,
12 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
This story about @JohnBelforLA signing his state's just-passed heartbeat bill is rightly getting lots of attention. washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/05… But, in many ways, it is getting the wrong kind of attention and this points to a major flaw in how abortion is covered in the US. 1/
Edwards is a strong pro-life Democrat; expanded Medicaid, increased education funding, instituted criminal justice reform.
More than 12 Dems voted for the heartbeat bill. Several are people of color...like @RepKJackson. This is mirrors a (local) trend religionnews.com/2019/05/10/the… 2/
More than 12 Dems voted for the heartbeat bill. Several are people of color...like @RepKJackson. This is mirrors a (local) trend religionnews.com/2019/05/10/the… 2/
National media don't know what to do with this. Instead of allowing racial/ideological diversity to challenge their given abortion narrative, they reply on 1980s stereotypes. Of Jackson they said "Her party’s preferences are no match for her own deeply held religious beliefs." 3/
Dismissiveness drips from these words. "Deeply held religious beliefs" are put in a box which gets marginalized from the discourse. Magisterial figures like Linda Greenhouse even argue the establishment clause prohibits them from being basis of law. nytimes.com/2019/05/23/opi… 4/
This methodology is only employed, of course, when the views in question are objectionable. When @PeteButtigieg says his faith guides his views about, say, ecological protection...there is no dismissiveness. His religious language is either overlooked or framed positively. 5/
It would be impossible imagine a @WashingtonPost reporter penning this sentence: "Though most US Americans don't prioritize climate change the priorities of the American people are no match for Mayor Pete's religious beliefs." One might argue that the moral view of climate... 6/
...change has a secular component to the argument and that's what makes it different. But the same is true with abortion, which most pro-lifers see as about human rights. Pope Francis recent remarks on justice for the prenatal child explicitly frame it in non-religious terms. 7/
.@secularprolife recently pointed out that a whopping 13 million pro-lifers ID as non-religious. *13 million*! blog.secularprolife.org/2018/08/non-re… This group is equal to the entire population of Illinois. The idea that an anti-abortion position is inherently religious is totally outdated. 8/
The WaPo article also assumes abortion-rights Dem party orthodoxy throughout, but this is true only with coastal, overwhelmingly white elites. The full party, esp if one takes religious people of color seriously, one must embrace diversity on this issue. At least if Dems... 9/
...want to win in places like South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Texas. Indeed, pro-life messaging works best with what some might call the Dem's base.
WaPo article suggested Dem party changed on abortion, but its more accurate to say pro-lifers left. 10/
WaPo article suggested Dem party changed on abortion, but its more accurate to say pro-lifers left. 10/
Dems will desperately need to win them back if they want to win the Senate and to keep the House in 2020. Many pro-lifers are looking around for alternatives to Trump, but white progressive leadership doesn't give them anywhere reasonable to land. Many will simply stay home. 11/
Having a national debate about this, though, requires changing abortion coverage. Let go of 1980s assumptions. Embrace wide nonbinary view of the issue. Talk at length with locals outside of I-95 corridor, especially people of color. And most important: embrace complexity. [fin]
