There's a bigger picture to it: "Operation Define Kamala Harris" Version 3.7 was to portray her as "a flip-flopper" with no principles other than whatever simply gets her elected, that she's incapable of evolving on the issues... How's it going to look during the debate when Trump calls Harris out for being shaky on fracking when she can just come back with this?
Even better is that fracking is a niche interest that only matters in the election because of Pennsylvania while abortion is an issue in every state with female voters. As in all of them, and Trump's going to stand there and try to tell women fracking is more important than their health.
Did you understand what I wrote? I'm saying this is actually considerably worse for Trump than it first appears, as it undermines his whole case against Harris.
Frankly Trump's willingness to say he would vote for the abortion amendment gives me serious pause about his mental acuity. The Trump of 2016 had reasonable amounts of political insight - at least to informed lay-person level. The Trump of 2016 would have known that he'd never regain the trust of the pro choice movement after Dobbs and that going soft on abortion would cause the pro-life crowd to erupt...which they did. He'd have wafffled and deflected from the question when asked how he was going to vote on the amendment. Instead he made a clear statement he wouldn't obey it....I reckon this man's brain is softening!...PS Thanks for the info on the poll of 69% support for the amendment. If this support level holds up I really wonder if Florida may flip blue!
I don't know how 'wouldnt' obey' it got through. What it meant to say was that Trump said he clearly would vote for the amendment which won him no friends in the pro choice movement (he has way too much baggage) and infuriating the pro-life mob. I can't for the life of me see why he did it unless he's growing...confused in his old age.
You know it's possible to edit your comments after they're posted? See the three dots (ellipsis) at the right of the LIKE REPLY SHARE line at the bottom of your comment? Click that. One of the options is Edit. (P.S. You've got three "f's" in "waffled." ;-) )
Aside from the head-spinning tendency to parrot whatever the line of the last person he talked with, I want to scream every time I hear Trump's insistence that leaving abortion questions to states is a good and desirable thing. Why should a woman in Texas have fewer rights to her own body than a woman in California? Why should a bunch of men in a red state legislature be able to control women
— who very well might not have voted for them — in increasingly dystopian ways? Taking away women's freedoms should never, ever be a question of "states' rights."
I want to amend my comment: I shouldn't have said "men" in a red state legislature because there are plenty of women who are just as committed as any man to destroying women's bodily autonomy.
What I still have a hard time believing, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary, is that the right wing was/is so stuck in its echo chamber that it had no idea what most of the country was thinking about abortion. And presumably about anything else: they seem to have had no clue what the popular reaction to Project 2025 would be.
It is very revealing to force oneself to imbibe a morning or afternoon of Fox 'News'. Incredible how much news just never gets mentioned at all. They truly are the low information voters.
A whole morning or afternoon would probably do me in, but I do stop by from time to time. What I have to keep reminding myself is that for most of these people, Fox is their *only source of news*. They have no idea what's *not* being covered, or that there are multiple takes on what is. And forget about the background for whatever's happening now.
This is where Project 2025 is already infiltrating in Red States like Florida and Texas. It reminds me a lot of Iran for women. Then there is this one by NowThisImpact called Pregnant Teen's Story Shows How Arkansas Is Putting Patients at Risk. https://youtu.be/-pyG6SsAiOk?si=KszhKO7NZCGOD8gz
Both help to tell the story of rights over health care for women in this country. My Democrats Abroad book club group is reading and discussing Project 2025, and in the chapter on the Department of Health and Human Services, they seem to want to turn it into the Department of Life. Abortion is forbidden and so is IVF and Birth controls that would in any way end an egg. It also has draconian policies for parents, in that Fathers have to get a phone app if they are not married to the mom, which would deduct their child care payments. They have to participate in parenting classes, but if they fail to meet their obligations as a parent (which frankly I think many Christian Nationalist men would), then they have their rights to their children taken away. What is missing however is any penalization of men for wasting sperm as there is for women "wasting eggs" ie culling them and then not fertilizing all of them and implanting them. By these same rules, men should be not allowed to masturbate because that wastes sperm, and perhaps wear a cold pack when they walk around so they don't get turned on and then leak. I wonder what prevention could be found for wet dreams. The draconian rules, largely apply to women as it currently stands, and there are those calling for woman to get the death penalty, as if they cannot understand that thou shalt not kill, does not only apply to their idea of a fetus , but to whole living, breathing people too. Thank goodness we have a candidacy that has common sense. Some countries only get the loonies. We have two, who are becoming one, but not in our party. https://youtu.be/B9XTNcneynw?si=08ojKY11y5OcLDmT
“Another issue here is the complicity of the media in cleaning up Trump’s fact-free flip-flops.” “….reported as merely a clarification or simply mixed signals…” or as the NYT presented it as “a policy shift”. The media reports Trump’s statements, actions, and utterances as if they are fact-based reality. With Trump’s documented tens of thousand of lies, his motivation to say anything to be elected, and his con-man tactics, along with decades of prior bad behavior(s)….. media normalization of Trump should be questioned with every article, every headline, and every newsroom meeting about “how to cover Trump”.
“Trump talk” is a revenue producer, generating clicks, “eye-balls”, while lengthening user time and engagement with a site. This information should be obvious to readers, it is certainly clear to “information” outlets competing in a tough media environment for advertiser money. That said, it seems the linkage of “Trump talk” and revenue has been untethered from journalistic integrity, credibility, and the appearances of objectivity and unbiased reporting since at least 2015. Not in all cases, but obvious examples exist on a daily basis in the Washington Post and New York Times. Headlines are not always representative of article content, and writers often cater to the same headline.
We should all aware of the dangers of our own tendencies towards confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance – along with the bias that “I am completely objective” (!). Obvious media bias needs to be called out often and loudly. In my humble unbiased view, Trump is a liar, convicted fraudster, con-man, and criminal unfit as POTUS.
The relentless dependence on clicks by 'news organizations' is certainly contributing to a migration of cash towards independent journalists on Substack, Beehive, etc. No wonder!
An editorial in WaPo criticized Walz for suggesting that trump and Vance were anti-IVF because "they have taken stands in favor of it." My comment was they have also taken stands AGAINST it; which stand do you choose and why? And I note that what "stand" trump takes about anything that a Dem might support depends on what day of the week you are talking about. Last week was a perfect example.
There is another side to the abortion issue that no one seems to talk about. Doctors are leaving the Ob-Gyn profession. It will be harder to find doctors who are willing to deliver viable births especially if something goes wrong...they risk being in the focus of accountability. Doctor's insurance could become sky high for liability reasons...so it is not only abortions that are at stake her but in the larger picture-Women's Health in general will suffer....As a two time survivor of breast and ovarian cancer-the thought of less availability of Women's Health providers is frightening. I live in South Dakota-we lost our ObGyn Onocologist and have depend on "visiting" doctors for treatment. Our town of Rapid City provides services within 500 mile radius-that includes Eastern Montana, Eastern Wyoming, Southern North Dakota, Northern Nebraska-parts of rural Eastern Colorado!
We are promised a new doctor in 2025-thinking of the lives that could be potentially lost is unacceptable...It's more than just babies at stake!
I have added to my post the website of the March of Dimes -map of Maternal Care deserts in the US and articles on rise in infant mortality rates,\.......
This is so true. Not only are OBGYN doctors fleeing these states for fear of losing their licenses or going to prison FOR DOING THEIR JOBS, these states are struggling to fill OBGYN residencies which is further contributing to the void in women's healthcare.
Ultimately, as Heidi Gaiser stated in an earlier comment, why should a woman in Texas have less rights over her body than a woman in California, or Kansas?
The media makes a lot more fuss about Harris “flip-flopping” on fracking and making it a big issue.
Well, her statement was given in 2019 or 2020, and in all fairness: It is nothing unusual to change one’s mind. Trump’s “flip-flops” all the time and gets away with it.
“[W]atching Trump change his mind …” Are we still assuming the man actually makes firm decisions? He goes wherever the MAGA winds blow—invariably to the very depths. And invariably wrong. But it gives him the misguided impression of universal appeal. (Earth Two version only.)
How is the Trump campaign utilizing volunteers with messaging like this? Are they running a parallel campaign to his in-person events? Is there the same level of Zoom call organizing happening with the Trump campaign that tells people to ignore him and just stick to the talking points? I’m so confused.
The nonsense (and lies) about “post-birth” abortions is about the most ludicrous idea I’ve ever heard. Trump repeated this during his debate with Biden earlier this year, and neither President Biden nor the moderators chose to challenge Trump on his stupidity and misinformation. I’ll presume that abortion will be one of the topics for the upcoming debate between the two candidates and that Ms. Harris will clean Trump’s clock with any (hah) and all lies he proffers. There might not be enough time to challenge every lie or misstatement, but the viewing public will get the idea quickly that Trump has absolutely no substance and will hopefully leave the state with his tail between his legs. That is, of course, if he even listens to himself. Which he does not.
It has been a number of years since I read the actual Roe v wade decision. It was part of the Criminology course I taught.
The court divided term of pregnancy into three parts.
During the first trimester the decision to have an abortion was legal. A decision made by the pregnant woman and performed by a licensed physician.
During the second trimester the states could regulate abortion if they chose to do so. Depending on the threat to the life of the woman or the fetus. In other words, the state could outlaw abortion in this trimester.
During the third trimester abortion was illegal, unless it was necessary to save the life of the woman.
The decision was based upon the constitutional right to privacy and several preceding, related decisions.This is not the actual wording of the court. But this is how I believe the decision was generally interpreted.
Does my memory fail me? I do not remember anything about heart beats or crushing baby's heads outside of the mother's womb at the end of the third trimester.
There's a bigger picture to it: "Operation Define Kamala Harris" Version 3.7 was to portray her as "a flip-flopper" with no principles other than whatever simply gets her elected, that she's incapable of evolving on the issues... How's it going to look during the debate when Trump calls Harris out for being shaky on fracking when she can just come back with this?
Even better is that fracking is a niche interest that only matters in the election because of Pennsylvania while abortion is an issue in every state with female voters. As in all of them, and Trump's going to stand there and try to tell women fracking is more important than their health.
For ultra conservatives, it is hard to imagine anything less important than female .. well, female anything.
Eh?
Did you understand what I wrote? I'm saying this is actually considerably worse for Trump than it first appears, as it undermines his whole case against Harris.
Frankly Trump's willingness to say he would vote for the abortion amendment gives me serious pause about his mental acuity. The Trump of 2016 had reasonable amounts of political insight - at least to informed lay-person level. The Trump of 2016 would have known that he'd never regain the trust of the pro choice movement after Dobbs and that going soft on abortion would cause the pro-life crowd to erupt...which they did. He'd have wafffled and deflected from the question when asked how he was going to vote on the amendment. Instead he made a clear statement he wouldn't obey it....I reckon this man's brain is softening!...PS Thanks for the info on the poll of 69% support for the amendment. If this support level holds up I really wonder if Florida may flip blue!
I don't know how 'wouldnt' obey' it got through. What it meant to say was that Trump said he clearly would vote for the amendment which won him no friends in the pro choice movement (he has way too much baggage) and infuriating the pro-life mob. I can't for the life of me see why he did it unless he's growing...confused in his old age.
Auto correct changed wetsuit to weather shit on me last week. It swears! 🤣
You know it's possible to edit your comments after they're posted? See the three dots (ellipsis) at the right of the LIKE REPLY SHARE line at the bottom of your comment? Click that. One of the options is Edit. (P.S. You've got three "f's" in "waffled." ;-) )
Thanks Sususanna. Now way I could have found that out on my own.
Aside from the head-spinning tendency to parrot whatever the line of the last person he talked with, I want to scream every time I hear Trump's insistence that leaving abortion questions to states is a good and desirable thing. Why should a woman in Texas have fewer rights to her own body than a woman in California? Why should a bunch of men in a red state legislature be able to control women
— who very well might not have voted for them — in increasingly dystopian ways? Taking away women's freedoms should never, ever be a question of "states' rights."
I want to amend my comment: I shouldn't have said "men" in a red state legislature because there are plenty of women who are just as committed as any man to destroying women's bodily autonomy.
see my comment about Women's Health in general being at stake here...
It's how they get their foot in the door to bring back slavery.
What I still have a hard time believing, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary, is that the right wing was/is so stuck in its echo chamber that it had no idea what most of the country was thinking about abortion. And presumably about anything else: they seem to have had no clue what the popular reaction to Project 2025 would be.
It is very revealing to force oneself to imbibe a morning or afternoon of Fox 'News'. Incredible how much news just never gets mentioned at all. They truly are the low information voters.
A whole morning or afternoon would probably do me in, but I do stop by from time to time. What I have to keep reminding myself is that for most of these people, Fox is their *only source of news*. They have no idea what's *not* being covered, or that there are multiple takes on what is. And forget about the background for whatever's happening now.
It's a problem!
He continues to spiral making corp media's clean-up job almost impossible. Still, somehow they manage.
Look at this Lincoln Project video called State Line. https://youtu.be/3FGIyxhGkvo?si=xFarH5x7yU2eGGQo
This is where Project 2025 is already infiltrating in Red States like Florida and Texas. It reminds me a lot of Iran for women. Then there is this one by NowThisImpact called Pregnant Teen's Story Shows How Arkansas Is Putting Patients at Risk. https://youtu.be/-pyG6SsAiOk?si=KszhKO7NZCGOD8gz
Both help to tell the story of rights over health care for women in this country. My Democrats Abroad book club group is reading and discussing Project 2025, and in the chapter on the Department of Health and Human Services, they seem to want to turn it into the Department of Life. Abortion is forbidden and so is IVF and Birth controls that would in any way end an egg. It also has draconian policies for parents, in that Fathers have to get a phone app if they are not married to the mom, which would deduct their child care payments. They have to participate in parenting classes, but if they fail to meet their obligations as a parent (which frankly I think many Christian Nationalist men would), then they have their rights to their children taken away. What is missing however is any penalization of men for wasting sperm as there is for women "wasting eggs" ie culling them and then not fertilizing all of them and implanting them. By these same rules, men should be not allowed to masturbate because that wastes sperm, and perhaps wear a cold pack when they walk around so they don't get turned on and then leak. I wonder what prevention could be found for wet dreams. The draconian rules, largely apply to women as it currently stands, and there are those calling for woman to get the death penalty, as if they cannot understand that thou shalt not kill, does not only apply to their idea of a fetus , but to whole living, breathing people too. Thank goodness we have a candidacy that has common sense. Some countries only get the loonies. We have two, who are becoming one, but not in our party. https://youtu.be/B9XTNcneynw?si=08ojKY11y5OcLDmT
Viva la Kamala!
“Another issue here is the complicity of the media in cleaning up Trump’s fact-free flip-flops.” “….reported as merely a clarification or simply mixed signals…” or as the NYT presented it as “a policy shift”. The media reports Trump’s statements, actions, and utterances as if they are fact-based reality. With Trump’s documented tens of thousand of lies, his motivation to say anything to be elected, and his con-man tactics, along with decades of prior bad behavior(s)….. media normalization of Trump should be questioned with every article, every headline, and every newsroom meeting about “how to cover Trump”.
“Trump talk” is a revenue producer, generating clicks, “eye-balls”, while lengthening user time and engagement with a site. This information should be obvious to readers, it is certainly clear to “information” outlets competing in a tough media environment for advertiser money. That said, it seems the linkage of “Trump talk” and revenue has been untethered from journalistic integrity, credibility, and the appearances of objectivity and unbiased reporting since at least 2015. Not in all cases, but obvious examples exist on a daily basis in the Washington Post and New York Times. Headlines are not always representative of article content, and writers often cater to the same headline.
We should all aware of the dangers of our own tendencies towards confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance – along with the bias that “I am completely objective” (!). Obvious media bias needs to be called out often and loudly. In my humble unbiased view, Trump is a liar, convicted fraudster, con-man, and criminal unfit as POTUS.
The relentless dependence on clicks by 'news organizations' is certainly contributing to a migration of cash towards independent journalists on Substack, Beehive, etc. No wonder!
An editorial in WaPo criticized Walz for suggesting that trump and Vance were anti-IVF because "they have taken stands in favor of it." My comment was they have also taken stands AGAINST it; which stand do you choose and why? And I note that what "stand" trump takes about anything that a Dem might support depends on what day of the week you are talking about. Last week was a perfect example.
There is another side to the abortion issue that no one seems to talk about. Doctors are leaving the Ob-Gyn profession. It will be harder to find doctors who are willing to deliver viable births especially if something goes wrong...they risk being in the focus of accountability. Doctor's insurance could become sky high for liability reasons...so it is not only abortions that are at stake her but in the larger picture-Women's Health in general will suffer....As a two time survivor of breast and ovarian cancer-the thought of less availability of Women's Health providers is frightening. I live in South Dakota-we lost our ObGyn Onocologist and have depend on "visiting" doctors for treatment. Our town of Rapid City provides services within 500 mile radius-that includes Eastern Montana, Eastern Wyoming, Southern North Dakota, Northern Nebraska-parts of rural Eastern Colorado!
We are promised a new doctor in 2025-thinking of the lives that could be potentially lost is unacceptable...It's more than just babies at stake!
I have added to my post the website of the March of Dimes -map of Maternal Care deserts in the US and articles on rise in infant mortality rates,\.......
https://www.marchofdimes.org/maternity-care-deserts-report#map
This is so true. Not only are OBGYN doctors fleeing these states for fear of losing their licenses or going to prison FOR DOING THEIR JOBS, these states are struggling to fill OBGYN residencies which is further contributing to the void in women's healthcare.
Ultimately, as Heidi Gaiser stated in an earlier comment, why should a woman in Texas have less rights over her body than a woman in California, or Kansas?
Having ob-gyns leaving red states causes even more out of state travel to access healthcare.
And not a one-off healthcare incident, but long term healthcare.
How would that work if the GOP regains office??
The media makes a lot more fuss about Harris “flip-flopping” on fracking and making it a big issue.
Well, her statement was given in 2019 or 2020, and in all fairness: It is nothing unusual to change one’s mind. Trump’s “flip-flops” all the time and gets away with it.
A brilliant article! 🤗
It's healthy to be able to change one's mind as more is learned. 👍
“[W]atching Trump change his mind …” Are we still assuming the man actually makes firm decisions? He goes wherever the MAGA winds blow—invariably to the very depths. And invariably wrong. But it gives him the misguided impression of universal appeal. (Earth Two version only.)
How is the Trump campaign utilizing volunteers with messaging like this? Are they running a parallel campaign to his in-person events? Is there the same level of Zoom call organizing happening with the Trump campaign that tells people to ignore him and just stick to the talking points? I’m so confused.
The nonsense (and lies) about “post-birth” abortions is about the most ludicrous idea I’ve ever heard. Trump repeated this during his debate with Biden earlier this year, and neither President Biden nor the moderators chose to challenge Trump on his stupidity and misinformation. I’ll presume that abortion will be one of the topics for the upcoming debate between the two candidates and that Ms. Harris will clean Trump’s clock with any (hah) and all lies he proffers. There might not be enough time to challenge every lie or misstatement, but the viewing public will get the idea quickly that Trump has absolutely no substance and will hopefully leave the state with his tail between his legs. That is, of course, if he even listens to himself. Which he does not.
https://www.marchofdimes.org/maternity-care-deserts-report#map
There is starting to be a dialogue on the future of Women's Health-these concerns should be added to the dialogue!!!!!!
It has been a number of years since I read the actual Roe v wade decision. It was part of the Criminology course I taught.
The court divided term of pregnancy into three parts.
During the first trimester the decision to have an abortion was legal. A decision made by the pregnant woman and performed by a licensed physician.
During the second trimester the states could regulate abortion if they chose to do so. Depending on the threat to the life of the woman or the fetus. In other words, the state could outlaw abortion in this trimester.
During the third trimester abortion was illegal, unless it was necessary to save the life of the woman.
The decision was based upon the constitutional right to privacy and several preceding, related decisions.This is not the actual wording of the court. But this is how I believe the decision was generally interpreted.
Does my memory fail me? I do not remember anything about heart beats or crushing baby's heads outside of the mother's womb at the end of the third trimester.