logo
The politics of abortion have changed. Here's how.

The politics of abortion have changed. Here's how.

Washington Post4 hours ago

Good morning, Early Birds. Here's hoping we see James Wood in the Home Run Derby. Send tips to earlytips@washpost.com. Thanks for waking up with us.
In today's edition … How abortion politics have changed in three years … An exciting race brewing in New York City … A well-funded, bipartisan anti-Trump political group launches … but first …
Here's the latest on Iran.
President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran last night on Truth Social. Both sides would finish their operations against each other, then halt hostilities by around midnight Eastern time.
'This is a War that could have gone on for years, and destroyed the entire Middle East, but it didn't, and never will! God bless Israel, God bless Iran, God bless the Middle East, God bless the United States of America, and GOD BLESS THE WORLD!' he wrote.
Israel and Iran didn't immediately confirm the ceasefire, leading to some skepticism from Democrats that it would hold. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said there was no agreement for a ceasefire but added that his country didn't plan military strikes after last night if Israel held off.
Lawmakers may get some clarity when Congress is briefed today on the intelligence that led to the U.S. strike on Iranian nuclear facilities over the weekend. Christopher Landau, deputy secretary of state; Steve Feinberg, deputy secretary of defense; Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Tulsi Gabbard, director of national intelligence; and CIA Director John Ratcliffe are expected to brief lawmakers, two people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss details of the briefings, told our colleagues Theodoric Meyer and Marianna Sotomayor.
Democrats have been eager to see exactly what — if anything — has changed since March, when Gabbard said the U.S. intelligence community 'continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon' and that the country's supreme leader 'has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.'
'Have they changed their position? Did they get it wrong, and was Israel's intelligence community right? But if not, what in the hell is the president of the United States doing supporting a third country's policy and ignoring our own intelligence?' said Sen. Mark R. Warner (Virginia), the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee. 'Remember, messing with intelligence is how we got ourselves in the Iraq War.'
Trump said the U.S. intelligence community's assessment was 'wrong' before launching the strikes, and Gabbard has since said the assessment was in line with Trump's policy.
Iran responded to the U.S. strikes with a missile attack yesterday on al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the largest U.S. base in the Middle East. The Defense Department didn't report any casualties from the attack. The Qatari Defense Ministry said it intercepted the missiles. Trump said on Truth Social that Iran alerted the U.S. ahead of the attack.
Iran's theocratic regime felt compelled to respond to the U.S. strikes but is fearful that a larger conflict can threaten its 46-year rule. The Trump administration's official line is that it isn't interested in regime change, but Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio refused to rule it out over the weekend, especially if Iran obtains nuclear weapons. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters yesterday that Trump was not committed to regime change and 'was just simply raising a question.'
Where will Trump be today? He's off to The Hague for a NATO summit this morning. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte acknowledged during a news conference yesterday that Iran is top of mind and reiterated the defense bloc's position that Iran should not obtain a nuclear weapon. But he stressed that the summit will be focused on threats to the Atlantic alliance, specifically Russia's war on Ukraine, and funding to address them.
There is a conventional wisdom in Washington that abortion, a top issue for Democrats during elections in 2022 and 2024, is no longer the politically potent talking point it once was.
The Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization three years ago today was politically seismic. It made abortion a top issue for Democratic-leaning voters overnight, helping the party raise hundreds of millions of dollars across the country, funding scores of ad campaigns about abortion and leading the party to overperform expectations two years into President Joe Biden's term.
Then came 2024, when Republicans swept into control of the White House and both chambers of Congress, leading some election postmortems to suggest Democrats focused too much on abortion and not enough on prices and the economy.
It's not that simple, said a range of Democrats we spoke to in the lead-up to this anniversary.
To Jessica Mackler, the head of Emily's List, which aims to elect women who support abortion rights, elections are never as uncomplicated as one issue over another.
'This has always been a both-and proposition,' Mackler told us, noting that even in 2022, months after the Dobbs decision, there was a flurry of stories about Democrats focusing too much on abortion. 'To me, the imperative in front of us is that we have to both connect with voters on the way in which this recklessness and chaos in Washington is making their lives more difficult. And we also have to be clear in explaining where their Republican opponents are on abortion rights.'
'Abortion really did matter (in 2024),' said Yasmin Radjy, executive director of Swing Left, a liberal grassroots organization. 'But I think we got feedback from voters that while abortion mattered a lot … we weren't reaching voters on other issues that, honestly, were more front of mind for them.'
Radjy argued abortion messaging needs to be tailored to various audiences, differentiating between speaking to voters in a state controlled by Democrats that has protected abortion rights versus voters in a state where Republicans have rolled back the protections at the state level.
In the immediate aftermath of Dobbs, some states implemented trigger laws that banned or severely restricted the procedure, while others enacted abortion protections through legislation or voter initiatives. Voters in some Republican-controlled states such as Ohio, Kentucky and Kansas also scored wins for abortion rights proponents in the years after Dobbs.
In states where laws protecting abortion have not been passed or restrictions are in place, Radjy predicted, the issue will be even more salient in the coming elections.
'It is no longer, 'trust us when we say this is going to be bad.' It is people feeling and experiencing how it impacts people's lives,' Radjy said, noting that recent research has shown voters are often moved by how abortion bans hurt people in their network of friends. 'That is the difference. It is not storytelling about reproductive freedom as an issue. It is storytelling on how these bans and Republican power are harming people.'
Abortion is already a key issue in the top two races on the ballot this year. Democrats in the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial contests are focusing on abortion rights, and both have plans to mark the anniversary by hitting their opponents on the issue.
'This is the first governor's race in Virginia and New Jersey since Roe v. Wade was overturned, placing abortion access back in the hands of the states,' said Johanna Warshaw, a spokeswoman at the Democratic Governors Association, who cast Republicans Winsome Earle-Sears in Virginia and Jack Ciattarelli in New Jersey as 'deeply out of step with voters on this issue.'
Activist Amanda Zurawski agrees: She was galvanized to campaign heavily for Democrats last year after nearly dying from a complication to her pregnancy in Texas. She said she was encouraged by victories on ballot initiatives in states, where voters largely supported access to abortion, and said she would continue speaking out to keep the cause a central tenet for Democrats.
'When people see this affect them personally, that's when they start speaking up and fighting back,' Zurawski, who hasn't ruled out a run for office, told us. 'We saw, and we continue to see, time and again, that when reproductive freedom is on the ballot, it wins.'
The House Democratic caucus will vote this morning for the ranking member of the Oversight Committee. It's a role that provides a prominent opportunity to confront members of the Trump administration in public. Four candidates are running: Reps. Stephen F. Lynch of Massachusetts, Kweisi Mfume of Maryland, Robert Garcia of California and Jasmine Crockett of Texas.
Lynch, 70, is filling the role in an acting capacity following the death of Rep. Gerry Connolly of Virginia. He and Mfume, 76, are running on their seniority in the committee. Garcia, 47, and Crockett, 44, assert they represent younger perspectives and have experience using their social media standing to raise awareness of the committee's work. Garcia is seen as the front-runner, having won the endorsement of the House Democrats' steering committee on the first ballot last night.
Voters in New York will head to the polls today for primary elections, including a closely watched mayoral race.
The campaign — especially the race between the top two candidates, former New York governor Andrew M. Cuomo and New York state Rep. Zohran Mamdani — has all the contours of the broader fight within the Democratic Party: young versus old, liberal versus centrist and establishment versus insurgent.
Cuomo, who resigned in disgrace as governor after sexual harassment accusations, has been consistently leading in the polls. Still, there is a belief that Mamdani — buoyed by a go-everywhere media strategy and clever social presence — is closing strong. A recent poll from Marist University found Cuomo leading Mamdani by 12 points in ranked-choice voting.
It could be days until we know who actually won the contest, however. A handful of top candidates are running, and New York City's use of ranked-choice voting means voters can choose up to five candidates. If no candidate receives over 50 percent as a first choice, the different rankings come into play.
This is where things could get interesting, as Sarah Ellison notes in her story on the race. Cuomo has elicited a visceral response from a range of candidates, leading to a potent 'anyone but Cuomo' contingent in the race. So if enough voters don't rank Cuomo at all, a first-choice lead could quickly evaporate, making the race unpredictable.
A $15 million ad campaign will tell the stories of Americans who have been hurt by Trump's second-term policies, operatives behind the plan tell us, aiming to highlight where the president has fallen short of his campaign promises.
The bipartisan campaign — called 'Home of the Brave' — brings together an array of anti-Trump political figures, including Susan Rice, a former top adviser to Democratic presidents; Barbara Comstock, a former Republican representative from Virginia; and Michael Luttig, a former Republican judge who testified before the congressional panel investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack by a mob of Trump supporters.
The first slate of stories includes a Virginia mother who relies on federal research for her special-needs child, a small-business owner in Indiana harmed by Trump's tariffs and a federal contractor who lost her job because of Trump's cuts.
'Regular Americans aren't afraid to speak out about what's happening to our country,' said Sarah Longwell, a Republican operative who has worked to oppose Trump for years and is a member of the group's board. 'That's why we're launching Home of the Brave — to give regular Americans a place to tell their story about how the Trump administration is harming them, their communities and their country.'
NothCentralPA.com (Pennsylvania): A blistering heat wave is sweeping the central and eastern United States, with temperatures reaching into the 90s and 100s, affecting about 170 million Americans.
Bring Me the News (Minnesota): American cities and states are being put on alert after the U.S. strikes on Iran, reflecting the Homeland Security Department's warning of a 'heightened threat environment' across the country. 'While there's no known threats at this time, we'll continue to monitor the situation and respond accordingly,' Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) said.
The Spokesman-Review (Spokane, Washington): Washington state is joining several other states by levying tobacco taxes on Zyn, the popular nicotine pouches.
Are you worried about the United States striking Iran's nuclear program? Do our readers see any echoes of the United States' conflict in Iraq? And are you surprised that the MAGA wing of the Republican Party is backing such an active foreign intervention after running on ending foreign wars? Send us your thoughts at earlytips@washpost.com or at dan.merica@washpost.com and matthew.choi@washpost.com.
Thanks for reading. You can follow Dan and Matthew on X: @merica and @matthewichoi.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Life on the other side: Refugees from 'old media' flock to the promise of working for themselves
Life on the other side: Refugees from 'old media' flock to the promise of working for themselves

Washington Post

time13 minutes ago

  • Washington Post

Life on the other side: Refugees from 'old media' flock to the promise of working for themselves

NEW YORK — Six months ago, Jennifer Rubin had no idea whether she'd make it in a new media world. She just knew it was time to leave The Washington Post, where she'd been a political columnist for 15 years. The Contrarian , the democracy-focused website that Rubin founded with partner Norm Eisen in January, now has 10 employees and contributors like humorist Andy Borowitz and White House reporter April Ryan. Its 558,000 subscribers also get recipes and culture dispatches.

Presidents vs. Congress: Trump is only the latest to test the War Powers Act
Presidents vs. Congress: Trump is only the latest to test the War Powers Act

Washington Post

time13 minutes ago

  • Washington Post

Presidents vs. Congress: Trump is only the latest to test the War Powers Act

WASHINGTON — Donald Trump isn't the first president to order military strikes without congressional approval. But his decision to bomb Iran comes at a uniquely volatile moment — both at home and abroad. Overseas, the U.S. risks deeper entanglement in the Middle East if fighting erupts again between Israel and Iran. At home, Trump continues to sidestep oversight, showing little regard for checks and balances.

Presidents vs. Congress: Trump is only the latest to test the War Powers Act
Presidents vs. Congress: Trump is only the latest to test the War Powers Act

San Francisco Chronicle​

time14 minutes ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

Presidents vs. Congress: Trump is only the latest to test the War Powers Act

WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump isn't the first president to order military strikes without congressional approval. But his decision to bomb Iran comes at a uniquely volatile moment — both at home and abroad. Overseas, the U.S. risks deeper entanglement in the Middle East if fighting erupts again between Israel and Iran. At home, Trump continues to sidestep oversight, showing little regard for checks and balances. His move has reignited a decades-old debate over the War Powers Act, a law passed in the early 1970s meant to divide authority over military action between Congress and the president. Critics say Trump violated the act by striking with little input from Congress, while supporters argue he responded to an imminent threat and is looking to avoid prolonged conflict. Even after Trump announced late Monday that a 'complete and total ceasefire' between Israel and Iran would take effect over the next 24 hours, tensions remained high in Congress over Trump's action. A vote is expected in the Senate later this week on a Democratic Iran war powers resolution that is meant to place a check on Trump when it comes to further entanglement with Iran. Here's a closer look at what the act does and doesn't do, how past presidents have tested it and how Congress plans to respond: Dividing war powers between Congress and the president Passed in the wake of American involvement in Vietnam, the War Powers Resolution prescribes how the president should work with lawmakers to deploy troops if Congress hasn't already issued a declaration of war. It states that the framers of the Constitution intended for Congress and the President to use its 'collective judgement' to send troops into 'hostilities.' The War Powers Resolution calls for the president 'in every possible instance' to 'consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces.' But when Congress enacted the law, 'it didn't install any hard requirements, and it provided a lot of outs,' said Scott Anderson, a fellow at the Brookings Institution. 'Habitual practice for presidents in the last few decades has been to minimally — almost not at all — consult with Congress on a lot of military action,' Anderson said. And 'the language of the statute is so vague and open-ended that it's hard to say it's in clear contradiction' to the War Powers Resolution. Unless a Declaration of War has already been passed or Congress has authorized deploying forces, the president has 48 hours after deploying troops to send a written report to congressional leadership explaining the decision. Trump did so on Monday, sending Congress a letter that said strikes on Iran over the weekend were 'limited in scope and purpose' and 'designed to minimize casualties, deter future attacks and limit the risk of escalation.' In March, when Trump ordered airstrikes in Houthi-held areas in Yemen, he wrote a letter to congressional leadership explaining his rationale and reviewing his orders to the Department of Defense. President Joe Biden wrote nearly 20 letters citing the War Powers Resolution during his term. If Congress doesn't authorize further action within 60 to 90 days, the resolution requires that the president 'terminate any use' of the armed forces. 'That's the hard requirement of the War Powers Resolution,' Anderson said. How past presidents have used it Congress hasn't declared war on another country since World War II, but U.S. presidents have filed scores of reports pursuant to the War Powers Resolution since it was enacted in 1973, over President Richard Nixon's veto. Presidents have seized upon some of the vague wording in the War Powers Resolution to justify their actions abroad. In 1980, for example, Jimmy Carter argued that attempting to rescue hostages from Iran didn't require a consultation with Congress, since it wasn't an act of war, according to the Congressional Research Service. President George W. Bush invoked war powers in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and persuaded Congress to approve an authorization for the use of military force against Iraq in 2002. Throughout his presidency, President Barack Obama faced pressure to cease operations in Libya after 90 days. But his administration argued that the U.S. use of airpower in Libya didn't rise to the level of 'hostilities' set forth in the War Powers Resolution. What Congress is doing now Trump's actions in Iran have drawn the loudest praise from the right and the sharpest rebukes from the left. But the response hasn't broken cleanly along party lines. Daily developments have also complicated matters. Trump on Sunday raised the possibility of a change in leadership in Iran, before on Monday announcing that Israel and Iran had agreed to a 'complete and total' ceasefire to be phased in over the next 24 hours. Nevertheless, the Senate could vote as soon as this week on a resolution directing the removal of U.S. forces from hostilities against Iran that have not been authorized by Congress. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., the bill's sponsor, told reporters Monday — prior to the ceasefire announcement — that the vote could come 'as early as Wednesday, as late as Friday.' He expects bipartisan backing, though support is still coming together ahead of a classified briefing for senators on Tuesday. 'There will be Republicans who will support it,' Kaine said. 'Exactly how many, I don't know.' He added that, 'this is as fluid a vote as I've been involved with during my time here, because the facts are changing every day.' Passing the resolution could prove difficult, especially with Republicans praising Trump after news of the ceasefire broke. Even prior to that, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., defended Trump's actions on Monday and said he's operating within his authority. 'There's always a tension between Congress' power to declare war and the president's power as commander in chief,' said Sen. John Kennedy, R-La. 'But I think the White House contacted its people, as many people as they could.' A similar bipartisan resolution in the House — led by Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna and Republican Rep. Thomas Massie — could follow soon, although Massie signaled Monday that he may no longer pursue it if peace has been reached. Khanna was undeterred.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store