The New Terms of Abortion Politics
53:23 Share

BP added more than $130 billion to the U.S. economy over the past two years by making investments from coast to coast. Investments like acquiring America's largest biogas producer, Arkea Energy, and starting up new infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico. It's and, not or. See what doing both means for energy nationwide at bp.com slash investing in America.

Recently, a mini-drama has been playing out among key political insiders. Nobody has ever done more for right to life than Donald Trump. I put three Supreme Court justices who all voted. On one side, Donald Trump. Nobody thought they could win it. You know, they won. Roe v. Wade, they won. On the other side, the anti-abortion movement. He helped deliver the end of Roe.

It started after the midterms. I was a little disappointed because I thought they could have fought much harder during the election, during the 22 election, because, you know, they won and a lot of them didn't fight or weren't really around to fight. And it did energize people.

When Trump placed some of the blame for Republican losses on abortion and on that anti-abortion movement. Then things ramped up. A leading anti-abortion group blasted Donald Trump after his campaign said he believes states should decide abortion laws.

Trump's position on the issue, that it was now a matter of states' rights, didn't go far enough for some activists. They were calling for a federal abortion ban.

And they wanted to use this presidential primary to make that policy the party line. The prominent anti-abortion group issued a scathing statement that reads in part President Trump's assertion that the Supreme Court returned the issue of abortion solely to the states is a completely inaccurate reading of the Dobbs decision and that's a morally indefensible position for a self-proclaimed pro-life presidential candidate to hold.

In fact, the fight got so bad... The group's president said, "We will oppose any presidential candidate who refuses to embrace at a minimum a 15-week national standard holding to the position..." ...that Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, the country's leading anti-abortion group that crucially threw their support behind Trump in 2016, threatened to withhold their support this time around. The group's president then met with Trump for a private discussion.

Now, heading into the 2024 Republican primary, Trump and the other candidates are trying to figure out how far to go on this issue without alienating the Americans they'll need for a general election. But it won't be easy because these groups have all the leverage right now. And they know it. Today, the president of the group who recently met with Trump and the president of Planned Parenthood, who is helping shape the Democrats' response,

From The New York Times, I'm Ested Herndon. This is The Run-Up. So it sounds okay? Yeah, it sounds good. Can you hear me? I can, beautifully, and I can see you. Hey, that's awesome. Marjorie Dannenfelser has been called the woman who killed Roe. But her recent fight with Trump serves as an important reminder that for many anti-abortion activists, overturning Roe was not the endgame. They have new policy goals now, and new litmus tests for Republican presidential candidates.

I wanted to start by asking you about the state of your relationship with President Trump heading into 2024 in this post-Roe chapter. He has previously indicated that he thought abortion should be left up to the states. I saw you call that morally indefensible. To start, what did you mean by that view? Can you explain it? Well,

Well, it's my job as the head of the largest political pro-life organization in the country to make sure that every single presidential candidate is ready to be the president of the United States. So part of that process is making sure that they would be supportive of some federal minimum standard. And for us, it's at least 15 weeks, which is the standard the Supreme Court upheld testing the Mississippi law. So any candidate, no matter who they are, who

who can't do that, we cannot support. So we're waiting and seeing. We're waiting and seeing. Any candidate that says it has not been able to do that yet, we're in a wait and see mode. So I just want to be clear, because I know you all worked closely with President Trump when he was in office, as he was the president, who was putting people in that will eventually overturn Roe. You're saying right now, looking forward, your position is around federal legislation on an abortion ban at minimum 15 weeks, and President Trump hasn't supported that, so you're in wait and see mode.

Yep. Federal limit. Ban means everything. So a federal limit means partially.

Banning is not the word that we use because it's not accurate, just so you know. But yeah, that is exactly right. But, you know, we'll say also that we wouldn't be talking about any kind of building of consensus, any 15 weeks, anything like that, if it weren't for what he did before. So there's obviously gratitude from the pro-life movement for that. But leadership is about what happens next, not what happened in the past.

But you also met personally with him. Can you tell me about that meeting, what was discussed, and where you all left things? Yes, I've met with him and every other candidate who we either expect to be running for president or is already announced. And it was basically the tenor of the conversation we're having right now, expressing gratitude for the past and expressing expectation for the future. I left...

believing that he would be very clear in the future about how he sees his role if he became president. Identical conversations with Nikki Haley, with Mike Pence, with Tim Scott, with all the rest.

When you say identical conversations, it does seem identical from your end, but it's not identical from the other side, nor identical of what we heard from the candidates. Is there anything you can tell me about what you need to hear most clearly from a candidate so you feel like you have confidence in their ability to lead a kind of pro-life wing?

Yeah, you're right that it is identical from my side because I have one goal. You're correct for each one of them. And that would be to hear. Yes, I would advocate for and sign into law a 15 week or better protection for unborn children. And by better, you mean earlier? Yeah. So whatever their standard is, it has to be 15 weeks at a minimum. I'm sorry. And did Donald Trump say he would support that in that meeting?

He did not say he would support that in the meeting, but he did say he did communicate, as did Nikki Haley, that they were for protecting children when they feel pain. How are you thinking about Governor Ron DeSantis? Obviously, he is the foremost alternative to Donald Trump. Just signed a six week abortion. I'm not supposed to say ban. What am I supposed to say? I'm sorry. Limit. Limit. Abortion limit in Florida. So how are you thinking about Governor Ron DeSantis?

Again, from where I sit, it's exactly the same question that is not answered yet. Where does he draw the line? I know that he was very ambitious in the state of Florida, along with the will of the people of Florida in passing the six-week limit. We're waiting again for him to communicate what he thinks a consensus and humane federal limit would be. So it's the same. The only person that I think that is...

been very clear has been Mike Pence. So you're saying even with someone like DeSantis, who has passed a recent six week limit, that that's not enough for your organization who's looking forward at supporting federal legislation at the presidential level?

That's right. You have to acknowledge there's a federal and a state role. And a disqualifier would be somebody says states are the only entity that has a role in establishing a limit and for serving the needs of women. There's no question in our minds, but there is in the minds of some candidates that there is a federal role.

You seem to be describing a disconnect between what you all are pushing for and even what some of these Republican candidates are willing to endorse at this moment. Does that open itself up to a question of are you all pushing for something that these candidates and vis-a-vis the public isn't asking for a federal role?

The public is pretty clear, polling over a very long period of time, that they are for measures that aren't everything, but they are a compromise.

There isn't a disconnect on whether there should be a federal standard. I think there is a disconnect about when that should happen. And there is fear about talking about it because we're just at the point of a real revolution on this cause. It's the equivalent of or even more poignant than the coming down the Berlin Wall and what happened next in those countries and what were they going to do next? It's the same here. And I think it's to be expected that we would be having a pretty intense conversation

meaningful, deep conversation about who we are as a country and where we ought to land.

Yeah, and in that way, the landscape, particularly after the Dobbs decision, seems really scrambled on both the right and the left. But one of the things that I hear from you is really clear-eyed pursuance of a goal, even in that unclear landscape. Do you see your decision to pursue a 15-week federal ban as guided by a moral sense of when you feel life begins or a sense of where you think the majority of Americans are on the issue? Such a limit is based on consensus. It's not where I think life begins.

I'm for protecting every child and serving every woman from the beginning. But that is not where the entire country is. And some states are there. Some states aren't there. But there is also a will of the nation to be established in the law. There is a realistic process that we've seen through our nation's history.

regarding how democracy works. So that's why the 15-week minimum standard is there, because poll after poll after poll shows that that's at least where we ought to be. The NPR poll a few weeks ago showed that two-thirds of the country is for limiting abortion after the first trimester. This, of course, is after that. But the Harvard-Harris poll shows 72-10 split on supporting a 15-week limit over no limit.

So that's really the conversation. Is there some limit or is there no limit? And most people want a limit. That same poll you're talking about showed the majority of Americans do not support a lot of the things Republicans are pushing for on the state level. You mentioned the kind of democratic process of it all. One of the things that has really come up for us in our reporting is that where abortion is legislated in the post-Obs world on the state level,

is really distorted by things like gerrymandering. We were looking at states like Wisconsin, where public opinion on where abortion should be was completely disconnected from where the state legislature is actually willing to take that law. How do you square the reality of what you're saying is a democratic process around abortion and

the truth of our state legislatures, which isn't really the fully democratic responsive system. Well, it's the only process we have. And then the next step, if the legislatures are in some way out of whack with the will of the people of their states, or conversely, on the will of the people of the country, the democratic process then produces a pushback

There is no other way, unless you want to put it back in the hands of judges. There is no other way that we've worked out deeply moral questions in our nation's history. And I'm sure it could be better. It should be perfect. But it is the way we course correct.

Do you see something like a 15-week federal limit as the final goal of your organization and how you're pushing Republicans? Or is it a first step for what I hear your personal kind of views are, which is about life beginning at conception? Should we see these kind of pushes as an initial step to an overall goal of limiting abortions at most instances? Or is a 15-week federal consensus where your organization would want the legislation to stop? Well, I...

I think I was pretty clear and I can answer it again. And I know you're trying to be helpful to your cause to try to get to a place of fear, but I'm not trying to be helpful to a cause. I'm trying to be clear. So I'm asking the question now because of any cause. I'm just trying to be clear. Yeah, you're on a cause, but that's okay because I have a cause too. You have a cause, even though you're a journalist. So let me just get to actually what- That cause is transparency. That's why I'm asking. Good. I'm going to say it one more time that our job

in the pro-life movement and in the country in general, is to get to America's consensus on this issue, finally allow it to establish its way into the law through the will of the people. And 15 weeks is the most modest place that we could land if we're going to be ambitious from the pro-life movement perspective, be as ambitious as we can. And

No matter where we land, it will not outstrip the will of the people of the country. And if it does in some way, the democratic process is here and available for the will of the people to speak once again. Yeah. Well, let's talk about the role you're hoping the next president will play in this. As you've said, you've only gotten a commitment from Mike Pence on your specific goal of a 15 week federal limit. What are you going to be doing in the coming months?

and trying to get commitments from the candidates, especially leading ones, Trump and DeSantis. My kind of follow-up question is, if they do not commit to this, will you oppose them?

We will not support any candidate who fails to establish in their policy positions a 15-week federal minimum standard. So it's up to them. Now, if those Republican candidates decide they don't need the support of the pro-life movement in order to win the presidency, that's their prerogative. They can do that. But no one gets a pass. Even if the ultimate GOP candidate who wins the nomination process wins,

fails to support such a standard, we will not support them. I guess I'm trying to be specific, though. To what extent is it that you're going to throw your weight behind a candidate or not? Is it that you will oppose or try to get other groups to oppose them? How far are you willing to go to push the nominee, considering that the two leading ones have not committed to your cause?

Well, it's important for us to focus on also what the Democratic candidate will inevitably be given in modern history, where they have landed. So there's going to be a better candidate than that without question.

But then you're right about me being specific. We will not do as we have in the past. We will not go to presidential battleground states and go door to door to eight million people, as we did last time, to support a candidate that thinks they have no job to do once they get in the Oval Office. It's simply who would do that? It doesn't make any sense. No human rights movement that has any self-respect would never do that. You'll sit on the sidelines. If it's Trump and he doesn't move on where he's been, you all would sit on the sidelines. Yeah, that's right.

What would be the point? What would be the point? Yeah. I'm thinking about the last midterms as a moment. We were talking about the will of the people. There were certainly some kind of takeaways from that election that said the American people really voted against what they viewed as abortion extremists, what they viewed as a Republican Party that was pushing too far on the other side. How did you view the midterms? And did you see it as a referendum somewhat on the issue of abortion? Yeah.

I'm sorry to laugh. I'm laughing not at the question. I'm laughing at the failure of Republican candidates to have anyone know what they had in mind whatsoever. No one knew. So you place the blame with the Republican candidates? 100 percent. They had one strategy. It was to bury their head in the sand and do nothing. As Democrats in the Celinda Lake brilliant strategy said, make sure that you're not talking about gestational limits. Make sure you're talking about them being for a ban.

That's what you make sure you do. They did that. They got labeled and then also buried with unprecedented amount of money on one issue in an election. And Democrats played it right. Republicans played it wrong. They pretended like it wasn't happening. And if they don't learn from that mistake in the last election, the past will be precedent. We'll see it again.

Well, respectfully, can that also be seen as your organization's failure as well? Should you have been part of that messaging to try to find the Republican Party a place to respond to the Democrats on that? Well, we definitely have that job. We definitely tried. Yeah, you could definitely call it a failure that they did not take our advice. The candidate by candidate by candidate. You can't name an entity in the party or a candidate that we did not talk to in terms of what should be communicated.

So there were a couple of notable successes. I think Rubio did a great job. J.D. Vance did a good job. Ted Budd did a good job. But for the people who decided that it didn't exist, they paid at the polls on Election Day. You know, last year on our show, we focused on the relationship between evangelicals, a pro-life movement, and Donald Trump. It was somewhat a relationship of convenience, a kind of person who embraced the movement at the right time and obviously followed through on their goals.

But it wasn't someone who personally reflected those values. He hasn't personally reflected caring about abortion or limiting abortion. I want to ask about that going forward. How much is your calculus when you're thinking DeSantis, Trump or any other candidate based off of your personal convictions or their personal relationship with the issue or based off of who can best deliver us our goals? Who can best deliver our goals?

That's your only concern. That is my only concern. I try to guess what's in the heart of people, Democrat, Republican, independent. You're going to probably get it wrong. Who will make a commitment and follow through is the important factor. I have no doubt that Mike Pence would do all that he has expressed that he would because I know the quality of this character. But again, the goal is to get to parity with all of them.

And it's unlikely that we would endorse anyone if we got to parity. But it seems also unlikely that we will get to parity. And so we may. Why is that? It's your sense that not all of them are going to come around to you on this 15 week federal limit. You know, I honestly don't know. I like to think I know a lot of things, but I really don't know. It's such an uncertain time. What I keep envisioning is what that debate stage looks like. You picture all of them and a journalist saying, OK, raise your hand if you're for a 15 week limit.

And who doesn't raise their hand, in my opinion, doesn't get the nomination. They all have to be able to raise their hand. But more importantly is when you move into Iowa and South Carolina and who doesn't raise their hand there. So it's going to be hard not to raise your hand in both of those states. But if they can get through it and none of them do, they all agree with each other, hey,

hey, guys, we're not going to do that. I'm going to slow that down because I think you're making an important point. You're saying you're trying to create a kind of political environment where it becomes impossible for those candidates, particularly in states that have a lot of pro-life folks or a lot of evangelicals like Iowa, South Carolina, to be able to not raise their hand on that debate stage when it comes to the question of a 15-week federal limit. You want that moment to be fatal for a candidate if they don't raise their hand. Yeah, you said it better than I could. Yes.

Great. How are you thinking about viability in that question? I mean, because there could be people like Pence or like Haley who do support you all's kind of standard. But at the same time, those are not the candidates who have been positioned as most likely to win. Would you throw your support behind someone like that for the sake of the cause and clarity of issue, even if they're running up against the DeSantis or Trump who are winning despite that? Yeah.

I'm sure you've been through a few cycles like I have. And what is viable one day is not viable the next day, may be viable the next day. Often there is a pathway that you did not see

for a candidate, especially when two or three candidates are all bludgeoning themselves. And so in answer to your question, we would not support a non-viable candidate because the goal is to win with the most ambitious for life candidate that we can find. So it will matter.

Mm hmm. Mm hmm. Somewhat. This leads to a question I'm kind of having on the spot, though, of like, are you sure the Republican electorate is prioritizing abortion in this post-Obs universe as much as you are? Are you sure that Trump and DeSantis isn't indicative of a Republican base that is not kind of driven by the issue of abortion restrictions in the same way that, you know, your organization is pushing for on the candidate level?

Well, I think that's the way of every human rights cause that's out there. Not every voter has the passion of the leader of those movements, but they do have positions. And it is very possible to get to consensus on where those issues are. They might not be at no limits and they will not be at a complete limit, but they will be likely somewhere in the middle.

And so the job of the GOP primary candidate is to find and embrace that place with a very articulate, visionary plan to lead from there, to lead from there among the GOP electorate and then lead among the American population in general.

So I think that you're right. I'll affirm that what you said is correct. Yes, not everybody in the GOP is in complete alignment with my views. I know that. But I do know that many of these presidential candidates have very strong pro-life views and understand the place in history that we are and what consensus and advocacy looks like.

So I hear a level of comfort from you all to say, yes, maybe the Republican electorate isn't where we are. Maybe even the general public isn't exactly where we are. But part of our work is to convince and to push these campaigns to do what you're describing as kind of leading on this advocacy issue to get Republican electorate to your side. And, you know, ergo, maybe even do the same in the general election. Yes. And here's why. Because the more we have our candidates elected,

communicating the basics, the fundamentals of this issue, not the politics of it, but the fundamentals of it. How we look at the developmental stages of the child, really that this is a part of the human family.

The more that communication, the reality of our position is communicated, the more we bring along people in the GOP and the people of America. And I believe in the cause so much that I'm not afraid of that process. And any candidate that is afraid of that process can't get our support.

In service of that, what do you expect to be most focused on in the weeks ahead? What are you doing right now? What are you most putting pressure on with the candidates in speaking to the electorate in early states like Iowa? Are you just trying to focus on the candidate policy level? What is your work in this moment? Actually, both of those things. Having ongoing conversations with candidates, the presidential candidates, is my primary job, along with a lot of state work.

And also we will, yes, we will have a presence in Iowa and in South Carolina, mainly in helping elevate the voices of all those GOP candidates so that everyone knows who they are voting for and what their position on this is.

We're not going to be at no limits. That's a double negative. We will be at some limit. And I don't think I should say like, I don't, you know, just to represent where I think the other side is. I don't think Democrats would say that their position on abortion is no limits. I think to your point, there's always been a discussion about where that limit falls. And no, there is no legislation. The reason that you don't know what their limit is, is they don't want you to know. And the legislation there, you, you, there is, uh,

One question that has been asked very rarely, but whenever it is asked about a Democratic senator or a Democratic candidate about what their limit would be, they don't answer the question because they don't want you to know because it's wildly unpopular. So I disagree. Sounds like Republicans right now. Yeah.

Well, it is. I couldn't disagree with that. You are the person willing to say where they believe their limit is. These candidates are not providing that level of clarity. Right. I mean, so everyone should be clear. If you're not for a limit...

You're for Roe. You're not for a limit. They think that's a popular position. They should just say it. And our candidates ought to be forcing that conversation. I'm for a 15 week limit. They can say, what limit are you for? Tell us, tell us, is there any place where the unborn child gets any protection along with support for their moms? Well,

Well, thank you. This was, you know, I know we got a little over time, but I appreciate it. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity. Sorry, I got a little hot there, but. No, no, no, no. I'm all good. We can take it. So it's all well and fine. I'm sure you can. Have a good rest of your day. Same to you. So where do Democrats stand in this moment? And is the left as interested in getting behind a single clear message on abortion rights as Dan and Felser and Susan B. Anthony pro-life America on the right? That's after the break.

This podcast is supported by Progressive Insurance. Are you driving your car or doing laundry right now? Podcasts go best when they're bundled with another activity, like Progressive Home and Auto Policies. They're best when bundled too. Having these two policies together makes insurance easier and could help you save. Customers who save by switching their home and car insurance to Progressive save over $775 on average.

Quota home and car bundle today at Progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company & Affiliates. National average 12-month savings of $779 by new customer surveyed who saved with Progressive between June 2022 and May 2023. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states.

- Hello, this is Yuande Kamalefa from New York Times Cooking, and I'm sitting on a blanket with Melissa Clark. - And we're having a picnic using recipes that feature some of our favorite summer produce. Yuande, what'd you bring? - So this is a cucumber agua fresca. It's made with fresh cucumbers, ginger, and lime.

How did you get it so green? I kept the cucumber skins on and pureed the entire thing. It's really easy to put together and it's something that you can do in advance. Oh, it is so refreshing. What'd you bring, Melissa?

Well, strawberries are extra delicious this time of year, so I brought my little strawberry almond cakes. Oh, yum. I roast the strawberries before I mix them into the batter. It helps condense the berries' juices and stops them from leaking all over and getting the crumb too soft. Mmm. You get little pockets of concentrated strawberry flavor. That tastes amazing. Oh, thanks. New York Times Cooking has so many easy recipes to fit your summer plans. Find them all at NYTCooking.com. I have sticky strawberry juice all over my fingers.

On the Democratic side, it's hard to find a group more central to the abortion fight than Planned Parenthood. Can you, can, can everyone hear me? Anyone? No? No? I can hear you. Alexis McGill-Johnson has been the head of Planned Parenthood since 2020. Thank you so much for taking some time out. I'm sorry it took me a while to get my audio situation together. How are you doing today?

I'm okay. I'm okay. I have to see, as you can see, I have my daughter's headset on. So I have to see if I can turn you up a little bit. I was going to say, I was like, I love the headset. I'm a unicorn. Yeah. And I wanted to ask her, what's the next step for the abortion rights movement? Considering the state ban still on the books, the reality of the Supreme Court,

and how people like Dan and Felser are pushing the courts and Republican candidates to go even further.

I was talking earlier this week to Marjorie Dannenfelser, and she was talking about this post-Dobbs moment as kind of like the period after the fall of the Berlin Wall, where this big thing has come down and no one really knows what to do next. In her view, the parties don't want to talk about it. And on the Republican side, she was trying to fill that void by really pushing candidates to support a 15-week abortion ban. I'm wondering on your side,

How are you trying to fill that void? And what's the goal of Planned Parenthood in this new post-Dobbs moment? I'm struck that she thinks that there is a void out there. I think that's more reflective of the fact that they don't have a strategy in this moment, that they don't have a strategy to address the real harm that the Dobbs decision and subsequent state decisions have brought on people. You know,

I think I have to sit with that for a second because it's also the case that I hear Democrats talking about this all the time from the White House all the way, you know, to state Supreme Court fights to local races, because I think people fully understand the impact. There are 20 states right now that have a limited all or

some access to abortion. And so state by state, this conversation is happening in really critical ways. So I'm still just kind of shocked that she thinks that there seems to be some void here. Okay, so you're shocked that there could be a perception of a void around abortion in this moment politically. So what is the strategy post-Obs that it sounds like you're seeing really clearly?

Well, look, I mean, I think we've seen it clearly since the leak, right? From the leak last year, this time, all the way up until the election, we saw the salience, obviously, of the loss of abortion rights because people understood what it meant. And our job for the next cycle is to continue to ensure that people understand what is at stake. And it's not like you can just take away information.

reproductive rights and people's real freedom. And people are all of a sudden going to forget that they don't have it. They are going to remember the politicians who, you know, have literally been holding them hostage in their states. They're going to remember the unpopular abortion bans. They're going to remember the impact that it's having writ large on the healthcare system. They're going to remember the stories of people who have been, I don't know, turned away because of sepsis, right? I mean, like all of the things that I think have happened

become more real, right? Like this is not theoretical. That is our job, right? To ensure that people understand. And on the other side, you know, I think maybe this is to the point on the void. The problem is that Republicans, antis have tried to hide their

support for these bans. They have tried to, you know, change their websites, and we have seen that. Our job is to make sure that their record is clear and transparent and that they don't get to, you know, lie to their constituents about how they really feel because they are worried about how they may vote. Mm-hmm.

In the Republican telling, even as they acknowledged that Democrats did make big gains on this issue in the midterms, they also say that that was not because of the Democrats' own positioning, but that they poured money into branding the Republican Party as extremists and that they really made gains in terms of casting the other side's position as out of touch. Is that true? Was that the strategy?

What is more extreme than banning abortion before people even know that they are pregnant? Right. What is more more extreme than forcing people to remain pregnant? What's more extreme than, you know, being confused as a provider to have to call a lawyer before you provide care to a patient? These are real things that are happening. It's not theoretical.

That's the extreme nature of what we are seeing in politics. And it's extreme because it's happening to real people in their real lives. And so I'm not sure that I understand that it was a strategy to paint them as extreme. It is extreme what has happened. And the egregious bans that we are seeing are extreme.

just having a tremendous impact on people. Yeah, I guess I'm asking the question not as a means of suggesting that it's not extreme, but really I'm asking what is the independent Democratic position on abortion rights? Is there a consistency from President Biden down through the party on where Democrats are on abortion?

Yes, absolutely. The consistency is the fact that they believe that politicians should not be making these decisions, that families should be making the decision. Patients should be making the decision, you know, in concert with their providers. They should be making decisions, but that politicians have no role to play here. That's what is consistent about the Democratic position. So there is not a role for the federal government to play, even on the opposite side of what she's talking about in terms of protecting abortion rights.

I think the protection of abortion rights is protecting our ability to make these decisions about our own bodies. That's what the point is. I guess I'm just trying to be specific. Is there a federal policy that you believe that President Biden should be advocating for in protection of abortion rights?

Well, look, I mean, you know, the Women's Health Protection Act is a, you know, strong federal legislation that, you know, we would hope to see the Senate be able to pass it. But, you know, again, it's theoretical at this point because we don't have a filibuster reform or 60 senators to support it. We saw it passed twice in the House.

And we saw two votes in the Senate fail because of the extreme nature of the Senate Republicans. I mean, how do you all fit into that landscape? As you're mentioning, these bills do exist, the Women's Health Protection Act and kind of other attempts. I'm thinking about President Biden last year talking about codifying Roe v. Wade. But those come up against the political realities of both the Senate and the country at large. Is Planned Parenthood working to try to shift people on those issues or is it

accepting that kind of political reality and just saying, okay, we have to think about other ways because, you know, something like how to find Roe at this point in the Senate looks like a non-starter. I mean, look, this is a long game, right? This isn't something that we anticipate happening, you know, in the next year for sure, right? And we didn't get here overnight. So I think, you know, from a movement perspective, our position is to, you know, continue to help people understand and connect the dots with what's really happening. But the reality is,

The majority of people support access to reproductive freedom. The majority of people believe that politicians should not be making these decisions. And yet, as you have well documented so much on this podcast, we have systems and structures that are completely inconsistent with where the majority of people are. And so their kind of democratically elected voice is being...

compromised by the fact that you have electeds who no longer face accountability for not being in sync with their constituents. That is, I think, the real challenge here. And then you add to that the fact that while our democracy is compromised, the judiciary is as well. You have extreme right-wing judges and justices, and they have created mechanisms by which, you know, you could have a single judge in Congress

the Northern District of Texas, adjudicate a case based on Mifepristone that would affect an entire nation. And that's what I think is really at stake here. Abortion is a fully bipartisan issue. The support, you don't get those numbers, as I said,

cutting across demographics and political parties. But what you do have is a system and structure where they have locked in a political advantage that I think should be incredibly alarming for most Americans. I mean, I think that there is a real clarity about those type of challenges that you lay out. I guess I just want to be specific for people who might be confused, but understand those challenges. What does Planned Parenthood see as the central role heading into 2024 to combat those challenges that I think you lay out really clearly?

Look, our central role is to continue to educate voters around where their electeds lie on this issue. We know that they are going to try to hide their record. They are going to try to paint Planned Parenthood as extreme. They are going to try to make extreme arguments to hide the fact of their record, right? To hide the fact that they are the ones who have been denying people access to reproductive freedom. Our job is to, again, motivate people who care about this issue, right?

to persuade folks for whom this issue is also important across parties and ensure they turn out and turn up on election day. That's always been our job to make it plain. I was thinking I would hear a strategy that is not only in relationship to Republicans, but also independent, that uses Planned Parenthood's reach and arm to maybe pressure Democrats to

to be more vocal about this issue. I'm kind of hearing you really talk specifically in relationship to Republicans. Is there any work that has to be done within the Democratic Party for the party to be more capable in terms of combating these challenges that you lay out?

I think we have continually seen the Democratic Party embrace this issue. I think we have seen that all the way from the, you know, highest levels of the administration, President Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, you know, advocating very deeply for this issue and doing everything within the whole government that they have been able to do to support patients and protect providers. And we have seen consistent gains in Democrats being full-throated in their support.

because they understand clearly that politicians should not be making these decisions. They're hearing from their people. You know, when they go to town halls, they're hearing from our people when they go to town halls on why this is so critical and how they need to stand strong. So I think there is always work to do, you know, to expand the imagination. You know, we want to see more Democrats

blue states, as it were, expanding access to freedom, doing things like ensuring that nurse practitioners can provide access to care, expanding resources to Medicaid in states like they just did in Rhode Island. So it's not like there's not work happening in states that are led by Democrats.

But when people have a choice between someone expanding access and fighting to and someone who is essentially trying to hold you hostage in your state, it's really important to let the voters understand and know. And we have seen this issue consistently throughout 22, throughout the Wisconsin State Supreme Court fight.

that this issue persuades independence, you know, it doesn't just motivate bases, right? It persuades independence as well. And we saw that consistently. You know, when Joe Biden is on the stage in a presidential debate with a Republican on the other side, and that Republican says that they're in support of a 15-week abortion ban, what would you want Biden to say in response? Would that be about the impacts of what Republicans are proposing or about what he would do to individually protect abortion rights?

I think that the president should say a ban is a ban is a ban, right? It is putting yourself in control of someone else's body and someone else's life. And so I think that it will be important for the president not to fall into some arbitrary trap around weeks, right? This is about a compromise on people's reproductive autonomy. And it means that you are saying that you know better than a provider what a patient needs.

So I get that. I'm saying so the response to that is not to propose a different set of weeks, is to not engage in that conversation fully. That's what you would hope would happen in that interaction.

Yes, what I would hope is that the president would fully understand that where the majority of people are on this issue, you know, as I've said, they want to be able to make the decisions themselves. And so trying to come up with a compromise on behalf of people who don't want to compromise to me doesn't make sense. You know, I think that these compromise proposals are.

aren't about giving people more rights. They continue to be about taking rights away. And I think the American people have shown and demonstrated through election that they don't want to see these bans happen. You know, when we look at polling, though, Americans' views on abortion rights are somewhat complicated.

The latest NPR-Marist poll definitely shows the majority of Americans who support legal access to abortion and don't support many of the Republican policies that I think you've laid out here that are out of step with public opinion. But it's also said things like the majority of Americans want to see most abortions happen in a first trimester. Do you all see your role as calibrating to that type of public opinion? Does that factor into where you push the Democratic Party the message from?

The majority of people want to be able to make these decisions. I can't say that more clearly. And I think that our job is to, you know, help people understand the reality and the context in which people are making decisions. And so I think that that's something that I, you know, it's hard to capture when you're speaking kind of theoretically about what these bans might be. Like people are enraged because

Because what it represents is not just a limited access to health care. It's the fact that you actually don't trust me to make these decisions about my body. I mean, you know, you don't take away rights from people who are your peers. Yeah, I guess I'm not trying to diminish the real emotional and tangible impact of this. I guess I'm just trying to be specific on the political angle here, because, you know, it does feel as if there is a

Republican Party that is continuing to push for more restrictions and intentionally framing the Democratic Party as vague on this issue. So I'm really trying to be specific because I want to know is what you're saying that you think is actually valid

Good for the president not to have a specific counter plan to something like a 15 week federal ban, because you're saying that is in itself engaging in a role in terms of abortion access that you don't think the government should have at all.

I think it's an arbitrary determination, right, that you're asking that the president and politicians are coming and saying, hey, how about 15 weeks? That makes sense, right? Talking in a theoretical of a 15-week ban on a debate stage. But the reality is there are 20 states right now that have abortion bans that are in effect from a range, right, from total bans to 20 weeks. And

The patients in those states are being impacted right now, right? People are being denied care and access right now. You have providers who are afraid of offering life-saving care because of those vans. You have OBGYNs that do not want to come into states because of those vans. Yeah, is there a plan to help those people on the state level? Yeah. Yeah.

I mean, of course. I mean, I think that that's the conversation we need to be having, right, about the impact that these bans are having and what we need to do to support the patients getting out of state, what we need to do to support those providers. But the reality is that these states have wrought their own havoc. They have created and manufactured a public health crisis because they believed that they knew better than the pregnant people or their doctors about what should happen. Yeah.

I totally understand the point you're making. I am asking if you are in those states, if you are a person who cannot get abortion access in those states right now, and you are looking to leadership either of a Democratic Party or the Planned Parenthood, an organization that has been aligned with this issue for a long time. And that question is, OK, what is the plan to change that reality in those states right now? That's what I'm asking you. What is that?

Well, again, you know, Ested, I just point you back to your own work, right, that we did not get here overnight. The reason that these states had these bans is because they have been able to lock in a political majority and they are continuing to double down on that advantage overnight.

the plan is not just a two-year plan, right? It is a, will be a decades-long plan to build back power at every level of government to ensure that the laws reflect the will of the people. That is why we're talking about court reform. That's why we're talking, you know, obviously, there will be more ballot measures in states. There will be, you know, work that we will need to do in 24 to ensure that we, you know, protect and hopefully expand the Senate, that we win back the House so that we can move forward and, um,

look at options to codify Roe. So when you ask me what is the plan to deal with the gerrymandering, right, with the capture of power, with the court capture, it has to be a, you know, a plan that helps people understand not just that these rights have been taken away, but that

that they have been taken away in such a way that the opposition is trying to lock in this structural advantage for a generation. And that has to fire people up so they understand what they are voting for. It is not just about abortion rights. Our very democracy is on the line, and that's what we have to be concerned about right now.

I mean, I hear all of that. And I also hear that this has been a process for a long time, particularly on the conservative side. That gerrymandering has taken place over decades. That court capture has taken over decades. Is it fair to ask Planned Parenthood? Is it fair to ask the Democratic Party? Why are we talking about the need to create a type of plan to protect those people from those realities and not that it already exists? Why doesn't it exist now?

I can only speak on behalf of Planned Parenthood and as someone who's been involved in the organization, although not in this role for over a decade, we have been screaming, right? The reproductive rights movement has been screaming for over a decade about the bans, the egregious overreach of so many states when Roe was still constitutional, right? Right.

I think people thought that the Supreme Court would be the backstop, and they did not see an overturning of, you know, 50 years precedent happening. And I think at every turn, the opposition, you know, as embodied by the GOP, has stood in their power and against democratic tradition and norm to push these things forward. Mm-hmm.

And so it hasn't been that people haven't been screaming about it because we have been. It has been, you know, when you have,

you know, intense gerrymandering that has happened over a decade's time and you don't control those, you know, we're asking the same institutions that have gerrymandered themselves to un-gerrymander themselves. They're not going to give up power that easily. And so I think the work here is, again, to demonstrate that

to people why it is that they can't have what they want in, you know, the state that they live. Planned Parenthood recently put out a statement about their priorities in reinstating federal abortion access. And, you know, what came from that, as you have mentioned, is court reform, you know, expanding the Supreme Court, instituting term limits, and filling lower court positions.

Because of gerrymandering, because of that kind of court capture, I can see how it leads Planned Parenthood to endorsing this position. But when I read it, I'm also struck that that's not a position Joe Biden has, right? He's not someone who has endorsed the idea of expanding the Supreme Court or taken court reform largely very seriously. Is that something he needs to do to be the protector of abortion rights that you all want him to be?

I mean, look, we don't work for the administration. Our job is to is to is to think beyond the imagination. Right. Our imagination has to be bigger than Congress. It's got to be bigger than the administration because that's what movements do. Right. They move. They move people. Movements also push those people. I'm saying, are you all going to push Joe Biden or push the Democratic Party to be embracing these things? Yes. And that in that position? Absolutely. We have been, you know,

certainly in, in conversation around why this is so critical. Um, but administration is made up of, of people who also have to expand their imagination around, around this, this work. Um, look, we know there's not currently the votes in Congress to take these steps just as we currently don't have the votes to codify Roe. Um,

But the point is that this is a long-term fight, and we need to shift the Overton window, as it were, so that people start to understand what is possible in policy, what may have been unthinkable at one point in however many years' time may not seem so unthinkable. It may seem inevitable given the crisis that we're in. So our job is as advocates, right? We have to push everyone towards this vision, including the administration. On the right, they say if they don't back a 15-week abortion mandate,

ban, then they will not lend their support or money to said nominee. And that was a really clear kind of statement. I'm asking you on these priorities of judicial reform, does Joe Biden need to support this? Do Democrats need to support this to maintain kind of closeness with Planned Parenthood? Or is it just a suggestion?

I think it's more than a suggestion. I think that it is important for those who are campaigning to be able to articulate the problem of how we got here, to be able to name that weaponized courts are a fundamental threat to our democracy. This is, again, a long-term conversation. This isn't about what candidates do in 24, you know, to your earlier question.

Right. How you know, how do we combat this this structural advantage that the opposition has locked in? It means that we need to expand the way we think about that. And that's what this is about. But to be clear, I don't hear you saying that if you don't support that, there is a cost to pay in relationship to Planned Parenthood. And the way I do hear the right say, if you don't support what we're saying, there's a cost to pay.

I think you're comparing apples and oranges. I think you're talking about supporting a national ban, which is what the right wants to see and enact. And I think, you know, if there were Democratic politicians who were saying that they supported a national ban, we would not be supporting those politicians.

I think that's that's that's an apple for an apple. You're comparing a ban with court reform.

it's this policy as a baseline or we will withhold support. I'm asking respective to Democratic Party. You all are not saying that same thing in regards to your, the policy that has just come out from Planned Parenthood around judicial reform. That's all I'm asking.

And again, I think they're not the exact comparison. And where I think I'm clear on court reform is that this is a much longer term conversation that is not about one electoral cycle, right? That is not about, you know, a litmus test for a presidential candidate. This is about

having electeds and movement organizations like Planned Parenthood articulate why we are here and the incredible challenges we are going to face as a nation when our courts are captured in the way we are. Thank you. I really appreciate your time. Is there something that you think that, like, is critical to know about how you all see your role in politics or maybe your role in the next election cycle that maybe I will not understand? No, I think, yeah,

I think what you're hearing in this moment is,

why it is so important for us to continue to connect the dots to voting rights, to court reform, you know, and using an issue like abortion, right? Because it is such a bipartisan issue, period. And so how can it be that we have 20 states now with these restrictive, you know, bans? People need to understand that and begin to ask these questions around what is it about their structures, right?

that are flawed because there isn't a quick fix to this, you know, structural disadvantage. Well, thank you. I really appreciate your time. I thank you for giving us a lot of it. And, you know, you let me ask all my little questions over and over. So I appreciate that. And I appreciate the time. Same here. Thank you. I look forward to it. Yeah. Have a great rest of your day. You too.

After talking with McGill-Johnson and with Marjorie Dannenfelser, it feels like both party activists are feeling good about a presidential election where abortion is front and center. And it makes me even more skeptical of what Congressman Byron Donalds told me last week, that he thought abortion, the issue that played such a key role in the 2022 midterms, would somehow recede in importance by the 2024 presidential election.

that voters will feel less emotionally tied to it. If anything, my conversations with these activists make me think that we're in a fully new chapter on the abortion issue, but it's not going away. When it comes to making plans, you are the best.

from those delicious barbecues to special birthdays and unforgettable family get-togethers. The same way you plan for those important moments, start planning to protect you and your loved ones from a natural disaster like a hurricane, flood, wildfire, or tornado. Sign up for local weather and emergency alerts, prepare an emergency kit, and make a family communications plan. Get started today at ready.gov slash plan. A public service message brought to you by FEMA and the Ad Council.

The Run-Up is reported by me, Ested Herndon, and produced by Elisa Gutierrez, Caitlin O'Keefe, and Anna Foley. It's edited by Franny Kartoff and Lisa Tobin, with original music by Dan Powell, Marion Lozano, and Alicia Baitu. It was mixed by Isaac Jones and fact-checked by Caitlin Love.

Special thanks to Paula Schumann, Sam Dolnik, Larissa Anderson, David Halfinger, Mahima Chablani, Desiree Ibequa, Renan Barelli, Jeffrey Miranda, Sophia Landman, and Maddie Maciela. If you like the show and want to get updates on the latest episodes, follow our feed wherever you get your podcasts. Thanks for listening, y'all. ♪

AI may be the most important new computer technology ever. But AI needs a lot of processing speed. And that gets expensive fast. Upgrade to the next generation of the cloud. Oracle Cloud Infrastructure, or OCI. OCI is the single platform for your infrastructure, database, application development, and AI needs. Do more and spend less like Uber, 8x8, and Databricks Mosaic.

Take a free test drive of OCI at oracle.com slash nyt. oracle.com slash nyt.