The consequences of this election, either way
Regardless of who wins the presidency, challenges remain for reproductive rights activists and people seeking to build the Democratic Party.
I wanted to use today’s newsletter to discuss the presidential race and the implications of either a Republican or Democratic presidency for the reproductive rights movement.
Virtually everyone within it wants Kamala Harris to win. In the event of a Trump presidency, the Justice Department could begin enforcing the Comstock Act, an archaic law that forbids the mailing of abortifacients. Margaret Sanger had campaigned against it, and if it were applied today, then mifepristone and misoprostol couldn’t be received by women who were prescribed them through telemedicine.
Additionally, a Trump presidency may rescind FDA approval of mifepristone, which Justice Brett Kavanaugh recently suggested doing in an opinion written in the recent case surrounding the continued legality of the drug.
According to some polls, nearly 60 percent of abortions now are done through medication. So, the consequences are enormous if Trump were to win.
Nonetheless, if Democrats were to lose, then it would be a time to reflect on the reasons that the country chose such a divisive candidate–someone who was convicted of a felony and incited an insurrection. That the race is this close, given those circumstances, should cause alarm within the party and serious questioning about things like messaging, candidate selection, and political strategy.
Kamala Harris is a trailblazing candidate who broke barriers through the intersection of her race and gender. That’s important, as representation within high political office gives younger people the impression that they, too, could fill it.
However, representation isn’t the only concern that matters, nor should it be the sole one driving who gets the nomination or an essential appointment within government. Democrats, should they lose, will have to insist on having a primary, reforming the process to make both vice presidents and presidents a matter of voter choice, and demanding that the candidate answer questions from journalists and citizens at length and thoughtfully. Accessibility and transparency from candidates and incumbents are hallmarks of a healthy democracy.
If Trump wins, the media and press will again be forced to reevaluate how they approach coverage. Failing to cover the nomination process among Democrats skeptically further eroded the faith in newspapers and television news. Excusing Harris from answering questions was also a failure. Portraying Republicans as hopelessly intolerant without speaking to any registered voter is another thing that they must change. Journalism is more than just writing about progressive causes and providing supportive editorials for candidates deemed acceptable by a small but influential group of Democrats.
If Harris wins, we shouldn’t have a repeat of what the Obama administration did at the outset of its term. If a candidate promises to deliver on reproductive rights, then they can’t hedge on things like insurance covering abortion care, conscience clauses, or repeal of the Hyde Amendment. Regardless of how inspiring a person is, that doesn’t excuse them from questions or accountability. Finding common ground doesn’t mean conceding to antiabortion activists on things that they portray as reasonable but, in reality, are just another attempt to chip away at what was already a compromise.
Other things that haven’t been discussed in this election cycle are the importance of fetal tissue research and protecting the confidentiality and privacy of abortion-seekers and providers. Shield laws should be provided at the federal level.
I don’t know what will happen in this election, but there will be challenges after. So let’s anticipate them and be prepared if they come.