I hope your take is correct. As a volunteer canvasser in a swing district, I spoke to an independent voter just this past weekend who brought up abortion at the very beginning of our conversation, and who said he recognized (what he saw as) both sides of the issue. To voters like this, might Graham's proposal (in ridiculously simplified terms, and rounding 15 weeks up to 20) simply seem like a "reasonable" proposal to "split the difference" between liberal and conservative positions? I should note that, while he admittedly leaned Republican, this voter remained open to the idea of voting for the Democratic candidate in the race. With such a voter, a deeper dive into the nuances of the issue may be called for: to explain the deep cynicism and cruelty inherent in Graham's proposal, and why a 15-week ban is NOT in fact a "reasonable compromise."
Perhaps the answer is, as you suggest, to message broadly in very basic terms, but to be prepared to offer more granular arguments when they're called for.
We have to stand our ground when it comes to abortion access - there is no compromise. When the GOP proposes a nationwide abortion ban, that's exactly what they want. No exceptions for rape, incest, or medical condition that threatens the mother's life. Pregnancy complications are a thing, and many people with wanted pregnancies need abortion care to save the mother's life (ie unviable pregnancies, ectopic pregnancies, genetic abnormalities inconsistent with life...)
Of course. I wasn't suggesting that we COMPROMISE our position, just that we should -- at least on occasion -- be prepared to explain WHY even a 15-week ban is unacceptable. Oliver's advice was to simply say "No Republican abortion bans" with no further explanation, which should hopefully be more than enough for large swathes of the electorate. But for some voters, a 15-week ban may seem like a "moderate" or "centrist" position on the issue; when speaking to those people, it may be necessary to discuss the points that you raise above.
I just edited my original comment to hopefully make myself more clear.
You could just say: Republicans said the SCOTUS decision would leave abortion access up to the states. A nationwide ban is not leaving it up to the states.
I hope your take is correct. As a volunteer canvasser in a swing district, I spoke to an independent voter just this past weekend who brought up abortion at the very beginning of our conversation, and who said he recognized (what he saw as) both sides of the issue. To voters like this, might Graham's proposal (in ridiculously simplified terms, and rounding 15 weeks up to 20) simply seem like a "reasonable" proposal to "split the difference" between liberal and conservative positions? I should note that, while he admittedly leaned Republican, this voter remained open to the idea of voting for the Democratic candidate in the race. With such a voter, a deeper dive into the nuances of the issue may be called for: to explain the deep cynicism and cruelty inherent in Graham's proposal, and why a 15-week ban is NOT in fact a "reasonable compromise."
Perhaps the answer is, as you suggest, to message broadly in very basic terms, but to be prepared to offer more granular arguments when they're called for.
We have to stand our ground when it comes to abortion access - there is no compromise. When the GOP proposes a nationwide abortion ban, that's exactly what they want. No exceptions for rape, incest, or medical condition that threatens the mother's life. Pregnancy complications are a thing, and many people with wanted pregnancies need abortion care to save the mother's life (ie unviable pregnancies, ectopic pregnancies, genetic abnormalities inconsistent with life...)
Of course. I wasn't suggesting that we COMPROMISE our position, just that we should -- at least on occasion -- be prepared to explain WHY even a 15-week ban is unacceptable. Oliver's advice was to simply say "No Republican abortion bans" with no further explanation, which should hopefully be more than enough for large swathes of the electorate. But for some voters, a 15-week ban may seem like a "moderate" or "centrist" position on the issue; when speaking to those people, it may be necessary to discuss the points that you raise above.
I just edited my original comment to hopefully make myself more clear.
You could just say: Republicans said the SCOTUS decision would leave abortion access up to the states. A nationwide ban is not leaving it up to the states.