Ballot Initiatives and the RNC
Ballot Initiatives and the RNC
A collection of good reads, news, and policy insights.
Welcome back to This Week in Abortion - Your roundup of good reads, news updates, and policy insights on abortion.
It’s been a mind-bending few weeks. I’m struggling with the reality that we are living in a time, in a country when a presidential candidate was shot and we still don’t know if it was a political assassination attempt or just a convenient, “random” act of violence. That’s not clean, it’s not easy, it’s not comfortable.
So, before we jump in, give yourself a moment and a hug.
RNC/Party Platform
The clearest, most honest take on the RNC and Republican Party platform is something Trump’s running mate, Ohio Senator JD Vance said last November after a pro-access ballot measure passed in his state:
“I am as pro life as anyone, and I want to save as many babies as possible. This is not about moral legitimacy but political reality.”
I’m probably one of the few people in the country who believes there can still be such a thing as a pro-access Republican. (There has to be. In too many states there is no path to access without it.)
But, I’ll call bullshit when I see it. The party platform, which leaves abortion to the states and the courts, and the ensuing internal “conflict” is a show powered by polls and built for your entertainment. Read this anti-access LifeNews reaction to Vance as the VP pick to understand how superficial the disagreement is. Meanwhile, the few Republicans who stood up for even the most basic protections this season have been pushed out of the party.
But, instead of dwelling on the speechifying in Milwaukee, I will jump in on this toast to Republican South Carolina Senator Katrina Shealy.
Here’s to bi-partisan bravery, determination, and friendship. These women might be out of the party's power center, but I don’t think their story is over.
Ballot initiatives
If you are feeling overwhelmed by the ballot initiative news, I feel you. KFF has a clear tracker that can get you up to speed fast.
Mollie and I warned over a year ago that ballot initiatives as a rule are expensive, complicated affairs. These initiatives matter the most in states that have anti-access legislatures. But, as the experience in Ohio shows, initiatives in these states are also just step one in a long journey to securing real access. It’s also not clear, especially in pro-access states, if the initiatives are more about securing access or boosting voter turnout for Democrats. In these states, I fear that money going to ballot initiatives is money that’s not going towards securing access in local communities or building power and policy for the long term. In addition, there is still disagreement over the basic policy at play here. Should initiatives allow states to curtail access after “viability” (a fuzzy term) or should they go further?
All that aside, I am increasingly concerned with how anti-access policymakers and officials have responded to ballot initiatives. They are breaking with prior practice and democratic principles that will have implications beyond abortion access. We already saw lawmakers in Ohio try to convince voters to change the ballot initiative rules. That was rude, but at least it was out in the open and operated (and lost) through a democratic process.
Now, state attorneys and legislators are trying to pull the rug out from under initiatives in more subtle and nefarious ways. Most recently:
In Montana, a judge just ruled against the Secretary of State, who changed a decades-long practice and denied petition signatures from inactive voters after initiatives had already been turned in and without announcing it to the petitioners.
In Arkansas, an anti-abortion religious group published the names of canvassers for a pro-access amendment. The group is doing similar things with other initiatives it opposes. Publishing petition-affiliated names and personal details is not illegal. But it’s not - how do I say this - the Christian, or democratic, thing to do.
In Florida, one of the few mundane parts of the initiative process is likely headed for a contentious court fight after anti-access members of a review committee stepped away from usual practice to include biased language and hypothetical costs in a “neutral” financial impact statement for voters. The move was essentially a fuck you to the initiative’s supporters, who were in court seeking to have the original financial statement revised.
In what is already a messy process, it’s hard to differentiate what is paradigm-changing action from the usual legal maneuvering and elbowing. Arguments over weighted language and fights over petition signatures in court, even attempts to run a counter initiative, are things you would expect in a contentious initiative process. I don’t agree with all of these strategies but they have long been available and in use.
However, the examples listed above as well as others, like legislators independently changing the rules of the game mid-play are not just damaging to pro-access causes, they will have ripple effects. Legislative changes will make future initiatives for anything and everything more difficult. And, even more concerning, we are seeing a change in what is acceptable behavior from opponents and from public servants who are increasingly willing to act more like torch carriers for a cause than balanced stewards of the public’s trust.
I know. It’s a lot to take in on the weekend. Let’s visit with those fuzzy friends again.
More News
👍 A U.S. appeals court said HHS can block Oklahoma from accessing federal family-planning grants (Title X) because the state refuses to make referrals to neutral pregnancy counseling services. Instead sending them to anti-abortion counseling. These are the kind of rules that can be easily and legitimately pulled back under a different administration.
👍 The Massachusetts legislature is moving on legislation that bans companies from selling cellphone location data related to reproductive and gender-affirming care clinics. Similar laws are in consideration or have been passed around the county. This is great, but there is a major missed opportunity here. You know what isn’t protected by this law, or by any other law in MA or the country? Location data from visits to a cancer clinic, an endocrinologist, a therapist, or an addiction rehab center. Anya Prince explains it here in more detail. Call me a Luddite, but I have this gut feeling…abortion is healthcare and healthcare should be private, period. For more on all the ways your info is being used and might be protected check out this article by Nancy Stedman.
👍 A recently passed bi-partisan law will allow federal funds (Title V) to be used on stillbirth prevention and research programs. Check out Duaa Eldeib’s work for more on the bill and the reporting that inspired it.
🧐 The Commonwealth Fund released its 2024 State Scorecard on Women’s Health and Reproductive Care just a week after the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced it would require hospitals to meet new maternal care standards.
Have an idea for a feature? Want to share info about an event or initiative? Email me at thisweekinabortion@gmail.com