Abortion

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      First Kansas, Next Michigan and Beyond as Abortion Ballot Measures Spread

      by

      The inclusion of an abortion-rights referendum on Michigan’s November ballot has given Democrats hope for a wave of enthusiastic voter turnout on Election Day as the movement to allow voters to decide the issue directly sweeps outward from the first state that did so, Kansas.Democrats in Michigan say the referendum will supercharge activism among a broad swath of voters determined to keep abortion legal in the state, just as another referendum did in August, when 59 percent of voters in reliably Republican Kansas voted to maintain abortion access in the state. That could help Democrats up and down the ballot, including Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Attorney General Dana Nessel, lawmakers in at least three closely watched House races and Democrats hoping to grab control of the State Legislature.“The country stood up and listened when Kansas had its vote,” said Representative Elissa Slotkin, who is locked in a difficult re-election campaign in Central Michigan. “Those who were ready got it on the ballot for 2022. We’re going to see a lot more in 2024.”Beyond Michigan, the measure provides a test run for a political strategy gradually taking hold in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade. With little time to gather signatures, just four other states will vote on abortion referendums in November: Montana and Kentucky on Republican measures to restrict abortion, and California and Vermont on cementing abortion access. But many abortion rights advocates already are looking past November to 2024, considering possible ballot measures in Missouri, Oklahoma, Iowa and, money and political muscle permitted, the presidential battlegrounds of Florida and Arizona.Such measures would be designed to secure policy changes in states where Republican legislatures are in opposition. But they also could have political ramifications not seen since Republicans successfully used ballot initiatives on gay marriage to energize Christian conservatives during President George W. Bush’s re-election run in 2004.Republicans may also revive that playbook, particularly in battlegrounds with active anti-abortion groups. But, for now, Democrats appear most eager to push the issue amid early signs that abortion is motivating their voters.Polls show that a majority of Americans overall — and a slightly larger share of women — disapprove of the court’s decision. A Pew Research poll in July found that 57 percent of adults disapproved of the decision, 43 percent of them strongly. A Marquette Law School poll later that month found that approval ratings for the Supreme Court itself were on a steep downward slide, to 38 percent from 44 percent in May.In the month after the decision, 55 percent of newly registered voters in 10 states analyzed by The Times were women, up from just under 50 percent before the decision was leaked in early May. In Kansas, more than 70 percent of newly registered voters were women.Democrats have performed well in a string of special House elections since federal constitutional protection of abortion ended, including Democratic victories in Alaska and the Hudson Valley in New York.Abortion opponents outside a Michigan Board of Canvassers hearing in Lansing in August. The anti-abortion side says its voters are energized as well.Carlos Osorio/Associated PressAbortion opponents in Michigan say the state Supreme Court’s ruling on Thursday allowing the abortion rights amendment has energized their side as well. A coalition of 20 anti-abortion, social conservative and other groups calling itself Citizens to Support MI Women and Children had mobilized to block the referendum. Now, it is planning digital and television advertising, mailers and canvassing operations to paint the amendment as an “extreme” provision that would allow abortion throughout pregnancy.The abortion amendment on the ballot does not include language limiting or regulating abortion, but it does invite the State Legislature to impose restrictions in line with Supreme Court precedents before the decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. The amendment would allow the state “to prohibit abortion after fetal viability unless needed to protect a patient’s life or physical or mental health.”The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsWith the primaries winding down, both parties are starting to shift their focus to the general election on Nov. 8.Abrams’s Struggles: Stacey Abrams has been trailing her Republican rival, Gov. Brian Kemp, alarming those who celebrated her as the master strategist behind Georgia’s Democratic shift.Battleground Pennsylvania: Few states feature as many high-stakes, competitive races as Pennsylvania, which has emerged as the nation’s center of political gravity.The Dobbs Decision’s Effect: Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the number of women signing up to vote has surged in some states and the once-clear signs of a Republican advantage are hard to see.How a G.O.P. Haul Vanished: Last year, the campaign arm of Senate Republicans was smashing fund-raising records. Now, most of the money is gone.Christen Pollo, a spokeswoman for the coalition, conceded that the number of signatures secured to put the measure on the ballot — more than 750,000 — was impressive. But she said she did not believe that support would hold after her organization ramps up its efforts.“They may have received a record number of signatures, but I do not believe a record number of voters understand this proposal,” she said, adding that her side “has had thousands of people pouring out to get involved.”But in swing districts, Democrats are seeing something else.“The choice issue is deeply, deeply impacting the district,” said Hillary Scholten, a Democrat trying to capture a House seat around Grand Rapids. “Doctors and nurses are terrified. Women are terrified.”In one sign of momentum behind abortion-rights supporters, Tudor Dixon, the Republican challenging Ms. Whitmer for the governorship, has been trying to soften her hard-line stance against abortion. After the state Supreme Court’s decision certifying the ballot measure, Ms. Dixon wrote in a tweet, “And just like that you can vote for Gretchen Whitmer’s abortion agenda & still vote against her.”In an interview with The New York Times, Ms. Dixon said she intended to campaign on issues she hears about on the trail, such as education and crime, not abortion.“I’m going to vote no on it, but it’s up to the people,” she said, adding that if the referendum passes, she would not fight it as governor.“I’m running to be the chief executive of the state, and what that means is that I will enforce the laws that are on the books. And if this is what the people choose, then that’s my role,” Ms. Dixon said. “If I get elected, that’s my role is to make sure that I honor their wishes.”“I’m going to vote no on it, but it’s up to the people,” said Tudor Dixon, the Republican candidate for governor of Michigan, of the abortion-rights referendum.Emily Elconin for The New York TimesMichigan law on abortion is a subject of dispute. The state has had a ban on the procedure on the books since 1931. Since Roe was struck down, the courts have blocked enforcement of that state ban and abortions have continued, along with court cases.Darci McConnell, a spokeswoman for Reproductive Freedom for All, the coalition that secured the Michigan referendum, said that abortion opponents would almost certainly be well funded. The state is known for big-spending conservative donors such as the DeVos family. But the group already has offices in 10 cities, has begun visiting and calling voters, and has put up digital advertising just weeks before absentee ballots go out.“It’s a mad dash, but we’re prepared to do the work,” she said.While Democrats see ballot measures and referendums as a way to work around Republican-led legislatures, Republicans across the country have sought to limit citizen-lead ballot initiatives, a century-old facet of American democracy. Republicans in several states have sought to make it harder to put initiatives on the ballot by increasing the number of signatures required, limiting funding for initiatives and restricting the signature-gathering process.In South Dakota, for example, Republicans passed a law last year requiring a minimum font size of 14 points on ballot-initiative petitions. When combined with a requirement that all initiatives fit on a single sheet of paper, people gathering signatures are now forced to lug around bulky petitions, including some that unfold to the size of a beach towel.Liberal groups expect more legislation targeting the ballot-initiative process next year as abortion initiatives begin in multiple states.But the push from Democrats will be just as hard, especially in states with Democratic governors and Republican legislatures, or where gerrymandering has secured lopsided Republican majorities in legislatures that do not reflect the voters at large, Ms. Slotkin said.“Initiatives are profoundly important ways to make changes in states like ours where we have gridlock in the legislature, and it’s where Democrats have the advantage because of our grass roots,” she said.Mini Timmaraju, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said conversations about future ballot measures would gather steam after the fall elections, if, indeed, abortion proves to be a major driver in Democratic gains.“There is no place where we shouldn’t be fighting on this issue,” she said. “We think there’s no turf that’s off limits.” More

    • 188 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Is the Democratic Midterm Surge Overrated? Why Republicans Can Still Win the House and Senate.

      by

      Ross Douthat, a Times Opinion columnist, hosted an online conversation with Kristen Soltis Anderson, a Republican pollster, and the conservative writer and radio host Erick Erickson, to discuss whether Republicans are blowing the fall campaign — or whether a red wave is still possible.Ross Douthat: Kristen, Erick, thanks so much for joining me. Let’s start with the big picture. From early 2022 through the middle of the summer, Republicans consistently led the generic ballot for Congress, by around two and a half points. Today, the same generic ballot is either tied or gives Democrats a slight edge. Kristen, what changed?Kristen Soltis Anderson: The biggest thing that I’ve seen shift is enthusiasm on the Democratic side. During the winter and spring, Republicans had an advantage when voters were asked how motivated they were to vote. Key parts of the Democratic coalition were just not as tuned in or interested in participating.That’s a relatively normal dynamic in a midterm year, but the last two or three months have seen Democrats close that enthusiasm gap.Erick Erickson: I underappreciated how much the Dobbs decision would play a role in that.But the RealClearPolitics polling averages go back about two decades. For midterm elections where Republicans have done well, at this time of year, the polling has narrowed. Tom Bevan of RealClearPolitics had a good piece on it last week. I actually told my radio listeners that we should expect a tying of the generic ballot in August, and here it is. I would wait to really assess the direction of the race until late September.Douthat: If we assume Dobbs has boosted Democratic enthusiasm, Kristen, how heavily should we weight that effect relative to, say, falling gas prices?Anderson: The Dobbs decision was the big turning point. It has been less about changing voters’ minds from Republican to Democratic and more about activating voters who might have been tuned out and less engaged. It has also given Democrats a message to run on that changes the topic from inflation and gas prices. I still see the economy as a huge driver of this midterm, which is why I still think at this point Republicans are in an OK position. But there’s a reason Democratic candidates have been running ads about abortion.Douthat: Erick, you just said you might have underestimated the Dobbs effect. Do you think G.O.P. politicians were actually prepared to have abortion back in democratic debate?Erickson: I have been more than a bit perplexed at the G.O.P.’s surprise over the Dobbs decision, considering it leaked weeks before it was official. They had time to prepare for it and find some common ground and never seemed to get on the same page. By not being prepared, they allowed more aggressive voices on the issue to spook voters. When you have loud voices in the G.O.P. start talking about making abortion a criminal offense after Dobbs, that tends to spook people.Still, I do continue to think the economy is going to be disproportionately at play in the election. As Kristen said, more Democrats will turn out than otherwise would have pre-Dobbs, but the G.O.P. should be OK if the party focuses on the economy and inflation.Douthat: Well, unless inflation continues to diminish, right? It seems like Republicans have pushed a lot of chips onto that issue. Do you both think the G.O.P. needs a highly inflationary economy or a potential recession to win Congress this fall?Anderson: I’m certainly not rooting for a bad economy. But there is typically a link between people’s perceptions of the economy and their willingness to stick with the party in power. It is worth noting that inflation and rising gas prices were an issue where even Democrats were expressing concerns before Dobbs. Republicans rightly saw it as an issue on which their party had two key things going for them: Independents thought it was a top issue, and voters trusted Republicans more on it.Erickson: We are not going to see deflation, so reduced inflation is still inflation.Anderson: It’s also worth noting that even though the chatter in Washington seems to be that inflation is fading fast as an issue for voters, I’m not necessarily buying that that’s the case.Erickson: Yeah, as a dad who does a lot of the grocery shopping and cooking, milk and meat are still expensive, even if not as expensive as they were a few months ago, and wage increases for Americans have not offset the costs of many consumer goods.Douthat: Have Republicans focused too much on the economy at the expense of other issues that might have worked for them — crime, immigration, even education?Anderson: Crime and immigration are areas where Republicans have an advantage with voters, but those issues just haven’t been as salient with them.Erickson: Republicans have a comprehensive story to tell about the deterioration of the quality of life in America.Douthat: Let’s talk about the candidates who are trying to tell that story. Erick, you’re in Georgia, where Herschel Walker is the G.O.P. nominee for Senate and not exactly impressing on the campaign trail. Popular Republican governors in swing states passed up Senate races, presumably because they didn’t want to deal with the demands of Trumpism, and now you’ve got G.O.P. candidates trailing in the polls everywhere from Arizona to Pennsylvania to Wisconsin.How bad is the candidate problem, and can a Walker or a Dr. Oz still win?Erickson: I’ll take the last part first. The G.O.P. has managed to nominate some clunkers of candidates. But yes, Republicans can still win. This is actually why I am a bit hesitant now to embrace the national narrative of this election.Walker is a flawed candidate, but the national narrative has the race worse than it actually is. Walker has actually been ahead in some recent polls. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee chair recently mentioned races he expected to do well in, and Georgia was not on the list. On the ground in Georgia, Walker has retooled his campaign, brought in new people, and the crowds are growing as his air war likely intensifies.Oz and Blake Masters are not great. But the political environment can get some of these flawed candidates elected. Remember, in 1980, a bunch of Republicans got elected as “accidental” senators; they were swept into office by Ronald Reagan’s landslide victory and because the national mood was so dour. Also, it is worth noting that in 2020, the G.O.P. exceeded expectations, and pollsters still do not have good answers for why they missed that. We could be experiencing part of that again.Douthat: Let me pitch that point to you, Kristen: Not only Republicans but a lot of liberals are very hesitant to trust polls showing big Democratic advantages in Senate races, especially in Midwestern states, given the record Erick mentions. How doubtful should we be about polling in this cycle?Anderson: I’m far from a poll truther or unskewer or what have you. But I am keenly aware of the ways in which public polling can miss the mark. And it is notable that in some of the last few election cycles, we’ve had public polls that told a very rosy story about Democratic Senate candidates that did not pan out and lost to incumbent Republicans. Lindsey Graham and Susan Collins, anyone? I’m also thinking of 2018, where states like Indiana and Missouri were considered tossup or close races in a blue-wave year and yet Republicans won.At the same time, those 2018 examples show that it is possible for candidates to outperform expectations even in the face of a wave that is supposed to be crashing the other direction.Douthat: Do you think the polling industry has substantially adjusted since 2020? Are the polls we’re seeing of, say, Pennsylvania or Wisconsin more trustworthy than past polling, in your view?Anderson: I’ll use a recent example to highlight my concerns. In Florida we just had a big primary election, and one of the major polls that got released before the primary showed in the governor’s race, the more progressive candidate, Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried, ahead of the more centrist Democrat and former Republican, Charlie Crist. The poll was very transparent in its methodology, but the underlying data had a large number of college-educated voters. Even if you do the appropriate things with data weighting, that underlying data is skewing quite progressive. Crist actually defeated Fried by a wide margin.I don’t say this to criticize those pollsters, as they were transparent about their data, but if Democrats are extra fired up to vote right now, there’s a chance they’re also extra fired up to take polls.Douthat: But we do have a few actual results, from the abortion referendum in Kansas to the recent special election in New York, where liberal causes and Democratic candidates have done well in real voting, not just in polls.How much do you read into those kinds of election results?Anderson: The Kansas result was a wake-up call for Republicans. It showed Democrats making real strides in speaking to voters in the center about abortion using language those voters might use and tapping into values those centrist voters might hold. But I’m reluctant to say that special election results are transferable to other races in other states on other issues.Erickson: I’m doubtful we can really extrapolate Kansas to the rest of the nation.Douthat: Erick, let’s talk about Donald Trump, because the other big change from the summer is that the former president is back in the headlines. Assuming, as seems likely, that the classified-documents scandal is somewhat frozen from here till Election Day, how long a shadow does Trump cast over the midterms?Erickson: Democrats have said for some time they wanted Trump to be an aspect of their 2022 argument. He, of course, wants to be part of it as well. Republicans have been terrible about taking the bait and talking about Trump. To the extent the G.O.P. is willing to ignore their reflexive “stand by your man” impulse and instead focus on the economy, education, crime, etc., they can move past his shadow quickly.I’m just not optimistic Republicans can do that, given their prior behavior on the matter.Douthat: And Kristen, as Erick says, from the Democratic side and especially the Biden White House, there seems to be a clear desire to make the midterms about Trumpism. That didn’t work particularly well for Terry McAuliffe in the Virginia governor’s race last year. Is it a better strategy now?Anderson: In a midterm, the party out of power always wants it to be a referendum, while the party in power wants it to be a choice.The problem with Trump becoming more in the news is that it helps Democrats try to make it a choice. It gives them a prominent foil. But simply saying, “Don’t vote for candidate X because of Trump” isn’t foolproof.Douthat: If a bunch of Trump-picked candidates lose their Senate or governor races, does it weaken him for 2024 at all?Erickson: I have resigned myself to Trump’s core supporters insisting the G.O.P. establishment undermined those candidates in order to stop Trump and the only way to chart a better course is to double down on Trump. They will blame Mitch McConnell and others before Trump gets blame.Anderson: It is notable that when my firm asked Republican voters if they thought Trump was helping or hurting Republican candidates in the midterms, 61 percent said he was helping, and only 27 percent said hurting. This was from a survey we did in August.Even among Republicans who don’t think of themselves as “Trump first,” putting him before their party, a majority view him as helping. Granted, some of this may be Republican respondents circling the wagons in response to the question. But I doubt a poor showing in the midterms will lead to blaming Trump.Erickson: If Democrats really do want Trump to go away, they should just ignore him. Before the F.B.I. going to Mar-a-Lago, Republicans were doing their slow walk away from Trump. I somewhat suspect Democrats really want to keep Trump’s position in the G.O.P. elevated because independent voters just do not seem to care for the guy, and that gives Democrats an edge while making a 2024 Republican primary messy.The bigger issue for Trump is major donor support. Those people will see a need to move on. Trump will be less able to rely on larger dollar donors to build out 2024 than he did in 2020, though he won’t need them as much, since he can raise a lot from small-dollar donors. If they, however, consolidated behind someone else, it could cause problems for Trump.Douthat: OK, time to ask for predictions. Out of the competitive Senate races where G.O.P. candidates are seen as struggling or the race is just close — let’s say Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Nevada, because I think J.D. Vance will win Ohio — which ones do you think are the most likely G.O.P. wins, and which the most likely Democratic victories?Erickson: The G.O.P. takes Georgia. The Democrats take Pennsylvania and hold Arizona. The G.O.P. takes Nevada. I continue to think Ron Johnson wins his re-election in Wisconsin, too. I agree on Vance and think the national narrative there is out of sync with Ohio voters, who’ve moved more Republican.Anderson: I have the same choices as Erick: Republicans taking Georgia and Democrats taking Pennsylvania. That’s not to say I think those are rock solid, and the Pennsylvania race is just strange in general.Douthat: And if the economy worsens and the possibility of a red wave returns, what could be the most unexpected G.O.P. pickup?Anderson: I keep hearing buzz around this Washington Senate race. Republicans are very happy with their candidate there, Tiffany Smiley, who is a former triage nurse. A female candidate with a health care background could be powerful in this cycle.Erickson: I would keep my eye on the Colorado Senate race and the Oregon gubernatorial race. Also, New Hampshire remains in play, though the G.O.P. needs to settle on a candidate.Douthat: Final predictions — give me House and Senate numbers for Republicans.Erickson: I’m going with 51 in the Senate and 235 in the House.Anderson: I’ll say 230 seats in the House and 51 in the Senate. But I would also like to note that we are two months away.Douthat: Your sensible humility is duly noted, Kristen. Thanks to you both for a terrific discussion.Ross Douthat is a Times columnist. Kristen Soltis Anderson, the author of “The Selfie Vote,” is a Republican pollster and a co-founder of the polling firm Echelon Insights. Erick Erickson, the host of the “Erick Erickson Show,” writes the newsletter Confessions of a Political Junkie.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 225 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      The abortion rights movement can learn from the Aids activism of the 80s and 90s | Moira Donegan

      by

      The abortion rights movement can learn from the Aids activism of the 80s and 90sMoira DoneganAct Up employed a multiplicity of tactics and responses while maintaining a laser-focused singleness of purpose It was already chaos, and now, it was going to get worse. The US supreme court’s decision wasn’t exactly a surprise – everyone knew it was coming – but the rage in the room felt palpable. The language of the opinion had been taunting and cruel; the punishment from the court felt vindictive, personal. People were already dying for lack of access to healthcare; the ruling would push people in need even further to the margins. Now, the most vulnerable faced criminalization, harassment and even death, and for what? For the conservative Christian values that none of them had voted for? For a regressive, punitive, and cruel vision of gender and sexuality that most of the world had long since left behind?The ruling was Bowers v Hardwick, and the year was 1987. The supreme court, in a virulently homophobic opinion, had upheld a Georgia law criminalizing gay sex between consenting adults. At the time, the Aids crisis was gripping gay America. Out of bigotry and indifference, both the federal government and the pharmaceutical sector were dragging their feet. Meanwhile, thousands of people, mostly gay men and IV drug users, were dying slow, painful, premature deaths, at the margins of a society that hated them and feared their disease.The moral stakes couldn’t have been more clear: a backwards and oppressive understanding of gender was creating needless suffering and death. It wasn’t the birth of Act Up, the radical grassroots activist group that confronted the Aids crisis in America, but it was the moment when Act Up was energized into the powerful force it would become. At the group’s regular Monday night meetings at New York’s Lesbian and Gay Center, the crowd swelled with outraged queers ready to be organized.The reproductive rights movement now faces a similar moment of rage and revival. Since the Dobbs opinion reversed Roe v Wade and eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion, there has been an outpouring of pro-choice sentiment from previously unorganized or apolitical citizens. Meanwhile, an onslaught of horror stories is pouring out from conservative states: miscarrying patients going into septic shock before they can be treated; women forced to carry dead or doomed fetuses for weeks; little girls, raped and impregnated by men they thought they could trust, fleeing their states to get the abortions that will allow them to reclaim what’s left of their childhoods. This is just the beginning: there will be more of these stories, many more, and they will get worse.Like the gay community in 1987, American women are now faced with a moment of profound terror, anger, and grief whose full extent is yet to be seen. A slogan advanced in recent years by the pro-abortion group We Testify attempts to destigmatize the procedure: everyone loves someone who’s had an abortion. Soon, everyone will know someone who has needed an abortion, and struggled to get it.Moments of feminist rage aren’t uncommon in American politics, but the ability to harness women’s anger for political ends has been a trickier feat, especially in recent years. The Women’s March, which followed Donald Trump’s election, drew in giant numbers for street protests, but was unable to harness its support toward a specific agenda. The organization was hobbled by infighting and lack of direction. Later, the #MeToo movement was able to generate public conversation and remove a number of high-profile abusers from positions of power. But #MeToo was not able to translate its moral authority into a political platform.Act Up offers a different model, one with a proven record of success. Like feminists and abortion rights supporters now, Act Up was composed of people of varying backgrounds, commitments, and ideologies. They had different priorities, skills, and ideas; different perspectives and styles. But they all shared the same goal: to combat the Aids crisis, and to improve the lives of people with Aids.The writer and teacher Sarah Schulman, an Act Up veteran, attributes the group’s success to “a strategy of difference facilitating simultaneity of response”. In other words, a lot of different kinds of people were using different tactics, all in pursuit of the same things. Under this broad but well-defined agenda, the group was able to transform its varied constituency into an asset – not a liability.Over the five years that it was most active and influential, 1987-1992, the group was able to successfully lobby to lower drug prices, get more people included in trials, extend Aids benefits to women, and cut red tape to get more treatments to market. Their loud, aggressive, and irreverent public demonstrations at the FDA building and in the offices of pharmaceutical executives were carefully targeted and publicized, meant to garner publicity and also to be as uncomfortable and inconvenient as possible to the powerful people who were standing in their way. Now, the mainstream media scolds protesters for holding demure vigils outside the home of Brett Kavanaugh in Chevy Chase, Maryland. Back then, Act Up went down to DC to protest outside a politician’s home, too. They found out the address of the rightwing, anti-gay North Carolina senator Jesse Helms, and with the news cameras rolling, put a giant condom over his house.Maybe one of the great lessons of Act Up is this willingness to embrace irreverence and joy, something the reproductive rights movement, to their great credit, have also embraced. But another virtue is that the group employed a multiplicity of tactics and responses while maintaining a singleness of purpose.Feminism, as a movement, has long had a problem of unsustainably expanding responsibilities. Because women exist in all walks of life, any social problem can be cast as a feminist problem. But no movement can take on responsibility for every injustice in the world. Like Act Up, the reproductive rights movement would be wise to assign itself an expansive understanding of a narrow remit.Act Up aimed to combat the Aids crisis and improve the lives of people with Aids, a purview that enabled different factions within the group to take on issues of drug access, housing discrimination, sex education, and the power of the Catholic church. Likewise, the reproductive rights movement would be wise to dedicate itself only to the emergency at hand: abortion access, and the lives of people who need abortions. It is there that they can do the most good for those affected, and it is where they can reshape, as Act Up did, both the public debate and the facts on the ground.Much of this is already happening. In the years that the right has been ascendant and abortion supporters have been on the defensive, large, national non-profit advocacy groups have mostly been on the back foot. But in the places they have vacated, a vast network of small but mighty local organizations, and abortion funds, have stepped in to help those seeking abortions with material needs. These groups represent an essential intervention in material service provision. They can also form the foundation for what feminism needs now: an organized political movement.
      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist
      TopicsAbortionOpinionUS politicsAids and HIVLGBTQ+ rightsHealthcommentReuse this content More

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Abortion and Trump Are Giving Democrats a Shot

      by

      Forget Hot Girl Summer. We just came off Hot Primary Summer, which featured fewer tequila shots than the Megan Thee Stallion-inspired original — unless, maybe, you were partying with Dr. Oz — but still packed way more drama than you’d expect in a midterm election cycle.Republican voters in Georgia stiff-arming Donald Trump? Democratic House members in New York savaging one another over redrawn districts? John Fetterman winning the Democratic Senate primary in Pennsylvania just four days after suffering a stroke? Sean Parnell exiting the Pennsylvania Republican Senate primary after accusations of domestic abuse? Herschel Walker and Eric Greitens sticking with their Senate runs despite accusations of domestic abuse? Democrats capturing a House seat in Alaska, defeating Sarah Palin in the process? Abortion rights supporters winning big in [checks notes] Kansas?It has been quite the ride.With Mr. Trump out of office but still desperate to wield influence over his party like an incumbent president, these 2022 elections were fated to be more edge-of-your-seat than usual. The unofficial Labor Day kickoff of the fall campaign season will only push anxiety levels higher as the parties scramble to game out and shape where the electoral circus is headed.Mary Peltola leaving a voting booth in Anchorage.Mark Thiessen/Associated PressJohn Fetterman with supporters in Erie, Pa.Gene J. Puskar/Associated PressHerschel Walker at a fish fry hosted by the Georgia Republican Party.Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesA rally for a Trump-backed candidate in Arizona.Brandon Bell/Getty ImagesIn terms of the Big Picture, the primaries confirmed some things we already knew, and revealed others that now loom large for the fall.The summer certified that Donald Trump still has his tiny hands wrapped around the throat of the G.O.P. He meddled mightily in the midterms, doling out endorsements and anti-endorsements with promiscuity, and wound up with an impressive win-loss record. Even looking only at the cases where Mr. Trump backed a non-incumbent in a contested primary, his success rate was 82 percent, according to FiveThirtyEight.It was unsurprising, if still depressing, to witness how thoroughly the G.O.P.’s moral compass has been shattered. Today’s Republicans will snuggle up with even the creepiest of characters, so long as those characters are Trump-approved. (See: Gaetz, Matt.)In the category of not so much depressing as horrifying: Republican voters elevated legions of election-denying conspiracymongers. In Michigan and Nevada, the party’s nominees for secretary of state are so far down the Stop the Steal Rabbit hole they may never see daylight again, while Pennsylvania Republicans’ choice for governor is so disturbing that some former party officials there are lining up to endorse his Democratic opponent. But for overall wingnuttery, it is tough to beat Arizona, where G.O.P. voters went all in on reality-challenged MAGA ravers up and down the ticket.There were isolated pockets of sanity. Georgia Republicans showed sense and spine in rejecting Mr. Trump’s revenge campaign to oust Governor Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, both Republicans, for having refused to help Mr. Trump steal the 2020 election. And Nebraska Republicans shunned Mr. Trump’s preferred pick for governor there, yet another prince of a guy accused of — you guessed it! — sexual misconduct.On the Democratic side, the big reveal turned out to be that the party isn’t as dead as everyone thought. Democrats overperformed in multiple special elections. The party’s voters are feeling more energized. President Biden’s job approval ratings have ticked up. The political handicappers have tweaked their predictions in Democrats’ direction. November could still go badly for Team Blue, but the once-forecast red wave seems to have lost momentum.There are many reasons for this: gas prices easing, Congress finally passing at least part of the president’s domestic agenda, mediocre-to-awful Republican nominees struggling to find their groove. But perhaps the biggest unforeseen factor: It turns out that American women don’t like being told that they don’t have a right to bodily autonomy.Go figure.Despite Americans’ overwhelming support for at least some abortion access, the Republican Party has long found it useful to exploit social conservatives’ intense passion on the issue. For decades, the G.O.P. has whipped voters to the polls with promises of killing Roe v. Wade, even when the party’s true priorities were slashing taxes and regulations and pursuing other non-culture-war matters. But with the Supreme Court’s decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in June, Republicans are the proverbial pooch that finally caught the car — a car now threatening to turn them into a greasy patch of political roadkill. Which would absolutely serve them right.Post-Dobbs, the political outlook has brightened for Democrats. Motivation among their voters has shot up, shrinking the crucial “enthusiasm gap” between the parties. A recent Pew poll found a 13-point jump since March in the number of people who said abortion rights would be “very important” in their midterm vote — a rise driven overwhelmingly by Democrats. The party’s candidates did better than expected in the five federal special elections held since the ruling. In deep red Kansas last month, voters smacked down a measure aimed at stripping abortion protections from the state’s constitution — by a 59-to-41 margin that stunned the nation. Democrats have also gained ground on the generic congressional ballot, where pollsters ask voters which party they prefer.The Democratic Party is still sharply divided between its center, left and far-left factions, with the capacity for rowdy progressives to hurt moderate Democrats in battleground states. But for now, the combination of Dobbs and Trumpism on the march is acting as a pretty potent glue.Republicans are scurrying around, trying to avoid getting hit by the backlash over the end of Roe. Multiple candidates are claiming more nuanced positions and softening their rhetoric as they tiptoe away from the more aggressive stances of their past. At least a couple have scrubbed their websites of anti-abortion statements. (Blake Masters, the MAGA choice for Senate in Arizona, has been particularly slippery.)Democrats, meanwhile, are learning to love their inner culture warrior, going hard at their Republican opponents on the issue. Even Republicans who express support for limited abortion rights are getting hit as Democrats seek to paint the entire G.O.P. as a threat to women’s bodily autonomy — which it mostly is.Multiple states have abortion-related measures on the ballot in November. Typically the anti-abortion side is the one that drives such efforts, as in Kansas. But this year, for the first time in two decades, a smattering of measures are aimed at securing reproductive rights. Other states are eyeing similar efforts for the future, including Arizona, which narrowly missed the deadline for getting something on the ballot this year. Democrats hope these measures will help turn out their voters and boost their candidates — much like the anti-gay-marriage ballot measures in 2004 aided President George W. Bush’s re-election.All of this is a striking departure from the conventional political wisdom, in which Republicans have long been seen as having the upper hand at culture warring. When Team Red spun up conservatives over hot-button topics like abortion and gay marriage, Team Blue struggled to keep the focus on things like health care and the economy. That dynamic has been flipped on its head.The reproductive rights side has long had the numbers, just not the intensity. If Democrats can keep the pressure on, abortion politics could prove increasingly painful and destructive for Republicans, stretching well beyond this crazy election season.Couldn’t happen to a more deserving party.What’s at stake for you on Election Day?In the final weeks before the midterm elections, Times Opinion is asking for your help to better understand what motivates each generation to vote. We’ve created a list of some of the biggest problems facing voters right now. Choose the one that matters most to you and tell us why. We plan to publish a selection of responses shortly before Election Day.

      The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Republican Senate candidate says she’s anti-abortion but against federal ban

      by

      Republican Senate candidate says she’s anti-abortion but against federal banTiffany Smiley, a trained nurse, wants to win in Washington state, where a 1991 law protects abortion access A Republican Senate nominee in Washington state said on Sunday she was against abortion – but supported a state law that guarantees the right to abortion until fetal viability.Trump calls FBI, DoJ ‘vicious monsters’ in first rally since Mar-a-Lago searchRead moreSpeaking to CNN’s State of the Union, Tiffany Smiley said she supported the law despite the US supreme court decision earlier this summer, in Dobbs v Jackson, which overturned the right to abortion, a right previously guaranteed for almost 50 years.“I respect the voters of Washington state,” Smiley said. “They long decided where they stand on the issue.”The state law was passed in 1991. Across the US, polls consistently show that nearly two-thirds of Americans support the right to abortion in some form.As the midterm elections approach, abortion has served as a prime motivator for women voters across the US, especially among Democrats and fueling striking special-election successes for the party seeking to hold both houses of Congress.Smiley’s remarks reflected a growing recognition among Republicans that the fall of Roe v Wade, the 1973 ruling which protected the right to abortion until June this year, may have been a longed-for supreme court success but could cost them dearly at the polls as they seek to take the House and Senate.Speaking to CNN, Smiley also backed off her previous statement that she would welcome an endorsement from Donald Trump.“I am laser-focused on the endorsement of the voters of Washington state,” she said, twice, as she sought to deflect the question.Smiley, a trained nurse, is challenging the incumbent Democratic senator, Patty Murray, who has criticized Smiley for her “100% pro-life” views.In an ad released last week, Smiley told viewers she was “pro-life but I opposed a federal abortion ban”. The ad came in response to a Murray ad which called Smiley “Mitch McConnell’s hand-picked candidate”, referring to the Senate Republican leader known for his anti-abortion views and push to stack the supreme court with conservative justices opposed to abortion.Murray’s ad claimed that if elected, Smiley would support federal abortion bans. Smiley said: “Murray is trying to scare you, I am trying to serve you.”On Sunday, Smiley said: “I made it clear in my ad that … I am not for a federal abortion ban. You know, the extreme in this race is Patty Murray. She is for federalizing abortion.”Smiley previously expressed support for a Texas law that implements a near-total abortion ban, the Hill reported last year. On Sunday, Smiley said “there’s a lot of parts of [the Texas ban] that make it very hard for me in Washington state”.‘I want to work with everyone’: Alaska’s history-making new congresswomanRead moreShe added: “But at the end of the day, I’m pro-woman first and then always pro-life.”In response, Murray told CNN: “What I believe is that we have a constitutional right in this country under Roe by the supreme court that allowed women and their families and their faith and their doctor to make a decision for them about whether or not they should carry their pregnancy.“That is what the law and constitutional right of this land was, until this supreme court overturned that.“I do not believe that politicians should be making these decisions for women. That is what I support.”TopicsAbortionUS midterm elections 2022US politicsRepublicansWashington stateUS CongressUS SenatenewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Leonard Leo: the secretive rightwinger using billions to reshape America

      by

      Leonard Leo: the secretive rightwinger using billions to reshape AmericaMarble Freedom Trust, advocacy group headed by Leo, has received vast $1.6bn donation to push conservative causes As the US supreme court justice Clarence Thomas prepared to take questions from members of the rightwing legal advocacy group the Federalist Society, a few years back, he turned to the moderator.Thomas joked that the nondescript man in the blue suit and white shirt was the “No 3 most powerful person in the world”, and then fell about laughing. The target of the judge’s mirth, Leonard Leo, grinned and remarked: “God help us.”Biden’s stern warning on extremism shows the rose-colored glasses are offRead moreYet both men understood at that moment in 2018 just how influential Leo was, in ways that few Americans knew. Most had never even heard of Leo, even though he was at that time instrumental in maneuvering Donald Trump to reshape the court on which Thomas sits, and so deliver one of its most politically sensitive rulings of recent times by overturning the right to abortion.Leo, a 56 year-old whose opposition to abortion is rooted in his Catholic faith, remains an obscure figure to much of the US public, even after revelations that he heads a political group that has received an astonishing $1.6bn donation to push conservative causes, including election manipulation ahead of this year’s midterm votes.Earlier this month the New York Times revealed that the money, said to be one of the largest single contributions to a political pressure group, arrived in a circuitous route from a figure who is equally obscure to most Americans: Barre Seid.Seid, who has spent tens of millions of dollars funding conservative and libertarian organisations, donated an entire company last year to a newly founded political advocacy group run by Leo, the Marble Freedom Trust. Marble sold the firm, the Chicago electronics manufacturer Tripp Lite, this year for $1.6bn, according to tax records.The roundabout process has prompted speculation Seid was sidestepping tax on the sale to maximize the funding for Leo.The Marble Freedom Trust has already distributed nearly a quarter of a billion dollars, including $153m to the Rule of Law Trust to push the appointment of conservative judges. That still leaves more than $1bn to fund political causes close to Leo’s heart, including his interest in helping Republican officials manipulate elections ahead of the midterm vote and the next presidential ballot.Leo defended the injection of a huge amount of “dark money” into the political process by claiming it merely levels the playing field against Democrats funded by liberal billionaires.“It’s high time for the conservative movement to be among the ranks of George Soros, Hansjörg Wyss, Arabella Advisors and other leftwing philanthropists, going toe-to-toe in the fight to defend our constitution and its ideals,” he said in a statement.Leo’s close relationship with Thomas goes back to 1991 when he worked to gather evidence to support the judge during his confirmation hearing for the supreme court.Leo went on to work for the Federalist Society, founded in 1982 to counter what conservatives claimed was liberal dominance of US courts and law schools. He rose to become the society’s co-chair and oversaw the rise in its influence at the expense of the more liberal American Bar Association, in part through the effectiveness of his fundraising to back conservative judicial nominees.As the conservative lawyer Ed Whelan wrote six years ago in the National Review: “No one has been more dedicated to the enterprise of building a supreme court that will overturn Roe v Wade than the Federalist Society’s Leonard Leo.”In 2005, George W Bush nominated Harriet Miers, his deputy chief of staff, for a vacant seat on the supreme court. She was widely regarded as a weak candidate in any case, but when conservatives turned on her, and Miers withdrew, Leo saw to it that she was replaced by a figure far more acceptable to the right and opponents of abortion, Samuel Alito.Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, one of the most outspoken critics of dark money’s influence on politics, told the Guardian earlier this year that was a turning point.“It was at that point that the grip of this little donor elite and Leo, its Federalist Society operative, really took hold. Justice Samuel Alito was the product of that and he has proven himself on the court as being a faithful workhorse for that dark money corporate rightwing crew,” he said.New opportunities presented themselves with Trump’s election in 2016.Leo drew up a list of 11 potential supreme court nominees to help Trump, a man who had previously claimed to be pro-choice, woo conservative and evangelical voters by committing to nominate justices who were hostile to abortion rights.After Trump’s victory, Leo took time away from the Federalist Society to work as an advisor to the president. All three of those eventually seated on the US’s highest court during Trump’s tenure and who voted to overturn Roe v Wade – Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – were named on the list Leo drew up during the campaign.Now Leo has turned his attention to pushing conservative moves to manipulate elections in favour of Republicans through the Honest Elections Project, a recent addition to a web of interlinked groups funded with dark money, including from the libertarian Koch brothers.Among other things, Leo is pushing a contentious legal theory that the US constitution gives state legislatures the power to decide how to run elections without intervention from the courts. The Honest Elections Project has made multiple legal submissions on the issue with the aim of removing the power of state courts to block gerrymandering and voter suppression measures to manipulate elections.Earlier this year, Leo told the Washington Post that in using dark money for political ends he is not doing anything that has not been done before.“Let’s remember that in this country, the abolitionist movement, the women’s suffrage movement, the American Revolution, the early labor movement, the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s were all very much fueled by very wealthy people and oftentimes wealthy people who chose to be anonymous. I think that’s not a bad thing. I think that’s a good thing,” he said.TopicsUS politicsRepublicansAbortionnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Does Biden Really Believe We Are in a Crisis of Democracy?

      by

      Strip away the weird semi-fascist optics, the creepy crimson lighting and the Marines standing sentinel, and the speech Joe Biden gave on Thursday night outside Philadelphia’s Independence Hall could have been given by other prominent Democrats throughout the Trump era.The song is always the same: On the one hand, dire warnings about Trumpian authoritarianism and the need for all patriotic Republicans and independents to join the defense of American democracy; on the other, a strictly partisan agenda that offers few grounds for ideological truce, few real concessions to beliefs outside the liberal tent.In this case, Biden’s speech conflated the refusal to accept election outcomes with opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage — implying that the positions of his own Catholic Church are part of a “MAGA Republican” threat to democracy itself — while touting a State of the Union‌-style list of policy achievements, a cascade of liberal self-praise.The speech’s warning against eroding democratic norms was delivered a week after Biden’s own semi-Caesarist announcement of a $500 billion student-loan forgiveness plan without consulting Congress. And it was immediately succeeded by the news that Democrats would be pouring millions in advertising into New Hampshire’s Republican Senate primary, in the hopes of making sure that the Trumpiest candidate wins through — the latest example of liberal strategists deliberately elevating figures their party and president officially consider an existential threat to the ‌Republic.The ultimate blame for nominating those unfit candidates lies with the G.O.P. electorate, not Democrats. But in the debate about the risks of Republican extremism, the debate the president just joined, it’s still important to judge the leaders of the Democratic Party by their behavior. You may believe that American democracy is threatened as at no point since the Civil War, dear reader, but they do not. They are running a political operation in which the threat to democracy is leverage, used to keep swing voters onside without having to make difficult concessions to the center or the right.It’s easy to imagine a Biden speech that offered such concessions without giving an inch in its critique of Donald Trump. The president could have acknowledged, for instance, that his own party has played some role in undermining faith in American elections, that the Republicans challenging the 2020 result were making a more dangerous use of tactics deployed by Democrats in 2004 and 2016.Or his condemnations of political violence could have encompassed the worst of the May and June 2020 rioting, the recent wave of vandalism at crisis pregnancy centers or the assassination plot against Brett Kavanaugh as well as MAGA threats.Or instead of trying to simply exploit the opportunities that the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision has created for his party, he could have played the statesman, invoked his own Catholic faith and moderate past, praised the sincerity of abortion opponents and called for a national compromise on abortion — a culture war truce, if you will, for the greater good of saving democracy itself.You can make a case for Biden refusing these gestures (or a different set pegged to different non-liberal concerns). But that case requires private beliefs that diverge from Biden’s public statements: In particular, a belief that Trumpism is actually too weak to credibly threaten the democratic order, and that it’s therefore safe to accept a small risk of, say, a Trump-instigated crisis around the vote count in 2024 if elevating Trumpists increases the odds of liberal victories overall.For actual evidence supporting such a belief, I recommend reading Julian G. Waller’s essay “Authoritarianism Here?” in the spring 2022 issue of the journal American Affairs. Surveying the literature on so-called democratic backsliding toward authoritarianism around the world, Waller argues that the models almost always involve a popular leader and a dominant party winning sweeping majorities in multiple elections, gaining the ground required to entrench their position and capture cultural institutions, all the while claiming the mantle of practicality and common sense.As you may note, this does not sound like a description of the current Republican Party — a minority coalition led by an unpopular chancer that consistently passes up opportunities to seize the political center, a party that enjoys structural advantages in the Senate and the Electoral College but consistently self-sabotages by nominating zany or incompetent candidates, a movement whose influence in most cultural institutions collapsed in the Trump era.If Jan. 6 and its aftermath made it easier to imagine a Trumpian G.O.P. precipitating a constitutional crisis, they did not make it more imaginable that it could consolidate power thereafter, in the style of Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan or Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez or any other example. Which in turn makes it relatively safe for the Democratic Party to continue using crisis-of-democracy rhetoric instrumentally, and even tacitly boost Trump within the G.O.P., instead of making the moves toward conciliation and cultural truce that a real crisis would require.Such is an implication, at least, of Waller’s analysis, and it’s my own longstanding read on Trumpism as well.That reading may well be too sanguine. But in their hearts, Joe Biden and the leaders of his party clearly think I’m right.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTOpinion) and Instagram. More

    • 163 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Women Are So Fired Up to Vote, I’ve Never Seen Anything Like It

      by

      I’ve watched Americans in recent years acclimate to some very grim realities. Especially since the ascension of Donald Trump, numerous tragedies and extreme policies have been met with little political consequence: schools targeted by mass murderers, immigrants treated as subhuman and autocratic regimes around the globe affirmed as allies. While Mr. Trump did fail in his re-election bid, a swing of just over 20,000 votes in the three states with the narrowest margins would have produced a win for him, and Democrats hold razor-thin majorities in the House and the Senate.In the weeks following the leak of a draft ruling in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case, which all but guaranteed the end of abortion protections under Roe v. Wade, it initially seemed this pattern would hold. About three weeks after the leak, a CNN analyst claimed that “the Republican wave is building fast” heading into the midterm elections. In late May, the highly respected election analysts at the Cook Political Report increased their estimate of how many House seats the G.O.P. would gain. The discussion was not focused on whether the November general election would be a “red wave” but rather just how big of a wave it would be.But once the actual Dobbs decision came down, everything changed. For many Americans, confronting the loss of abortion rights was different from anticipating it. In my 28 years analyzing elections, I’ve never seen anything like what’s happened in the past two months in American politics: Women are registering to vote in numbers I’ve never witnessed. I’ve run out of superlatives to describe how different this moment is, especially in light of the cycles of tragedy and eventual resignation of recent years. This is a moment to throw old political assumptions out the window and to consider that Democrats could buck historic trends this cycle.One of the first big signs that things had changed came from Kansas. After voters there defeated a constitutional amendment that would have removed abortion protections in the state in a landslide, I sought to understand how activists could have accomplished such an astounding upset. While it takes several weeks for state election officials to produce full reports on who voted in any given election, there was an immediate clue. I looked at new voter registrants in the state since the June 24 Dobbs decision. As shocking as the election result was to me, what I found was more striking than any single election statistic I can recall discovering throughout my career. Sixty-nine percent of those new registrants were women. In the six months before Dobbs, women outnumbered men by a three-point margin among new voter registrations. After Dobbs, that gender gap skyrocketed to 40 points. Women were engaged politically in a way that lacked any known precedent.Repeating the Kansas analysis across several other states, a clear pattern emerged. Nowhere were the results as stark as they were there, but no other state was facing the issue with the immediacy of an August vote on a constitutional amendment. What my team and I did find was large surges in women registering to vote relative to men, when comparing the period before June 24 and after.The pattern was clearest in states where abortion access was most at risk, and where the electoral stakes for abortion rights this November were the highest. The states with the biggest surges in women registering post-Dobbs were deep red Kansas and Idaho, with Louisiana emerging among the top five states. Key battleground states also showed large increases, including Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio, which are all facing statewide races in which the fate of abortion access could be decided in November.The surge in women registering and voting helped the Democrat Pat Ryan prevail over Marc Molinaro — one of the more credible Republican recruits this cycle — in New York’s fiercely contested 19th Congressional District last month. This is not the type of performance you would see in a red wave election. Among the mail and early votes cast in the district, women outnumbered men by an 18-point margin, despite accounting for about 52 percent of registered voters.With over two months until Election Day, uncertainty abounds. Election prognostication relies heavily on past precedent. Yet there is no precedent for an election centered around the removal of a constitutional right affirmed a half-century before. Every poll we consume over the closing weeks of this election will rely on a likely voter model for which we have no benchmark.The stakes are high. Going into the midterms this fall, the G.O.P. need only gain six seats in the House and one seat in the Senate to retake control of those chambers, thwarting any hope of advancing federal abortion protections or any number of other liberal priorities.Already, several Republicans seem to be sensing that they’re in trouble. In Arizona, the Republican Senate candidate Blake Masters, an ardent abortion opponent, recently wiped language advocating extreme abortion restrictions from his website.Whether the coming elections will be viewed as a red wave, a Roe wave or something in between will be decided by the actions of millions of Americans — especially, it seems, American women. As Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority decision in Dobbs: “Women are not without electoral or political power.” He was right about that. Republicans might soon find out just how much political power they have.Tom Bonier is a Democratic political strategist and the C.E.O. of TargetSmart, a data and polling firm. He teaches political science at Howard University and is a member of S.E.I.U. Local 500.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More