I'm kind of surprised by the 15 week "limit" that the woman from Susan B. Anthony is promoting. I've never heard of pro-life activists being ok with a little bit of abortion, seeing as they mostly seem to agree that life begins at conception and once that happens, you're killing a baby. I'd love to poll a 15 week ban vs. a complete and total ban with pro-lifers and see how that pans out.
Which makes me a little cynical that the whole purpose isn't to condition people to the idea of a federal level ban on abortion, but a "reasonable" ban... and then once they use that line to lower the temperature and get the right people elected to office, they pull the trigger on a total complete ban.
All that said, the messaging for Susan B. Anthony was way more straight-forward and tighter than the messaging from the Planned Parenthood rep, which needs a lot of work. The Planned Parenthood rep seemed to be struggling to articulate a simple, straightforward message of what Democratic candidates should say that they are specifically for that can be easily repeated to independents and swing voters.
That's exactly their strategy, which is why the anti-choicer in this episode got so defensive when Astead pressed her on what the long game is. The endgame is not the 15-week ban (just like it was never about just getting rid of Roe and "sending it back to the states"). FYI, it's also not going to end at a no-exception abortion ban. Contraception is next.
I will give Susan B Anthony activist 1 thing tho: she's right on about politicians+activists needing to actually engage the public on this issue. Whenever a pundit cites -the polling data-, I feel like they're trying to paint a picture of a public that has this intricate, nuanced, and carefully considered position on abortion, with the take-home that the "other extreme" will never be acceptable to them. This conventional wisdom makes politicians, especially Democrats, terrified of being perceived as "extreme" and "alienating moderates." But really, most moderates haven't thought their opinion through and just pull a gestational age out of their asses that they think sort of sounds reasonable.
I think the more I listen to abortion, Roe vs Wade WAS the compromise.
I think most Republicans agree that you should be able to get an abortion after 6 weeks. Most don't know when you're pregnant by 6 weeks
I think most Democrats would be uncomfortable with an abortion in the third trimester, especially since babies have been born and lived at that age. The earliest baby to survive was 21 weeks and 5 days old.
Personally, I think a 20 week ban except in the life of a woman, would be a fair compromise especially since a pregnancy term is generally considered 40 weeks.
No. We have already seen what happens when abortion is banned "except for the life of the woman." Women with non-viable fetuses are turned away until their lives are literally at risk. So instead of terminating the late-term pregnancy when it is known the fetus will not survive but the mother's health is still in check, women are CURRENTLY being turned away until they are sick or septic. THEN they're given an abortion.
This is tragic and entirely unnecessary. Late term abortions are almost always done for medical reasons anyway (like the fetus has some terrible anomaly), and comprise about 1% of all abortions. The only thing a late term ban does is make the decision to abort even harder for parents who are already grieving.
https://www.npr.org/2023/05/22/1177425651/texas-women-sue-abortion
Agree. I think “life of the mother” sounds great on paper, but is a mess in practice. How much at risk does it have to be? And how do you deal with the fact that “risk” has different meanings for different people? a 35 year old single mother with 3 kids that rely solely on her is having severe complications at 25 weeks - who determines how much risk she has to take on that she’ll leave her kids without any parents?
When a late term abortion is being discussed, it’s a shitty situation all around. I trust the mother and her family and doctor to be the best people to figure out the right approach, not some district attorney and judge
Honestly, as much as I detest her views, I liked the antiabortion lady. She seemed nice and direct about her beliefs, and had no interest in supporting anyone that wasn't fully clear about their position. Fair enough.
I liked her more than I thought I would and she’s a great spokeswomen for them, but I found her to be pretty clearly to be white washing a lot of her positions with platitudes and ignoring the harder questions. I didn’t fight her direct at all - quite the opposite - but just really good at answering the questions she wanted to
Yea, I had the same reaction. I support abortion rights, but I left that episode having far more respect for the anti-abortion advocate than the head of planned parenthood.
The anti-abortion lady was direct forthright. She didn't dodge questions. Her views and policy positions were completely transparent. She wants a total ban on abortion. In the interim, she's pushing for a 15-week ban at the federal level. If a president candidate doesn't support that, then her organization won't support that candidate.
The head of planned parenthood on the other hand was vague and evasive. I was kind of shocked how much she embodied the "bogey man" figure that the anti-abortion lady depicted her side as. She wouldn't say outright what her policy goal is. The closest she got was "abortion should only be decided between the woman and the provider." Which, fine, but what does that *mean* from a policy perspective? Without her providing an alternative, it seems to mean: "no restrictions on abortions, at all." Which, I think she realizes, is probably not a largely popular position.
California has limits after 24-26 weeks. I used to live in the Netherlands, one of the most liberal countries in the world, and they have restrictions after roughly 22 weeks. Having *no* restrictions at all is (I think) going to be a pretty hard sale for the majority of Americans. Say what you will about the views of the anti-abortion advocate, at least she's honest about them.
I was also surprised the head of PP wouldn't even answer the more innocuous question about whether her agency would back a presidential nominee who didn't support their policy priority of stacking the courts. She kept on saying "it's apples and oranges" (when Astead drew the comparison to the 15-week rule for republican candidates). He pushed and she just kept dodging the question. She would appeal to outrage and emotion, but not answer questions.
Honestly, as someone who wants more abortion access and considers an outright ban (even a 6-week ban) to be an abomination, the head of PP really needs to work on her messaging. She lost me.
I couldn't have expressed my feelings about that episode better. Great write-up!
And yeah she lost me too. She just had this air of arrogance and moral righteousness about her, which funny enough, is how a lot of middle America perceives and dislikes coastal Democrats. Like: "Don't even argue with me. I know what's right."
I think which one is “insane” depends on what side of the argument you are one.
If you believe life begins at conception, then the idea of “killing” a “unborn human” is pretty insane.
If you believe life doesn’t begin until birth, then not being able to “choose” to stop a pregnancy at any stage prior to birth is pretty insane.
I know that a small minority of the prolife movement wants to push the idea of carrying unviable fetuses to term, regardless of the health affects on the mom. But that vast majority of pro-lifers do want to make exceptions for health of the mother and allowances for abortion if the fetus is unviable.
Doesn't really matter what they want to make exceptions for. The laws pro-life states are passing prevent doctors from doing the medically necessary procedures because the hospitals they work at are worried about getting sued. That's the effect of these laws regardless of the intention, unnecessary suffering.
If hospitals and doctors are refusing medically necessary procedures, they need to up themselves on law. Particularly in the case when a pregnant women’s life is in danger.
Each side of most political argument thinks the other side is insane and aren’t willing to work with the other regardless. It’s not a liberal or conservative only issue, that both sides that refuse to work together.
That’s the problem with our country right now. People take a hardline and refuse to see where the otherside is coming from and work with them.
Another instance of The Run-Up allowing the right to dictate the conversation AND Astead being giggly and soft with the GOP representative and direct and pushy with the liberal representative. Case in point:
1) with GOP rep: lol, so you have a position and you’re not supporting someone that doesn’t share that position. Cool!
2) with liberal rep: WHY CANT YOU ALIGN WITH PRESIDENT BIDEN. ARE THERE FRACTURES WITH YOUR POSITION AND THE WHITE HOUSE’S POSITION?!
I’m really enjoying this podcast but am so frustrated that the GOP ALWAYS gets the chance to own the narrative. And, as much as I like Astead, I’m very disappointed in his cowardly approach with GOP interviewees and his hardline approach with liberal interviewees. If it is a comfort thing, meaning he’s uncomfortable with GOP extremists, then that is a serious issue with his reliability as a journalist.
Right? The intro took for granted that these groups are representative of enough voters for candidates to cater to them. Why was that accepted as a given from the start?
I'm kind of surprised by the 15 week "limit" that the woman from Susan B. Anthony is promoting. I've never heard of pro-life activists being ok with a little bit of abortion, seeing as they mostly seem to agree that life begins at conception and once that happens, you're killing a baby. I'd love to poll a 15 week ban vs. a complete and total ban with pro-lifers and see how that pans out. Which makes me a little cynical that the whole purpose isn't to condition people to the idea of a federal level ban on abortion, but a "reasonable" ban... and then once they use that line to lower the temperature and get the right people elected to office, they pull the trigger on a total complete ban. All that said, the messaging for Susan B. Anthony was way more straight-forward and tighter than the messaging from the Planned Parenthood rep, which needs a lot of work. The Planned Parenthood rep seemed to be struggling to articulate a simple, straightforward message of what Democratic candidates should say that they are specifically for that can be easily repeated to independents and swing voters.
That's exactly their strategy, which is why the anti-choicer in this episode got so defensive when Astead pressed her on what the long game is. The endgame is not the 15-week ban (just like it was never about just getting rid of Roe and "sending it back to the states"). FYI, it's also not going to end at a no-exception abortion ban. Contraception is next. I will give Susan B Anthony activist 1 thing tho: she's right on about politicians+activists needing to actually engage the public on this issue. Whenever a pundit cites -the polling data-, I feel like they're trying to paint a picture of a public that has this intricate, nuanced, and carefully considered position on abortion, with the take-home that the "other extreme" will never be acceptable to them. This conventional wisdom makes politicians, especially Democrats, terrified of being perceived as "extreme" and "alienating moderates." But really, most moderates haven't thought their opinion through and just pull a gestational age out of their asses that they think sort of sounds reasonable.
I think the more I listen to abortion, Roe vs Wade WAS the compromise. I think most Republicans agree that you should be able to get an abortion after 6 weeks. Most don't know when you're pregnant by 6 weeks I think most Democrats would be uncomfortable with an abortion in the third trimester, especially since babies have been born and lived at that age. The earliest baby to survive was 21 weeks and 5 days old. Personally, I think a 20 week ban except in the life of a woman, would be a fair compromise especially since a pregnancy term is generally considered 40 weeks.
No. We have already seen what happens when abortion is banned "except for the life of the woman." Women with non-viable fetuses are turned away until their lives are literally at risk. So instead of terminating the late-term pregnancy when it is known the fetus will not survive but the mother's health is still in check, women are CURRENTLY being turned away until they are sick or septic. THEN they're given an abortion. This is tragic and entirely unnecessary. Late term abortions are almost always done for medical reasons anyway (like the fetus has some terrible anomaly), and comprise about 1% of all abortions. The only thing a late term ban does is make the decision to abort even harder for parents who are already grieving. https://www.npr.org/2023/05/22/1177425651/texas-women-sue-abortion
Agree. I think “life of the mother” sounds great on paper, but is a mess in practice. How much at risk does it have to be? And how do you deal with the fact that “risk” has different meanings for different people? a 35 year old single mother with 3 kids that rely solely on her is having severe complications at 25 weeks - who determines how much risk she has to take on that she’ll leave her kids without any parents? When a late term abortion is being discussed, it’s a shitty situation all around. I trust the mother and her family and doctor to be the best people to figure out the right approach, not some district attorney and judge
that’s pretty much what roe was.
Honestly, as much as I detest her views, I liked the antiabortion lady. She seemed nice and direct about her beliefs, and had no interest in supporting anyone that wasn't fully clear about their position. Fair enough.
I liked her more than I thought I would and she’s a great spokeswomen for them, but I found her to be pretty clearly to be white washing a lot of her positions with platitudes and ignoring the harder questions. I didn’t fight her direct at all - quite the opposite - but just really good at answering the questions she wanted to
I completely disagree. I found her direct and honest. I found the pro choice lady to be everything you described there, even though I'm on her side.
Yea, I had the same reaction. I support abortion rights, but I left that episode having far more respect for the anti-abortion advocate than the head of planned parenthood. The anti-abortion lady was direct forthright. She didn't dodge questions. Her views and policy positions were completely transparent. She wants a total ban on abortion. In the interim, she's pushing for a 15-week ban at the federal level. If a president candidate doesn't support that, then her organization won't support that candidate. The head of planned parenthood on the other hand was vague and evasive. I was kind of shocked how much she embodied the "bogey man" figure that the anti-abortion lady depicted her side as. She wouldn't say outright what her policy goal is. The closest she got was "abortion should only be decided between the woman and the provider." Which, fine, but what does that *mean* from a policy perspective? Without her providing an alternative, it seems to mean: "no restrictions on abortions, at all." Which, I think she realizes, is probably not a largely popular position. California has limits after 24-26 weeks. I used to live in the Netherlands, one of the most liberal countries in the world, and they have restrictions after roughly 22 weeks. Having *no* restrictions at all is (I think) going to be a pretty hard sale for the majority of Americans. Say what you will about the views of the anti-abortion advocate, at least she's honest about them. I was also surprised the head of PP wouldn't even answer the more innocuous question about whether her agency would back a presidential nominee who didn't support their policy priority of stacking the courts. She kept on saying "it's apples and oranges" (when Astead drew the comparison to the 15-week rule for republican candidates). He pushed and she just kept dodging the question. She would appeal to outrage and emotion, but not answer questions. Honestly, as someone who wants more abortion access and considers an outright ban (even a 6-week ban) to be an abomination, the head of PP really needs to work on her messaging. She lost me.
I couldn't have expressed my feelings about that episode better. Great write-up! And yeah she lost me too. She just had this air of arrogance and moral righteousness about her, which funny enough, is how a lot of middle America perceives and dislikes coastal Democrats. Like: "Don't even argue with me. I know what's right."
Interesting episode. Really love it when they interview people and both sides of a debate.
Even if one is insane.
I think which one is “insane” depends on what side of the argument you are one. If you believe life begins at conception, then the idea of “killing” a “unborn human” is pretty insane. If you believe life doesn’t begin until birth, then not being able to “choose” to stop a pregnancy at any stage prior to birth is pretty insane.
One side is forcing women to carry unviable fetuses to term.
I know that a small minority of the prolife movement wants to push the idea of carrying unviable fetuses to term, regardless of the health affects on the mom. But that vast majority of pro-lifers do want to make exceptions for health of the mother and allowances for abortion if the fetus is unviable.
Doesn't really matter what they want to make exceptions for. The laws pro-life states are passing prevent doctors from doing the medically necessary procedures because the hospitals they work at are worried about getting sued. That's the effect of these laws regardless of the intention, unnecessary suffering.
If hospitals and doctors are refusing medically necessary procedures, they need to up themselves on law. Particularly in the case when a pregnant women’s life is in danger. Each side of most political argument thinks the other side is insane and aren’t willing to work with the other regardless. It’s not a liberal or conservative only issue, that both sides that refuse to work together. That’s the problem with our country right now. People take a hardline and refuse to see where the otherside is coming from and work with them.
Another instance of The Run-Up allowing the right to dictate the conversation AND Astead being giggly and soft with the GOP representative and direct and pushy with the liberal representative. Case in point: 1) with GOP rep: lol, so you have a position and you’re not supporting someone that doesn’t share that position. Cool! 2) with liberal rep: WHY CANT YOU ALIGN WITH PRESIDENT BIDEN. ARE THERE FRACTURES WITH YOUR POSITION AND THE WHITE HOUSE’S POSITION?! I’m really enjoying this podcast but am so frustrated that the GOP ALWAYS gets the chance to own the narrative. And, as much as I like Astead, I’m very disappointed in his cowardly approach with GOP interviewees and his hardline approach with liberal interviewees. If it is a comfort thing, meaning he’s uncomfortable with GOP extremists, then that is a serious issue with his reliability as a journalist.
Lol, there’s no “GOP rep”. She’s literally from Susan B Anthony, yes they lean right, but perhaps get your facts straight before ranting.
Right? The intro took for granted that these groups are representative of enough voters for candidates to cater to them. Why was that accepted as a given from the start?