ICYMI

Cosmic Jokesters Buy Cesspool of Hatemongering Psycopath Who Is Not Taking It Well


Alex Jones on Infowars
Screenshot from Infowars

FURTHER
Abby Zimet
Nov 19, 2024
COMMON DREAMS


Oh sweet justice. We salute the supremely ironic sale of Alex Jones' vicious Infowars - now bankrupt thanks to the $1.4 billion he owes Sandy Hook families for claiming the massacre of their children was a hoax - to the satirical wise-acres of The Onion, working with those families. Aptly,The Onion's most iconic headline is on gun violence - "'No Way To Prevent This’, Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens"; it has run 37 times. They call their new buy "probably one of the better jokes we’ve ever told."

Surely there could be no riper moment for such schadenfreude than in these surreal times, when a sexual-assaulting Fox host may be running the Defense Department, a child-trafficking clown could be A.G., a road-kill-eating anti-vaxer might be making our health decisions, and the timeless question will resonate ever more deeply: Is this (mostly terrifying, occasionally uproarious) story real, or from The Onion? Of course the loopy meltdowns and fever dreams and new world order conspiracies of Jones' venomous show always seemed too weird to be real. Fake moon landing! Machete race war! Sex with goblins! Illuminati linked to Hillary and Lady Gaga! Often sobbing, he ripped off his shirt - Watch this! - screamed 1776 WILL COMMENCE AGAIN IF YOU TRY TO TAKE OUR FIREARMS, ranted the lining in juice boxes was making our children gay and the Pentagon-tested gay bomb on Eye-raq and our troops was doing it to adults and PUTTING CHEMICALS IN THE WATER TURNS THE FRIGGIN' FROGS GAY. "I'M SICK OF BEING SOCIAL ENGINEERED!" he shrieked. "ITS NOT FUNNY." No, it's not.

It was also not funny when he claimed America's bloody, ceaseless shootings - Gabbie Giffords, Boston Marathon et a l- were staged propaganda using "crisis actors" in order to wrest Americans' guns from their cold dead hands. Most grotesquely, he repeatedly claimed 2012's grisly murder of 20 first-graders, along with six educators, at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., was a hoax, as were all those small bodies mutilated beyond recognition and the grieving, ravaged families who had to endure them. Faced with those impossible losses as well as Jones' lies and threats from his followers, the Sandy Hook families sued him, for years keeping up a legal fight for "true accountability," aka "an end to Infowars and an end to Jones' ability to spread lies, pain and fear." Under relentless pressure - and after eventually acknowledging the shooting was real - he offered them more and more money if they'd let him stay on the air spewing vitriol; they rejected each offer because not doing so "would have put other families in harm’s way."

This fall, after the families won a $1.4 billion defamation judgment against Jones' "willful and malicious" actions, a U.S. bankruptcy judge finally ordered Infowars and its assets be sold off at auction, from its Austin studio, equipment, trademarks, video archive to its snake-oil nutritional supplement store. Last week, The Onion announced its parent company Global Tetrahedron was the winning bidder; they plan to relaunch a parody version of the site in January, thus seizing a fetid platform for hateful, right-wing skulduggery and turning it into its own mordant, smart-mouthed, big-hearted soapbox. In an "especially sweet bit of justice," they worked with Sandy Hook's non-profit Everytown for Gun Safety, which will contribute gun violence prevention stories to the site. "We thought it would be hilarious if we bought this thing," they said of a choice to leave Jones "unpunished for what he's done to these families, or we could make a dumb, stupid website, and we decided to do the second thing. We hope (the) families will be able to marvel at the cosmic joke we'll soon make of InfoWars."

It's a sublimely bonkers pairing for "America’s Finest News Source," which boasts of "rising from its humble beginnings in 1756" to grow into "the single most powerful organization in human history," with "a daily readership of 4.3 trillion people" supporting "over 350,000 journalism jobs in its news bureaus and labor camps around the world." Its headlines, often witlessly taken at face value, are its macabre crown jewels: "Planned Parenthood Opens $8 Billion Abortionplex," "Trump Boys Have Slap Fight Over Who Gets To Run Foreign Policy Meetings," "RFK Jr. Vows To Ban Soaps That Smell So Good You Eat A Little," followed by "RFK Jr. Performs "Self-Surgery To Extract Big Mac," which he ate on Trump's plane. They also offered civic lessons for Democrats from the last sorry election: "Lock in John Legend’s endorsement earlier," "Try to not already hold the presidency when a thing happens that voters dislike, "Appeal to other demographics beyond the Cheney family," "One more fundraising text would’ve done the job," and the reminder, "The soul of America is a black expanse."

They offer books - "Our Dumb Country" - and many videos: "Expert Explains Why Essentially You're Fucked," "U.S. Deploys Socially Awkward Men Along Border to Deter Migrants," "Neo-Nazi Pulls Off Surprise Victory In Longheld KKK District," "Conservative Man Proudly Frightened of Everything," from cartoons to Chinese babies to big coastal cities to languages that aren't English." There's even a horoscope - for Scorpios, "Stop avoiding conflict just because you're afraid of killing again" - and FAQs. "How can I bring The Onion to my event? The writers and editors are available for speaking engagements at universities, conferences and meet-ups for disgraced veterinarians." "What if I want to sue The Onion? Please do not do that." "Where can I find The Onion? The Onionis all around you." Given the nation's bloody history - at least 125 people a day killed by guns, twice as many wounded - their famous "No Way To Prevent This" headline was published "entirely too often," including the day after the Uvalde shooting, when its entire front page was plastered with reprints of 21 earlier iterations.

The gun-obsessed Jones was a frequent target. For the resolute, grieving families of Sandy Hook, his downfall is "the justice we have long awaited and fought for," said Robbie Parker, whose daughter Emilie was killed in the 2012 shooting. The families' attorney Chris Mattei called them "heroes" intent on bringing down Jones, "the perpetrator of the worst defamation in American history." John Feinblatt, the president of Everytown, praised their new partnership, including a multi-year advertising agreement. "It made all the sense in the world," he said, citing their access to gun violence research and data. He also nailed "really the bottom line here, and that is poetic justice." Having resumed his rabid show from a new studio and on X, Jones has reacted as gracefully as you'd expect, raging the sale is "a total attack on free speech," the auction was "rigged" with "money that isn't real," he's working with "good guy bidders" to keep him on the air, and with the inexplicable arrival of Elon Musk on the scene, "If you want a fight, you got one. "Trump is pissed," he snarled. "The cavalry is here."

Thursday, in a new legal wrangle, federal bankruptcy judge Christopher Lopez ordered a hearing to review the sale after a lawyer for the only other bidder alleged "fraud and impermissible collusion" in the auction. The bidder, First United American Companies, runs Jones' snake-oil business; their lawyer said their bid was higher, and auction trustee Christopher Murray violated earlier court-ordered rules by skipping an optional final round of bids. Calling the allegations "baseless" and "bullying from a disappointed bidder," he acknowledged their bid was higher: $3.5 million to The Onion's $1.75 million. But The Onion offered incentives by Sandy Hook families to forego up to 100% of the proceeds, enabling other Jones creditors to recover far more than under First United’s larger, but smaller-minded bid. "The sale is currently underway, pending standard processes," insisted Onion CEO Ben Collins, who used to write for NBC about paranoid quacks like Jones. "The idea he was just going to walk away (without) doing this sort of thing is funny in itself." Along with cash, he added, "We also accept Bitcoin."

In a Monday "editorial" about buying Infowars, Global Tetrahedron's "CEO" Bryce P. Tetraeder celebrated their "new addition" to the Global "family" whose members, like all families, are "abstract nodes (of) interchangeable assets for their patriarch to absorb and discard according to the opaque whims of the market." Buying Infowars was "an easy decision," he said, with its "true unicorn" mix of "delusional paranoia and dubious anti-aging nutrition hacks (to) make life both scarier and longer," and "a well-deserved victory for multinational elites." On Bluesky, Collins noted real media had requested interviews with "Tetraeder," who alas was "on his superyacht (to) do a quality control check at one of our 43,000 global puppy mills.” But The Onion is still churning out news. On Tuesday, it reported, "Trump Locks Bathroom Door So Elon Musk Can't Follow Him In" after "an audibly frustrated Trump" earlier stood up from the toilet to throw Musk out. "Bad Elon," he said. "Now, go to your kennel and lie down." Later, Trump reportedly sent Musk "to be neutered after he got out of his crate and impregnated dozens of female aides."


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Abby Zimet  has written CD's Further column since 2008. A longtime, award-winning journalist, she moved to the Maine woods in the early 70s, where she spent a dozen years building a house, hauling water and writing before moving to Portland. Having come of political age during the Vietnam War, she has long been involved in women's, labor, anti-war, social justice and refugee rights issues. Email: azimet18@gmail.com
Full Bio >

Op-Ed: Maybe polarizing social media was an even dumber idea than it looks

By Paul Wallis
November 20, 2024

DIGITAL JOURNAL

Elon Musk's X. — © AFP

The hordes of people leaving X are a sort of statistical obituary to years of propaganda. X is in big trouble, mainly because of its policies and algorithms and a bizarre relationship with infuriated advertisers.

Like most of American media, X instantly demoted itself to half of its own market share with its politics. It also became a servant, like FOX, to one side only. That’s not working out too well.

You’ll also notice from media coverage that nobody’s questioning the self-decapitation and disembowelment of X. The other glaring problem is that somehow this situation is now seen as normal.

It isn’t normal. People and advertisers are voting with their dollars and clicks.

Disgruntled X users are now heading to Bluesky in vast numbers. Millions of people have basically abandoned X. Bluesky looks a bit like early Twitter. Seems quite OK as an environment. I haven’t seen a rabid lunatic yet.

The new and huge problem is the quality of information vs communication. This is now an abyss of opposing information.

Unless there’s some middle ground, and the medium isn’t hopelessly biased, social media has just machinegunned itself in the foot. Politics is not the sole interest of the world. Other things happen, too, y’know.

That’s where audience loss is likely to be fatal. What if you don’t want to read about The Adventures of Donny and Elon in Disneyland?

What if you want a broad and useful mix of your own interests, instead?

The sole and whole purpose of social media is communication. Reducing your content range to such a narrow focus means you inevitably lose users.

Nor is the Chicken Little approach to information exactly popular. Nobody listens to raving lunatics if they don’t have to.

The possible exception to that theory is screen-fed America. Markets and media businesses take a long time to change course. This market doesn’t eat solid food anymore. The child-psychology is pretty obvious. These sources will probably simply continue to produce pablum.

The total stagnation of American mass media was one thing. This social media situation is stagnation of real-time information as well. X has made itself useless to its users.

People obviously don’t like that. The move to Bluesky is self-defense. The social media market can blame itself for a newcomer just walking off with its customers.

Let’s talk “dumb”.

Billions of dollars of investment are now evaporating in a festering social media environment and those billions aren’t coming back.

The World’s Richest Sudden Instant Fan Boy doesn’t have the excuse of being geriatric or illiterate. He should have enough metrics to see the cliff coming.

The big money markets in the US are all blue. The black holes are all red, with the possible exception of Texas. Ignore those big blue markets at your peril. Lose those markets and you’re doing hillbilly scale dollars. These much smaller markets can’t deliver the same value. Advertisers and marketers know that.

The rest of the world is also reacting very negatively to the toxicity of social media. The hubris and hype are all American-generated. The rest of the world can easily ignore most of this garbage.

What if reality gets involved in this mess? Economic risks and social disintegration are circling like buzzards over America in huge numbers with dollar signs on them. All types of media should be building financial fallout shelters about now. Markets can evaporate overnight.

No amount of fake news hysteria and self-congratulation can make an impression on that situation. You need “Make America Solvent Again” to do that, and it looks like that’s not happening for the next four years.

How would you read a commercial market that is basically suicidal? Would you focus on customer retention in the afterlife? You might have to do that.

Social media needs a functional market to exist at all. If the money’s pulling out, the message couldn’t be clearer.

__________________________________________________
Disclaimer

The opinions expressed in this Op-Ed are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the Digital Journal or its members.

Social media users probably won’t read beyond this headline, researchers say

A new study of 35 million news links circulated on Facebook reports that more than 75% of the time they were shared without the link being clicked upon and read

Penn State

UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — Congratulations. Reading this far into the story is a feat not many will accomplish, especially if shared on Facebook, according to a team led by Penn State researchers. In an analysis of more than 35 million public posts containing links that were shared extensively on the social media platform between 2017 and 2020, the researchers found that around 75% of the shares were made without the posters clicking the link first. Of these, political content from both ends of the spectrum was shared without clicking more often than politically neutral content.

The findings, which the researchers said suggest that social media users tend to merely read headlines and blurbs rather than fully engage with core content, appeared today (Nov. 19) in Nature Human Behavior. While the data were limited to Facebook, the researchers said the findings could likely map to other social media platforms and help explain why misinformation can spread so quickly online.

“It was a big surprise to find out that more than 75% of the time, the links shared on Facebook were shared without the user clicking through first,” said corresponding author S. Shyam Sundar, Evan Pugh University Professor and the James P. Jimirro Professor of Media Effects at Penn State. “I had assumed that if someone shared something, they read and thought about it, that they’re supporting or even championing the content. You might expect that maybe a few people would occasionally share content without thinking it through, but for most shares to be like this? That was a surprising, very scary finding.”

Access to the Facebook data was granted via Social Science One, a research consortium hosted by Harvard University’s Institute for Quantitative Social Science focused on obtaining and sharing social and behavioral data responsibly and ethically. The data were provided in collaboration with Meta, Facebook’s parent company, and included user demographics and behaviors, such as a “political page affinity score.” This score was determined by external researchers identifying the pages users follow — like the accounts of media outlets and political figures. The researchers used the political page affinity score to assign users to one of five groups — very liberal, liberal, neutral, conservative and very conservative.

To determine the political content of shared links, the researchers in this study used machine learning, a form of artificial intelligence, to identify and classify political terms in the link content. They scored the content on a similar five-point political affinity scale, from very liberal to very conservative, based on how many times each affinity group shared the link.

"We created this new variable of political affinity of content based on 35 million Facebook posts during election season across four years. This is a meaningful period to understand macro-level patterns behind social media news sharing,” said co-author Eugene Cho Snyder, assistant professor of humanities and social sciences at New Jersey Institute of Technology

The team validated the political affinity of news domains, such as CNN or Fox, based on the media bias chart produced by AllSides, an independent company focused on helping people understand the biases of news content, and a ratings system developed by researchers at Northeastern University.

With these rating systems, the team manually sorted 8,000 links, first identifying them as political or non-political content. Then the researchers used this dataset to train an algorithm that assessed 35 million links shared more than 100 times on Facebook by users in the United States.

“A pattern emerged that was confirmed at the level of individual links,” Snyder said. “The closer the political alignment of the content to the user — both liberal and conservative — the more it was shared without clicks. … They are simply forwarding things that seem on the surface to agree with their political ideology, not realizing that they may sometimes be sharing false information.”

The findings support the theory that many users superficially read news stories based just on headlines and blurbs, Sundar said, explaining that Meta also provided data from its third-party fact-checking service — which identified that 2,969 of the shared URLs linked to false content.

The researchers found that these links were shared over 41 million times, without being clicked. Of these, 76.94% came from conservative users and 14.25% from liberal users. The researchers explained that the vast majority — up to 82% — of the links to false information in the dataset originated from conservative news domains.

To cut down on sharing without clicking, Sundar said that social media platforms could introduce “friction” to slow the share, such as requiring people to acknowledge that they have read the full content prior to sharing.

“Superficial processing of headlines and blurbs can be dangerous if false data are being shared and not investigated,” Sundar said, explaining that social media users may feel that content has already been vetted by those in their network sharing it, but this work shows that is unlikely. “If platforms implement a warning that the content might be false and make users acknowledge the danger in doing so, that might help people think before sharing.”

This wouldn’t stop intentional misinformation campaigns, Sundar said, and individuals still have a responsibility to vet the content they share.

“Disinformation or misinformation campaigns aim to sow the seeds of doubt or dissent in a democracy — the scope of these efforts came to light in the 2016 and 2020 elections,” Sundar said. “If people are sharing without clicking, they’re potentially playing into the disinformation and unwittingly contributing to these campaigns staged by hostile adversaries attempting to sow division and distrust.”

So, why do people share without clicking in the first place?

“The reason this happens may be because people are just bombarded with information and are not stopping to think through it,” Sundar said. “In such an environment, misinformation has more of a chance of going viral. Hopefully, people will learn from our study and become more media literate, digitally savvy and, ultimately, more aware of what they are sharing.”

Other collaborators on this paper include Junjun Yin and Guangqing Chi, Penn State; Mengqi Liao, University of Georgia; and Jinping Wang, University of Florida.

The Social Science Research Council, New York, supported this research.

---

Journal

Nature Human Behaviour

DOI

10.1038/s41562-024-02067-4 

Method of Research

Content analysis

Subject of Research

Not applicable

Article Title

Sharing without clicking on news in social media

Spanish-language social media increases Latinos’ vulnerability to misinformation

University of California - San Diego

A new study shows that Latinos who rely on Spanish-language social media for news are significantly more likely to believe false political narratives than those who consume English-language content. The research – published in PNAS Nexus and led by political scientists at the University of California San Diego and New York University – highlights growing concerns over misinformation targeting Spanish-speaking communities in the United States.

“Latino voters are heavily courted in U.S. elections, and there has been much speculation on the reasons behind their increase in Republican support in the 2024 Presidential contest. Understanding their news and information sources on social media, especially as it pertains to political misinformation, is an important factor to consider, ” said Marisa Abrajano, the study’s corresponding author and a professor of political science at UC San Diego.  “Our study, which we believe to be the largest of its kind to examine Latinos’ self-reported social media behaviors, finds that Spanish-speaking Latinos who access their news on social media are more vulnerable to political misinformation than those who use English-language social media.”

The research team, convened by NYU’s Center for Social Media and Politics (CSMaP), surveyed more than 1,100 Latino Facebook and Instagram users in the United States. The team offered participants a small monetary incentive to join the study, and included English-dominant, bilingual and Spanish-dominant respondents. The participants were tested on their belief in seven false political narratives, including the claim that Venezuela is intentionally sending criminals to the U.S., the claim that the majority of Planned Parenthood clinics closed after Roe v. Wade was overturned, and the claim that the COVID-19 vaccine makes breast milk dangerous to infants.

The results reveal that Latinos who use Spanish-language social media for their news were between 11 to 20 percentage points more likely to believe in these false stories compared to those who rely on English-language platforms. The relationship persisted even when controlling for factors such as the primary language spoken at home, and the findings remained robust even after testing for acquiescence bias, where respondents might agree with survey statements regardless of their truth.

“While there's been widespread concern about the prevalence of Spanish-language misinformation on social media, our study is the first to empirically demonstrate its impact on political knowledge among Latino communities in the United States,” said Jonathan Nagler, co-author of the paper and co-director of NYU's CSMaP. “We've established a crucial link between the consumption of Spanish-language social media and a less informed electorate. This research fills a critical gap in our understanding of how misinformation affects different linguistic communities and highlights the urgent need for more robust fact-checking and content moderation in Spanish-language social media spaces.”

Additional insights on WhatsApp and YouTube

In a related study forthcoming in the journal Political Research Quarterly, Abrajano, Nagler and colleagues show that Latino online political engagement is very similar to that of non-Hispanic whites across major platforms like Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and X, formerly Twitter.

WhatsApp, however, stands out as a unique space for Latino users, who engage in political conversations on the platform far more often than non-Hispanic whites. Latinos rely on WhatsApp as a daily source for sharing news, discussing politics, and staying updated, highlighting its importance in Latino political digital life.

This study, based on a survey of 2,326 U.S.-based Latinos and 769 non-Hispanic whites, also used digital trace data – information that reflects real online behaviors, such as which social media accounts people follow or what videos they watch. This data helps researchers understand not just what people self-report about their online behaviors but what they actually do.

Findings from the digital trace data showed that both Latinos and whites frequently turn to YouTube for political news, raising concerns about misinformation given YouTube’s challenges with content moderation.

Spanish-speaking Latinos were also found to engage frequently with Spanish-language political pages from Latin America, creating a unique cross-border information environment.

The combined research findings have serious implications for U.S. democracy, the authors conclude. Their work also highlights the need for additional research efforts on how Latino news consumption helps to explain their political attitudes and beliefs.

The research is part of CSMaP's Bilingual Election Monitor, a project supported by Craig Newmark Philanthropies, the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, and NYU's Office of the Provost and Global Institute for Advanced Study.

In addition to Abrajano and Nagler, co-authors of the PNAS Nexus and PRQ studies are: Marianna Garcia from UC San Diego; Aaron Pope, formerly of CSMaP and now at the University of Copenhagen; Robert Vidigal, formerly of CSMaP and now at Vanderbilt University; and Joshua A. Tucker, co-director of CSMaP.

###

---

Journal

PNAS Nexus

DOI

10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae442 

Method of Research

Survey

Subject of Research

People

Article Title

How reliance on Spanish-language social media predicts beliefs in false political narratives amongst Latinos

Content moderators are influenced by online misinformation

PNAS Nexus

Repeated exposure to lies online may influence the beliefs of professional content moderators, with consequences for online platforms. Hundreds of thousands of content moderators, typically based in non-Western countries, identify and weed out problematic and false content on social platforms. However, constant exposure to misinformation could convince some content moderators that false claims are true, in what is known as the “illusory truth effect.” Hause Lin and colleagues assessed the extent of this effect among professional content moderators in India and the Philippines and explored whether encouraging an accuracy mindset reduces the effect. The authors asked 199 content moderators to rate 16 COVID-19 news headlines, first on their interestingness and then, after a break, on their accuracy—along with 32 new COVID-19 news headlines. As predicted by the illusory truth effect, headlines seen for the second time were 7.1% more likely to be judged as accurate than non-repeated headlines. However, in a similar experiment in which content moderators were asked to rate accuracy first—thereby encouraging an accuracy mindset—repeated headlines were not rated as more accurate than new headlines. Similar experiments with members of the public in India and the Philippines found similar effects. According to the authors, the results suggest that the illusory truth effect is not idiosyncratic to Western populations, suggesting that content moderators may become less effective over time due to being chronically exposed to falsehoods, which could compromise the safety and integrity of online platforms. Accuracy mindset prompts could help, the authors note. 

---

Journal

PNAS Nexus

Article Title

Accuracy prompts protect professional content moderators from the illusory truth effect

Article Publication Date

19-Nov-2024

COI Statement

Research by G.P. and D.G.R. has been funded by Meta and Google. TaskUs authors are employees of TaskUs. M.S. is an employee of TikTok and was a former employee of TaskUs. D.S. is an employee of Google. G.P. was a Faculty Research Fellow at Google in 2022. D.G.R. is in the PNAS Nexus editorial board

Wisconsin Supreme Court justices question enforcing 1849 law as an abortion ban

Justice Jill Karofsky appeared immediately opposed to attorney Matthew Thome’s proposed interpretation Wisconsin’s 1849 law with regard to abortion. 

(Screenshot via Wiseye)

Baylor Spears

Wisconsin Examiner

November 12, 2024


Several of the Wisconsin Supreme Court liberal justices appeared opposed to the enforcement of a 174-year old law when it comes to abortion during oral arguments Monday in a high-profile case meant to clarify law in the state.

Wisconsin abortion law has been unsettled since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, sending decisions about abortion legality back to states. Health care providers in Wisconsin immediately ceased providing abortion care due to the state’s 1849 law. Attorney General Josh Kaul and Democratic Gov. Tony Evers filed a lawsuit challenging the statute in June 2022, arguing that it had been superseded by other laws passed by the state, including a ban on abortions after 20 weeks enacted in 2015, and could not be enforced as applied to abortions.

Access ceased for 15 months until a Dane County judge ruled in December 2023 that the law applies to feticide, not abortion, allowing providers to resume services. Sheboygan District Attorney Joel Urmanski, a defendant in the case, appealed the decision to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and Kaul also wanted a review of the decision from the Court. Milwaukee County DA John T. Chisholm and Dane County DA Ismael Ozanne are also defendants in the case, but both oppose enforcing the law.

The pre-Civil War Wisconsin statute states that any person “other than the mother, who intentionally destroys the life of an unborn child is guilty of a Class H felony” and that any person who “intentionally destroys the life of an unborn quick child” is guilty of a Class E felony. It specifies that “unborn child” is defined as “a human being from the time of conception until it is born alive. It includes no exceptions for rape or incest or specific medical complications. The only exception for the law is the life of a mother.

Urmanski’s attorney, Matthew Thome, defended the enforcement of the statute Monday morning, saying lawmakers never repealed it. Republican lawmakers have proposed updates to the 1849 law in the last two years, including a 14-week abortion ban, but the proposals have failed to become law.

“Policymakers have not repealed it. Indeed, they have expressly declined to do so at multiple opportunities and until they do, it can be enforced,” Thome said.

He argued that the question over whether Wisconsinites would be “better served” by a different law is not for the Court to decide.

Justice Jill Karofsky appeared immediately opposed to Thome’s proposed interpretation of the law.

“Just to be clear, a 12-year-old girl, who was sexually assaulted by her father, and as a result became pregnant under your interpretation [of the law], she would be forced to carry her pregnancy to term, correct?” Karofsky asked.

“Under the policy choice the Legislature made…, that would be correct,” Thome said.

“So in that case, a child would be forced to deliver a baby,” Karofsky said.

Karofsky pushed the point, asking about the consequences of a victim of sexual assault seeking an abortion under the law if it were enforceable.

“How about a woman who is a college freshman here at the University of Wisconsin-Madison? If she is sexually assaulted and it’s charged as a third degree sexual assault… that would be intercourse without consent. If she became pregnant, as a result of the sexual assault, it would be illegal for her to obtain an abortion?” Karofsky said.

“Correct, it would be illegal for a doctor to provide an abortion to her in the state of Wisconsin,” Thome said.

“If her assaulter is charged…, he would be facing a 10-year maximum imprisonment because that would be a Class G felony,” Karofsky said. “In that case, the penalty for aborting, after a sexual assault, would be more severe than the penalty for the sexual assault.”

A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association estimates that since the Dobbs decision more than 64,000 pregnancies have been cause by rape in states with abortion bans.

“I fear what you are asking this Court to do is to sign the death warrants of women and children and pregnant people in this state because under your interpretation they could all be denied life-saving medical care while the medical professionals who are charged with taking care of them are forced to sit idly by,” Karofsky said. “This is the world gone mad.”

Justices also asked about the web of laws passed in the state, and appeared to disagree with Thome’s argument that the 1849 law completely negates them.

“We have statute after statute that you are somehow asking us to just absolutely ignore in your interpretation,” Justice Rebecca Dallet said. “We have a statute that talks about when an abortion can be performed and that’s after 20 weeks. We have a 24-hour waiting period. We have informed consent provisions. We have a ban on what they label to be partial birth abortion.”


Dallet asked Thome how he reconciles the 1849 statute with the later statute passed in 2015 that prohibits abortion after 20 weeks and the other laws related to abortion.

“I fit those things together… because that statute doesn’t say you can have an abortion,” Thome said.

Justice Brian Hagedorn appeared to agree that the 1849 law applies to abortion, and said later laws don’t negate it.

“It’s a matter of straight reasonable statutory interpretation,” Hagedorn said. “The law’s still there. It’s still there. The judiciary doesn’t get to edit laws. The judiciary doesn’t get to rewrite them. We didn’t delete it. We prevented its enforcement now, it’s still there.”


Wisconsin Assistant Attorney General Hannah Jurss, who represented Kaul, argued that there was an “implied repeal” of the 1849 law, when lawmakers passed other statutes regulating abortion access in the state.

“The standard implied repeal rule is it’s the earlier law that falls and there’s nothing in the text of the Wisconsin statutes… that would say disregard all of that, and instead in the event of Roe being overturned go back to 940.04, and we know state Legislatures knew how to do this because… a number of states enacted trigger bans,” Jurss said. “Wisconsin did not.”

Kaul said at a press conference following the arguments that the Legislature should take up some of the other laws related to abortion access in the state, no matter the outcome of the lawsuit.

“There are now relatively narrow majorities for Republicans in the state Legislature,” Kaul said. The Assembly is now a 54-45 Republican majority, while the Senate is an 18-15 Republican majority. “It is very clear that Wisconsinites overwhelmingly support having safe access to abortion in the state. For those legislators in these districts that are very moderate, where those districts could go either way, I think we ought to ask those folks, do they support some common sense changes that will protect access to abortion care in Wisconsin.”

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has also agreed to hear a second lawsuit brought by Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin against Urmanski, which asks the Court to find that the state Constitution’s right to equal protection grants a right to receive an abortion and a doctor’s right to provide one.


Wisconsin Examiner is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Wisconsin Examiner maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Ruth Conniff for questions: info@wisconsinexaminer.com. Follow Wisconsin Examiner on Facebook and X.

ISLAMOPHOBIC ZIONIST DEMS

No Thanks to These 52 Dems, House Defeats Bill Enabling Trump Assault on Nonprofits

"Every single Democrat who voted for this is not taking the threat of Trump remotely seriously and should be disqualified from any leadership positions moving forward," said Georgia State Rep. Ruwa Romman.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) arrives for a House hearing on September 20, 2023.
(Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)

Jake Johnson
Nov 13, 2024
COMMON DREAMS  


Legislation that would have handed President-elect Donald Trump sweeping power to investigate and shutter news outlets, government watchdogs, humanitarian organizations, and other nonprofits was defeated in the House of Representatives on Tuesday after a coalition of progressive advocacy groups and lawmakers mobilized against it, warning of the bill's dire implications for the right to dissent.

But 52 Democratic lawmakers—including Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), and Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.)—apparently did not share the grave concerns expressed by the ACLU and other leading rights groups, opting to vote alongside 204 Republicans in favor of the bill.

One Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, joined 144 Democrats in voting no.

The measure ultimately fell short of the two-thirds majority needed to approve legislation under the fast-track procedure used by the bill's supporters, but progressives wasted no time spotlighting the Democrats who supported the measure.

"If you're looking for a handy list of Democrats who have no fucking clue what is about to hit and need their spines stiffened ASAP, this is a good place to start," wrote Leah Greenberg, co-executive director of the advocacy group Indivisible.


Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), who vocally opposed the legislation, wrote that "these 52 Democrats voted to give Trump the power to shut down any nonprofit he wants."


"The NAACP, ACLU, Planned Parenthood, no organization would be safe," Tlaib added. "Shameful."





If passed, the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act would grant the Treasury Department—soon to be under the control of a Trump nominee—the authority to unilaterally strip nonprofits of their tax-exempt status by deeming them supporters of terrorism.

The bill could be revived in the next Congress, which is likely to be under full Republican control.

Kia Hamadanchy, senior policy counsel with the ACLU, toldThe Intercept late Tuesday that "we will continue our sustained opposition."

It is already illegal under U.S. law to provide material backing for terrorism, and the executive branch has significant authority to target groups it considers terrorist-supporting.

"This isn't just an attack on our communities; it's a fundamental threat to free speech and democracy."


The ACLU noted ahead of Tuesday's vote that while the bill contains "a 90-day 'cure' period in which a designated nonprofit can mount a defense, it is a mere illusion of due process."


"The government may deny organizations its reasons and evidence against them, leaving the nonprofit unable to rebut allegations," the group said. "This means that a nonprofit could be left entirely in the dark about what conduct the government believes qualifies as 'support,' making it virtually impossible to clear its name."

Opponents of the bill warned that Palestinian rights organizations would be uniquely imperiled if it passed.

"This bill dangerously weaponizes the Treasury against nonprofit organizations and houses of worship—Christian, Jewish, or Muslim—that dare to support Palestinian and Lebanese human rights or criticize Israel's genocidal actions," said Robert McCaw, director of government affairs at the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

"Allowing such sweeping, unchecked power would set a chilling precedent, enabling the government to selectively target and suppress voices of dissent under the guise of national security," McCaw added. "This isn't just an attack on our communities; it's a fundamental threat to free speech and democracy."

Georgia State Rep. Ruwa Romman (D-97), a Palestinian American, echoed that sentiment following Tuesday's vote and condemned the legislation's 52 Democratic supporters.

"Every single Democrat who voted for this is not taking the threat of Trump remotely seriously and should be disqualified from any leadership positions moving forward," Romman wrote on social media. "This is no longer business as usual. To agree to give him this kind of power is beyond egregious."

Study: US Women might incur 'catastrophic' bills for out-of-state abortions

By HealthDay News

One piece left out of the abortion debate is the high transportation and medical bills facing women forced to leave their state to obtain the procedure. Photo by Adobe Stock/HealthDay News

One piece left out of the abortion debate is the high transportation and medical bills facing women forced to leave their state to obtain the procedure.

A new study is the first to give hard numbers on those concerns.

It finds that, even before the fall of Roe v. Wade, 65% of women who traveled to another state to undergo abortion incurred "catastrophic" bills causing them to cut back on other necessities of life.

Especially for women from poorer households, these expenses "can be devastating and long-lasting ... triggering high levels of debt, financial insecurity, worsened health outcomes and increased impoverishment," noted a team led by Ortal Wasser. She's a researcher in the school of social work at New York University in New York City.

As Wasser's team explained, prior research has found that women seeking abortion are disproportionately uninsured and from low-income households.

The new study looked at data from before the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade.

Even before that 2022 ruling, restrictive laws in various states had forced women to travel to obtain an abortion.

Wasser's group focused on 2019 data, gleaned from questionnaires 675 women filled out while waiting for an abortion at clinics in California, Illinois and New Mexico. More than two-thirds were seeking an abortion before or at 12 weeks of pregnancy.

Prior research has found that women who travel to seek out an abortion typically spend a third of a month's income doing so.

"Studies have also documented that, to pay for abortion care, individuals had to take out loans, sell personal belongings and forego essential household expenditures such as food, bills and rent," the researchers noted.

Their new study backs up those tales of hardship.

Overall, 42% of women who got an abortion, either in-state or out-of-state, incurred expenses "hindering one's ability to meet basic needs," the researchers said.

That number rose much higher -- to 65% -- when they focused on those women who also had to travel out of state for the procedure.

Having to scramble to pay bills or take out loans adds even more stress to an already stressful situation for women. As the data showed, incurring catastrophic expenses raised women's levels of anxiety and depression significantly.

"These financial and psychological burdens encountered by patients who seek abortion care are likely even worse in the post-Dobbs context when more people must travel longer distances and out of their state of residence to access care," the team wrote.

One solution, given current laws around abortion: Expand access to abortion care coverage via Medicaid or private insurance, the researchers said.

"The findings suggest a need to expand insurance coverage to ensure equitable access to abortion care, irrespective of people's state of residence," they wrote.

The study was published Friday in JAMA Network Open.

More information

Find out more about surgical abortion at Planned Parenthood.

Copyright © 2024 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Jason Yates promoted Christian values as CEO of My Faith Votes. He now faces child porn charges

(RNS) — Yates was charged with eight felony counts after a relative allegedly found a stash of child porn on a hard drive in his office.

Jason Yates, former CEO of My Faith Votes. Images courtesy of myfaithvotes.org

Bob Smietana
November 5, 2024

(RNS) — The former president of an evangelical get-out-the-vote nonprofit, which seeks to motivate Christian voters to promote family values and “biblical truth” in the public square, was charged Monday (Nov. 4) with eight counts of possessing child pornography.

Jason Yates, former CEO of My Faith Votes, was charged during a video court hearing in the District Court of McLeod County, Minnesota. State officials allege that from February 2023 to July 2024, Yates possessed a hard drive with digital pornographic images of minors under 14 years of age.

The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension began investigating the 55-year-old Yates at the end of July after a relative, identified in court documents as “Witness #2,” accidentally discovered a hard drive containing over 100 images of child porn in Yates’ office, according to a statement of probable cause filed in the case. That relative told a second relative, identified as “Witness #1,” who turned the hard drive over to law enforcement. According to court documents, the hard drive allegedly contains both still images and videos of pornography involving minors under 14.

During an interview on Sept. 13, Yates allegedly confirmed that the hard drive did not belong to Witness #2 but declined to give law enforcement a password for encrypted files on the hard drive.

“Defendant stated that he had a prior conviction, which had been expunged, related to CSAM/child pornography,” the complaint filed against Yates alleges.


An attorney for Yates declined to comment.
RELATED: Four Gateway elders removed over pastor’s sexual abuse scandal

For much of its history, Jason Yates was the CEO and president of My Faith Votes. He was still listed as CEO on the group’s website as of Aug. 19 but his name and image were removed sometime after that date.

“In early August 2024, the My Faith Votes board of directors separated Jason Yates from My Faith Votes and board member Chris Sadler assumed the position of Acting CEO. Over the last three months Chris has been working with the dedicated My Faith Votes team to encourage millions of Christians to vote, pray and think biblically about this election in America,” a spokesperson for My Faith Votes told RNS in an email.

The group’s website blames Christians for failing to stand up against “secular progressives” — which the group faults for a host of social ills.

“As a result of apathy at the voting booth and in public life, we’ve suffered devastating moral decay, declining religious freedom, immoral national debt, and the erosion of traditional family values,” the group’s website reads.

In early July, a few weeks before the hard drive allegedly containing child porn was turned over to police, Yates wrote an op-ed for The Washington Times, urging Christians to fight “sexually deviant” messages aimed at children, mainly about LGTB issues.

“This infernal programming is being downloaded into our children, and it becomes far easier when it finds no resistance in our public square — when it is allowed to fill the void left by the absence of our faith,” he wrote.

A biography of Jason Yates from April 2024 describes him as having left a corporate career in 2015 to become CEO of My Faith Votes. Along with promoting voting among Christians, he served on the board of several other ministries.

Yates’ hearing on Monday occurred just a few hours before My Faith Votes held an online pre-election prayer event, urging listeners to vote for candidates who support Christian values.

Founded as the Vision Charitable Trust in 2007, My Faith Votes began spending millions starting in 2016 to motivate Christian votes. The group was founded by Sealy Yates, an influential Christian literary agent for best-selling authors such as Chuck Swindoll, John Maxwell, Mark Driscoll and Ben Carson — with Carson serving as an honorary chairman when the nonprofit began focusing on voting. Former presidential candidate turned conservative talk show host Mike Huckabee currently serves as the group’s honorary chair.

Sealy Yates did not respond to a request for comment. His relationship to Jason Yates is not clear.

Wired magazine recently described My Faith Votes as one of a group of nonprofits aimed at rallying support for former President Donald Trump through get-out-the-vote efforts. My Faith Votes is also one of the partners of the “Letter to the American Church” film based on a book by pro-Trump radio host Eric Metaxas, which claims America is being overtaken by secular forces.

Jason Yates expressed concern in an interview this past summer that evangelical Christians might sit out elections and said, as a result, My Faith Votes was asking Christians to sign a pledge to vote in every election.

“As a Christian, I commit to voting for candidates and policies that uphold the sanctity of life, the traditional family, religious liberty, and justice for all,” the pledge reads. “I believe that my biblical values should guide my choices at the ballot box, ensuring that our nation’s laws and leaders reflect God’s truth and righteousness.”

My Faith Votes also produced a series of videos, called “Think Biblically,” aimed at educating church small groups about social and political issues. Launched this past summer, the video series features speakers such as Albert “Al” Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; Texas pastor and author Voddie Baucham; and former Planned Parenthood staffer-turned-anti-abortion advocate Abby Johnson.

“It’s time Christians let their faith guide their politics — aligning their views with God’s Word and boldly confronting today’s cultural challenges,” Yates said in a video announcing the series. “It’s critical that we reject apathy and think biblically about the issues in front of us, and this series is the ideal resource to help Christians navigate every political issue through the lens of the Word.”

BLUE WAVE

10 States Will Vote on Abortion Rights This Election

Abortion rights organizers hope the ballot measures will restore reproductive rights to what has become an “abortion and maternal care desert”

By Danielle Campoamor

November 4, 2024

Source: Prism


LOS ANGELES, CA - JULY 6: Police arrest four women protesters who chained themselves to the columns at the steps of City Hall to denounce the U.S. Supreme Court decision that ended federal abortion rights protections on July 6, 2022 in Los Angeles, California. The Court's decision in the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health overturned the landmark 50-year-old Roe v Wade decision.

 (Photo by David McNew/Getty Images)

On the eve of a potentially historic presidential election, Natasha Sutherland is tired. The born-and-raised Floridian and senior advisor to the Yes on 4 campaign has been fighting to expand and protect abortion access in her home state for years, but that fight hit a fever pitch after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.

“We knew that lawmakers in the state of Florida were going to implement an abortion ban,” Sutherland said. “And we knew there was something we had to do about it—we knew [a ban] would be an immense and significant loss of care both to the state of Florida and the global South.”

Florida is just one of 10 states with ballot measures that will give voters the opportunity to enshrine abortion rights in their constitutions. Since the fall of Roe, 21 states have banned or severely restricted abortion—and the consequences have been far-reaching. A recent study published in JAMA Pediatrics found that infant mortality rates have risen in states with total or near-total abortion bans. In Texas, where abortion is banned with no exceptions for rape or incest, maternal mortality rose by 56%. In Georgia, at least two women so far—Amber Nicole Thurman and Candi Miller—have died as a result of the state’s six-week abortion ban.

Meanwhile, the post-Roe crisis is forcing patients with means to travel out of state for abortion, prenatal, and miscarriage management care, resulting in backlogs in states where abortion rights are protected. In 2023 alone, 171,000 women traveled to another state to receive abortion care.

These ballot measures, organizers and advocates hope, could bring back abortion access to what has become an “abortion and maternal care desert.”

With the writing on the proverbial wall after the draft of the Dobbs decision leaked, Sutherland and other organizers from Floridians Protecting Freedom immediately got to work—creating partnerships with the ACLU of Florida, Planned Parenthood, Florida Women’s Freedom Coalition, Florida Rising, and more. The collective began drafting amendment language and collecting signatures for ballot measure Amendment 4, which would prohibit the government from outlawing, penalizing, delaying, or restricting abortion care before fetal viability.

“We secured nearly 1 million verified signatures of everyday Floridians—Republicans, Democrats, Independents—to qualify for the ballot,” Sutherland adds. “That was well above the requirement because we knew the government may try to interfere.”

The organizers’ premonitions proved correct. In April 2023, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the state’s six-week abortion ban into law. DeSantis has since directed the state’s health department to threaten television stations with criminal charges if they continue to air pro-abortion measure ads. Simultaneously, the state’s Office of Election Crimes and Security claimed the group submitted a “large number of forged signatures or fraudulent petitions” to qualify for the ballot and issued a $328,000 fine.

“Florida’s government has been doing everything and anything that it can to really silence the campaign and to distract folks from the fact that we have a near-total abortion ban here in the state of Florida,” Sutherland said. “Just as we were preparing for Hurricane Helene and subsequently Hurricane Milton, the state government ordered $15.5 million in taxpayer-funded advertising—much of that going towards campaigning against Amendment 4 and putting out misinformation about the abortion ban and the campaign overall.”

For the amendment to pass, it must receive 60% or more of the vote, a higher threshold requirement than any other state in the country. Recent polling shows the amendment has a 66% approval rate.

As is the case in Florida, many anti-abortion groups and legislators across the country are attempting to curtail those efforts, spreading disinformation about the proposed amendments and attempting to circumvent the democratic process in court.

In South Dakota, Life Defense Fund has filed a lawsuit that would invalidate Amendment G, an abortion rights measure that would codify Roe v. Wade-era abortion protections in the state’s constitution. A trial is set for Dec. 2.

“What they’re trying to do is direct the court to tell the secretary of state, ‘You can’t count the votes,’” said Rick Weiland, a long-time Democrat and former candidate for Congress. Weiland and his son, Adam, co-founded Dakotans for Health, the grassroots organization behind the ballot measure.

South Dakota is the only state with a total abortion ban to propose amending the state’s constitution to protect abortion access. Immediately after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the state enacted its trigger law, banning all abortions with no exceptions for rape or incest. Currently, abortion is only permissible if the life of the pregnant person is in danger, but like other states that have banned or severely restricted abortion care, post-Roe doctors are confused by the vague exception language and afraid to treat pregnant or miscarrying patients.

In a state with already high infant and maternal mortality rates, patients are forced to travel to nearby Minnesota or beyond for an abortion, prenatal care, and miscarriage management. The state is simultaneously experiencing a maternal care shortage due in part to OB-GYNs either leaving or choosing not to practice in a state that would criminalize them if they were even perceived to have defied the state’s abortion ban.

“My cup runneth over in terms of the rage factor,” Adam said. “But stuff like this, it makes you more determined to succeed.”

Consistent polling has shown that the majority of South Dakotans, regardless of party affiliation, support the ballot initiative, which would allow unfettered abortion access in the first trimester, with government-regulated abortion access in the second and third trimesters in ways that are, according to the bill, “reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman” or “when abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman.” A group of Republicans, led by former legislator Casey Murschel, have come out in support of the measure, along with 35 faith leaders from five different Christian denominations.

“Writing off red states where we have an opportunity to expand abortion access is extremely short-sighted. South Dakota is a perfect example,” Adam said.

South Dakota was the first state to include direct democracy in its constitution, giving the electorate the power to circumvent the special interests, bypass the legislature, and put something on the ballot that lets the people decide “yes” or “no.” Empowered by that history, both father and son are hopeful that despite anti-abortion groups’ best efforts, voters will restore Roe v. Wade in the state.

“All you have to do is look at past initiatives,” Rick said. “They will tell you a lot about the makeup of the voter.”

Arizona, which made national news after the Supreme Court allowed a near-total abortion ban from 1864 to take effect on Sept. 14, also gives voters the power to implement state policy via direct democracy. In this upcoming election, Arizona voters will weigh in on Proposition 139, which would enshrine abortion protections in the state’s constitution.

The state’s legislature eventually repealed the 160-year-old ban in May. Abortion is currently legal up to 15 weeks gestation, with no exceptions for rape or incest. If passed, Proposition 139 would expand abortion access to the “point of viability” and grant the right to care after viability “if it is done to protect the life, physical, or mental health of the pregnant individual.”

“This was the largest volunteer signature gathering effort in the history of the state,” said Laura Dent, the political director for Arizona For Abortion Access and the campaign manager for Yes on 139. “It sends a super clear message—not just as we move into the election, but beyond—that this is an issue Arizonans are united around.”

Like in Florida and South Dakota, in Arizona Dent and her volunteers have withstood attacks from anti-abortion groups attempting to undermine the amendment. After Arizona Abortion Access received 577,971 certified signatures in favor of the amendment—well above the 383,923 signatures needed—Arizona Right to Life filed a legal challenge to the ballot initiative, arguing the petition description was misleading and requesting the measure be withdrawn.

“This is a really important moment, [not] just for the issue of abortion rights but for our freedoms, protecting our liberties, and just for organizing in the state,” Dent said. “We have a beautiful, diverse coalition. I spent the day with Navajo leaders. We have environmental advocates, faith-based leaders, [and] Latino-led organizations. Our coalition is really broad, because this is such a resonant issue and a powerful exercise for Arizonans.”

In August, Arizona state’s Supreme Court rejected the anti-abortion group’s attempt to block the amendment, ruling that a description “is not required to explain the initiative’s impact on existing abortion laws or regulations.” The amendment is expected to pass. A recent New York Times/Siena College poll found that 58% of Arizona voters support the fundamental right to an abortion.

“We have kept 100% of our focus on educating and engaging voters and telling the stories of everyday Arizonans who have been impacted by the state’s ban, and really try to avoid getting pulled into conversations and distractions that try to frame this as a controversial issue,” Dent said. “The majority of Arizonans are with us. The majority of Americans are with us.”

While every state faces its own unique challenges, the organizers all agree that passing their respective amendments is only the start of the battle.

“We discovered over the last decade that if you get something on the ballot, and it’s able to pass, you also have to be able to hang around once you go into overtime to defend it and implement it,” said Adam Weiland of Dakotans for Health. “Things just don’t stop after you win. This law goes into effect in July of next year if it passes, and I’m sure — knock me over with a feather if there’s not—there will be attempts to undermine the law.”

“But we will be there to fight it every step of the way,” he added.

And when the organizers grow tired and the anti-abortion attacks feel overwhelming, they all say they remember the stories of people impacted by their states’ anti-abortion laws.

In moments of fatigue, Sutherland said she thinks of Deborah Dobert, who was forced to carry her nonviable pregnancy to term. As a result, she held her baby boy in her arms as he died. She also thinks about Anya Cook, who lost half the blood in her body before she was able to receive the life-saving abortion care she needed.

“These are Florida women,” Sutherland said. “These stories allow people to really understand that we’re not talking about the issue of reproductive health care as a hypothetical. We all understand that no politicians, regardless of party, should make decisions for us. So I am cautiously optimistic that we will see this through November, and I welcome whatever comes after that.”