, places and policies defining Texas, produced by Texas Tribune journalists living in communities across the state.
AMARILLO — Mayor Cole Stanley was congratulating wrestler Tino Valentino for winning the inaugural Route 66 championship in front of the crowd at the Texas Route 66 Festival in Amarillo when Angel Camacho, “the Puerto Rican Juggernaut” charged the stage.
Valentino had just beaten Camacho, but the juggernaut was not ready to admit defeat.
After a round of trash-talking, Camacho struck Valentino from behind. While two cowboys pushed Camacho to the back of the stage, Mayor Stanley bent over to check on his city’s prized wrestler.
A woman screamed for Stanley to look out.
The loud thud from a steel chair clashing against Stanley’s back rang through the venue. Stanley crumpled on the stage in front of everyone.
It’s entirely possible that there was an Amarillo resident or two in the crowd who quietly rejoiced to see Stanley topple over. In his brief tenure as mayor of the Panhandle capital, Stanley has managed to upset and surprise a whole range of constituents. Most notably, Stanley has been at the center of the citywide debate over a proposed abortion “travel ban” that would prohibit the use of streets and highways in Amarillo to obtain an abortion in a state where the procedure is legal.
:quality(70)/https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/d96bde4d267d04dbccdbd2ce69791383/0925%20Amarillo%20Mayor%2002.jpg)
Proponents of the ordinance expected Stanley, a Republican, along with the rest of the council to rubber stamp the proposal like so many other city leaders across Texas did. Opponents don’t think he’s done enough to squash the matter, which will be up for a citywide vote in November.
Back at the festival, Stanley, who is in athletic shape from his years working at construction sites before getting into politics, got back on his feet. He would go on to referee a rematch between Valentino and Camacho, much like he has refereed the debate over the anti-abortion ordinance.
sent weekday mornings.
Stanley, 46, said he believes legislating anything related to abortion is above his grade.
“That’s just not my job,” he said in an interview with The Texas Tribune.
:quality(75)/https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/3216201613648b6b8637885f18922cd1/0528%20Covid%20Amarillo%20MS%2001.jpg)
After pause, this Texas city is set to reconsider banning travel to access an abortion
Texas lawmakers have already made abortion illegal in almost all instances. Various reports suggest more than 35,000 women have left the state to get an abortion, a fact that fuels the anti-abortion activists who pushed the ordinances in many rural towns and counties last year.
Amarillo, a city of 202,000 people, is a gateway to New Mexico and Colorado, two of the nearest states that allow abortion and have seen an influx of Texas women at their clinics. The city’s proximity made it a key target for the grassroots anti-abortion movement, which began focusing on these bans and other ways to limit abortion access in 2023, just as Stanley was elected mayor.
“I don’t think that was the kind of decision he thought he would be making when he was running for mayor,” said Harper Metcalf, co-founder of the Amarillo Reproductive Freedom Alliance.
Stanley — a conservative leader who ran on faith, family and freedom — rejected the ordinance after proponents signaled they were unwilling to compromise. Stanley was prepared to adopt a local policy that mirrored state law and defined Amarillo as a “sanctuary city” for the unborn but did not include the travel provisions.
:quality(75)/https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/23c5eda00e211ebda7bb6ce93c053cdd/Cactus%20Texas%20MG%20TT%2005.jpg)
As a Texas city debates an abortion travel ban, maternal care is scarce in nearby rural counties
Residents were surprised. For his part, Stanley handled the issue the same way he has many other issues that have crossed his desk. He keeps his even-tempered demeanor during meetings. He routinely checks if anyone else wants to address the council in public comment sessions — regardless of if it’s late in the evening and they didn’t sign up. Through this, the council has heard from women’s rights advocates, anti-abortion activists, doctors, lawyers, and every concerned citizen in between.
Stanley acknowledges that some voters might believe he’s abandoned his conservative values. He insists he hasn’t — a mayor has to think about the entire city, not just his own policy preferences.
“This has been a good test of if I can stay true to myself, and care more about others than I do myself,” Stanley said. “So far so good, but I’ve taken a few friendly arrows in the back along the way.”
An early test
One of those arrows struck Stanley before he was even elected, in a test that had the public wondering about his allegiance long before the abortion ordinance.
Stanley was accused of violating city council member policies for receiving a $40,000 donation to his campaign from Alex Fairly, a local businessman who Texas conservatives have tried to court as a new megadonor.
Fairly won a lawsuit against Amarillo after the council voted to use $260 million in tax and revenue notes for a project voters previously rejected. The city was also ordered to pay Fairly’s attorney fees, and the city appealed the ruling. On the campaign trail, Stanley said he would drop the appeal if he was elected.
The donation came in a few days later. Stanley defended himself at a testy council meeting, saying dropping it was the right thing to do and the donation was going to be on his next finance report. He went on to win the mayoral race with 75% of just over 21,000 votes two weeks later.
It was one of the first lessons Stanley said prepared him for the criticism he would face as the mayor. And it was an ironic one, given how Stanley did not have political aspirations or a desire to sit in an office or long meetings. In fact, he started a construction business to avoid it.
:quality(70)/https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/1fe77c66bd5a9a03c81dd9a9d451f4d0/0925%20Amarillo%20Mayor%2001%20TT.jpg)
“I never wanted to do the same thing eight hours every day,” Stanley said.
In the late 2010s, Stanley began to observe what he called a shift in building rules. They became less about safety and more about compliance with energy efficiency standards. A self-proclaimed complainer, Stanley let his opinions be known.
Someone suggested he run for office. Stanley won his first at-large council seat representing Amarillo in 2021, then ran for mayor in 2023.
“I really didn’t ever want to be the mayor,” Stanley said. “Even when I was running, I didn’t think this is what I should do. But if you’re going to complain, you should be willing to help.”
Since he was elected, there have been times when donors and non-donors alike have had issues with certain stances he’s taken. His job isn’t to care about the optics, he said, but to think of all of Amarillo’s residents — whether they share the same views as him, or contributed to his campaign.
“I don’t know why anyone would come down here and take all the insults, get themselves into all the arguments if you’re just working for somebody else,” Stanley said. “Shoot, it don’t pay enough.”
He admits the criticism is more than he expected. For the most part, however, Stanley says he can take it and learn from it, especially when it stems from a decision that was his doing. For instance, the council passed an ordinance last year that would subject massage parlors to surprise inspections — an effort to crack down on human trafficking.
It was a quick decision without much public input — a different approach than the careful one Stanley typically takes. Stanley said it resulted in a Sunday afternoon meeting with angry massage therapists. They later repealed the policy. Stanley said it was good intentions but bad execution.
“I can say that’s my fault, I did this to myself,” Stanley said.
"Jurisdictional overreach"
After months of debate and a resident petition, Stanley and the Amarillo City Council approved ballot language allowing voters to have the final say on the abortion “travel ban” — a rare instance for Texas voters to weigh in on one of the most impassioned issues in American politics.
Then, another issue came up. The Amarillo Economic Development Corporation, a private nonprofit separate from the city, was accused of misappropriating $750,000 in an unauthorized payment to The Range, Amarillo’s global food hub. The check was $650,000 more than originally authorized.
The city acts as a bank to the nonprofit. And the council also approves its budget. The nonprofit’s leaders said they are allowed to move money within line items as long as they stay in the budget.
The council is reviewing the transaction, and for the most part, Stanley has handled it the same public, methodical way he does. At a press conference in mid-September, Stanley said the payment did not involve criminal activity but did breach procurement guidelines.
“Our responsibility is to ensure that all financial transactions comply with legal and procedural standards,” Stanley said.
Stanley tries to work at his actual job a few times a week, but being the mayor can be a full-time, unpaid job on its own, given the gravity of the role.
He’s spent even more time at City Hall since the anti-abortion ordinance was introduced. The council has been inundated with emails, calls and letters from both sides. Council duties feel heavier than a typical 40 hours at his job, he said.
“On construction sites, I don’t have a nine-hour meeting where I’m engaged with different sides trying to get the upper hand in a debate,” Stanley said.
There’s been no shortage of influential people weighing in from outside the city limits too.
Twenty state lawmakers voiced early support for it through a letter, and other municipal leaders have written letters to the council too. Meanwhile, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services this month to try to block a federal rule that protects the medical records of women from criminal investigation if she has an abortion in a state where it’s legal.
National women’s groups, including the Women’s March, have come out against it. And U.S. Senate candidate Colin Allred, a Dallas Democrat in Congress, stumped against it with the Amarillo Reproductive Freedom Alliance.
:quality(70)/https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/14a3070909d6590de8c7103abc7e2dc7/0618%20Maternity%20Nurses%20DR%2053.jpg)
From the beginning of the debate, Stanley has been openly conflicted. He has said he personally opposes abortions and calls himself “pro-life.” However, he has been especially critical over the role the City Council should play. He believes in small government, and says this ordinance goes against that principle.
“It’s as big government as they come, in terms of jurisdictional overreach,” Stanley said.
Steve Austin, a spokesperson for the Sanctuary City for the Unborn Initiating Committee, said they’ve had a frustrating and disappointing experience working with Stanley and the council, aside from member Don Tipps. Tipps wanted the council to support the ordinance.
“We love Mayor Cole Stanley and the rest of the City Council, but they just really let us down,” Austin said in an emailed statement to the Tribune.
So much more than expected
The so-called travel ban, which originally flipped the city upside down a year ago, is now weeks away from being decided by voters. Even after rejecting it, the council has still discussed the ordinance. The only difference is now, they’ve had to work out how to fit an 18-page ordinance on an election ballot so voters can be informed.
Metcalf, with the Amarillo Reproductive Freedom Alliance, said it would be better if the city wasn’t spending time, money and energy on the ballot proposition. However, she does think putting it on the ballot was the best the council, and Stanley, could do.
“He was put in a position where he had a difficult choice to make,” Metcalf said.
Austin, with the sanctuary city committee, said they don’t understand why the council rejected it. He suggested a campaign by local and national organizations may have played a role. Regardless, he says their mission is no longer to convince the mayor or the council, but to inform Amarillo voters.
Looking back on the first year of his term, Stanley says it was so much more than he expected. He’s proud of how their leadership handled the sanctuary city debate, despite their inexperience as a council.
“We held long meetings with two sides that couldn’t get along at Jimmy John’s in the same lunch line for five minutes,” Stanley said. “Yet, they were able to come in here and respect each other.”
As November comes closer, Stanley is focused on being a leader for the city. He declined to share how he will vote on the proposition as a resident, so as not to sway the vote one way or the other.
Voting FAQ: 2024 Elections
When is the next election? What dates do I need to know?
Election Day for the general election is November 5, and early voting will run from Oct. 21 to Nov. 1. The deadline to register to vote and/or change your voter registration address is Oct. 7. Applications to vote by mail must be received by your county of residence – not postmarked – by Oct. 25.
What’s on the ballot for the general election?
In addition to the president, eligible Texans have the opportunity to cast their ballots for many Texas officials running for office at the federal, state and local levels.
This includes representatives in the U.S. and Texas houses and the following elected offices: -1 U.S Senator (Ted Cruz) - 1 of 3 Railroad Commissioners - 15 State Senators - 7 State Board of Education members - 3 members of the Texas Supreme Court - 3 members of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals - 5 Chief Justices and various justices for Texas Courts of Appeals
- Lower-level judges and local county offices will also appear on the ballot: - Various district judges, including on criminal and family courts - County Courts at Law - Justices of the Peace - District Attorneys - County Attorneys - Sheriffs - Constables - Tax Assessor-CollectorsHow do I make sure I’m registered to vote?
You can check to see if you’re registered and verify your information through the Texas Secretary of State’s website. You’ll need one of the following three combinations to log in: Your Texas driver’s license number and date of birth. Your first and last names, date of birth and county you reside in. Your date of birth and Voter Unique Identifier, which appears on your voter registration certificate.
How do I register to vote if I haven’t?
You can request a postage-paid application through the mail or find one at county voter registrars’ offices and some post offices, government offices, or high schools. You can also print out the online application and mail it to the voter registrar in your county.
Applications must be postmarked by the Oct. 7 deadline. Download your application here.
Additionally, you can register to vote through the Texas Department of Public Safety while renewing your driver’s license. You may be able to register to vote online if you’re also allowed to renew your license online. This is the only form of online registration in the state.
After you register to vote, you will receive a voter registration certificate within 30 days. It’ll contain your voter information, including the Voter Unique Identifier number needed to update your voter registration online. If the certificate has incorrect information, you’ll need to note corrections and send it to your local voter registrar as soon as possible.
The voter registration certificate can also be used as a secondary form of ID when you vote if you don’t have one of the seven state-approved photo IDs
No comments:
Post a Comment