Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
"Restore Roe!" Is a Bad Rallying Cry
https://newrepublic.com/article/179961/abortion-ballot-restore-roe-bidenDemocrats seem to think ballot initiatives will juice turnout and help Joe Biden. But these initiatives aren’t the best way to defend reproductive rights.
In at least 13 states, abortion rights are headed toward the November ballot, and the prevailing hope is that voters mobilized by the end of Roe will show up for reproductive freedom. Through ballot initiatives, voters will decide if their state’s constitution should be updated to guarantee “a right to personal reproductive autonomy,” as one initiative in Maine is formulated. Most, though, would limit this right just as Roe did: by permitting laws that prohibit abortion at the point of “fetal viability,” a line that is not as bright as legislators tend to believe. Similarly, it is almost taken for granted that the way to regain abortion rights is by “restoring Roe.”
“Restoring Roe” is what President Biden has promised to do, should he be reelected. Democrats further down the ballot are repeating this simple story of abortion rights—you lose Roe, you get another Roe—as they too hope to harness voters motivated by the ballot measures. Equating “abortion rights” with Roe is, in fact, a contested strategy in the broader movement for reproductive rights and justice—though you might not know that from the narrative falling into place about “putting abortion on the ballot.” You might come away thinking that the success of these ballot initiatives is measured by how successfully they get out the vote for Democrats, not how the measures would restore or protect the right to abortion.
The problem with the “restore Roe!” rallying cry is that, as activists have succinctly put it, “Roe is the floor, not the ceiling.” Roe protected the right to abortion only up to the point of fetal viability. But this boundary is disputed: How viability is defined, how viability should be used to set limits on abortion, and whether it should be used at all, are all complicated questions medically, morally, and politically. But when it comes to the law, “viability” is too arbitrary a standard to set, some advocates argue, and one that excludes later abortions, which are already difficult to obtain. Now state ballot initiatives meant to “restore Roe” could be enshrining this viability standard in state constitutions.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is blunt about the issue: The primary professional association for these doctors “strongly discourages the inclusion of viability in legislation or regulation.” Some presume that placing a viability limit on abortion is necessary to persuade voters. But political consultants are now testing that principle: One 2023 survey saw that a viability limit may actually “dampen strong support” for constitutional amendments. Poll respondents said they worried that “politicians could outlaw most abortions by redefining viability,” that the language around viability was “vague,” that “the state should not be involved.”
In at least 13 states, abortion rights are headed toward the November ballot, and the prevailing hope is that voters mobilized by the end of Roe will show up for reproductive freedom. Through ballot initiatives, voters will decide if their state’s constitution should be updated to guarantee “a right to personal reproductive autonomy,” as one initiative in Maine is formulated. Most, though, would limit this right just as Roe did: by permitting laws that prohibit abortion at the point of “fetal viability,” a line that is not as bright as legislators tend to believe. Similarly, it is almost taken for granted that the way to regain abortion rights is by “restoring Roe.”
“Restoring Roe” is what President Biden has promised to do, should he be reelected. Democrats further down the ballot are repeating this simple story of abortion rights—you lose Roe, you get another Roe—as they too hope to harness voters motivated by the ballot measures. Equating “abortion rights” with Roe is, in fact, a contested strategy in the broader movement for reproductive rights and justice—though you might not know that from the narrative falling into place about “putting abortion on the ballot.” You might come away thinking that the success of these ballot initiatives is measured by how successfully they get out the vote for Democrats, not how the measures would restore or protect the right to abortion.
The problem with the “restore Roe!” rallying cry is that, as activists have succinctly put it, “Roe is the floor, not the ceiling.” Roe protected the right to abortion only up to the point of fetal viability. But this boundary is disputed: How viability is defined, how viability should be used to set limits on abortion, and whether it should be used at all, are all complicated questions medically, morally, and politically. But when it comes to the law, “viability” is too arbitrary a standard to set, some advocates argue, and one that excludes later abortions, which are already difficult to obtain. Now state ballot initiatives meant to “restore Roe” could be enshrining this viability standard in state constitutions.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is blunt about the issue: The primary professional association for these doctors “strongly discourages the inclusion of viability in legislation or regulation.” Some presume that placing a viability limit on abortion is necessary to persuade voters. But political consultants are now testing that principle: One 2023 survey saw that a viability limit may actually “dampen strong support” for constitutional amendments. Poll respondents said they worried that “politicians could outlaw most abortions by redefining viability,” that the language around viability was “vague,” that “the state should not be involved.”
10 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
