Florida settles with Miami hotel over drag queen Christmas show

[Francee89]

Do you think this kind of behavior led them to care more?

How many of you were in the offices of those republican lawmakers lobbying for our abortion rights?

I don’t think it led them to care any more or less. If the real, documented suffering of real women happening every day under these laws isn’t motivating them to care about women’s health and lives, it’s hard to believe costumes at protests moved the needle on their opinion either way.

Do you think it helped to outline the severity of the cause? Or do you think people were more having fun with it?

The serious consequences of banning abortion weren’t a mystery when it was a hypothetical - doctors/medical organizations were very clear about what would happen - and certainly aren’t a mystery now that they’re a reality. If Republican lawmakers didn’t care about the serious, soberly delivered opinions of medical professionals and don’t care about the clearly documented fallout of these laws enough to change them, I don’t think some people wearing costumes made a difference, because the consistent underlying factor here was/is an indifference to and lack of care about women’s health and lives from the Republican lawmakers who passed and won’t repeal or amend these laws.

[Slimshandy]

I don’t think it led them to care any more or less. If the real, documented suffering of real women happening every day under these laws isn’t motivating them to care about women’s health and lives, it’s hard to believe costumes at protests moved the needle on their opinion either way.

Do you think it helped to outline the severity of the cause? Or do you think people were more having fun with it?

The serious consequences of banning abortion weren’t a mystery when it was a hypothetical - doctors/medical organizations were very clear about what would happen - and certainly aren’t a mystery now that they’re a reality. If Republicans lawmakers didn’t care about the serious, soberly delivered opinions of medical professionals and don’t care about the clearly documented fallout of these laws enough to change them, I don’t think some people wearing costumes made a difference, because the consistent underlying factor here was/is an indifference and lack of care about women’s health and lives from the Republican lawmakers who passed and won’t repeal or amend these laws.

So do you think the people dressed as Vaginas didn’t actually help anything, but the lawmakers weren’t swayed by their costumes either way?

[Francee89]

Do you think it helped to outline the severity of the cause? Or do you think people were more having fun with it?

The serious consequences of banning abortion weren’t a mystery when it was a hypothetical - doctors/medical organizations were very clear about what would happen - and certainly aren’t a mystery now that they’re a reality. If Republicans lawmakers didn’t care about the serious, soberly delivered opinions of medical professionals and don’t care about the clearly documented fallout of these laws enough to change them, I don’t think some people wearing costumes made a difference, because the consistent underlying factor here was/is an indifference and lack of care about women’s health and lives from the Republican lawmakers who passed and won’t repeal or amend these laws.

So do you think the people dressed as Vaginas didn’t actually help anything, but the lawmakers weren’t swayed by their costumes either way?

Yes. If they’re not swayed by black and white evidence of women’s suffering and the consequences of these laws now, I find it very hard to believe costumes made any difference in the grand scheme of things.

Let’s consider this example from the article I posted earlier:

In Arkansas, when state Rep. Ashley Hudson, a Democrat, proposed a rape and incest exception that was limited to children under 16 — because “we are talking about a situation where a 10-year-old child is being forced to carry a pregnancy that may kill her” — her Republican colleagues swiftly voted against it.

Republican Rep. Cindy Crawford countered with her experience operating a shelter for girls, where she said she had supported many 12-year-olds who gave birth.

“Just because a young girl is pregnant and — at 12 or whatever — you think she should have an abortion, would you not agree that two wrongs don’t make a right? That her mental health would be worse after she experienced an abortion?” she asked Hudson.

“I disagree and I would disagree that it’s up to me at all,” Hudson replied.

All of those efforts failed.

I have a very, very hard time believing that Republicans totally cool with maintaining the status quo they created - legally forcing preteens to give birth - would’ve had any difference of opinions or would have changed their votes on this based on the attire of protestors.

[Slimshandy]

The serious consequences of banning abortion weren’t a mystery when it was a hypothetical - doctors/medical organizations were very clear about what would happen - and certainly aren’t a mystery now that they’re a reality. If Republicans lawmakers didn’t care about the serious, soberly delivered opinions of medical professionals and don’t care about the clearly documented fallout of these laws enough to change them, I don’t think some people wearing costumes made a difference, because the consistent underlying factor here was/is an indifference and lack of care about women’s health and lives from the Republican lawmakers who passed and won’t repeal or amend these laws.

So do you think the people dressed as Vaginas didn’t actually help anything, but the lawmakers weren’t swayed by their costumes either way?

Yes. If they’re not swayed by black and white evidence of women’s suffering and the consequences of these laws now, I find it very hard to believe costumes made any difference in the grand scheme of things.

Let’s consider this example from the article I posted earlier:

In Arkansas, when state Rep. Ashley Hudson, a Democrat, proposed a rape and incest exception that was limited to children under 16 — because “we are talking about a situation where a 10-year-old child is being forced to carry a pregnancy that may kill her” — her Republican colleagues swiftly voted against it.

Republican Rep. Cindy Crawford countered with her experience operating a shelter for girls, where she said she had supported many 12-year-olds who gave birth.

“Just because a young girl is pregnant and — at 12 or whatever — you think she should have an abortion, would you not agree that two wrongs don’t make a right? That her mental health would be worse after she experienced an abortion?” she asked Hudson.

“I disagree and I would disagree that it’s up to me at all,” Hudson replied.

All of those efforts failed.

I have a very, very hard time believing that Republicans totally cool with maintaining the status quo they created - legally forcing preteens to give birth - would’ve had any difference of opinions or would have changed their votes on this based on the attire of protestors.

Do you think those republican lawmakers are more swayed by the standpoints of other lawmakers, or the lobbiests that purport to represent those lawmaker’s voting constituents?

[Francee89]

So do you think the people dressed as Vaginas didn’t actually help anything, but the lawmakers weren’t swayed by their costumes either way?

Yes. If they’re not swayed by black and white evidence of women’s suffering and the consequences of these laws now, I find it very hard to believe costumes made any difference in the grand scheme of things.

Let’s consider this example from the article I posted earlier:

In Arkansas, when state Rep. Ashley Hudson, a Democrat, proposed a rape and incest exception that was limited to children under 16 — because “we are talking about a situation where a 10-year-old child is being forced to carry a pregnancy that may kill her” — her Republican colleagues swiftly voted against it.

Republican Rep. Cindy Crawford countered with her experience operating a shelter for girls, where she said she had supported many 12-year-olds who gave birth.

“Just because a young girl is pregnant and — at 12 or whatever — you think she should have an abortion, would you not agree that two wrongs don’t make a right? That her mental health would be worse after she experienced an abortion?” she asked Hudson.

“I disagree and I would disagree that it’s up to me at all,” Hudson replied.

All of those efforts failed.

I have a very, very hard time believing that Republicans totally cool with maintaining the status quo they created - legally forcing preteens to give birth - would’ve had any difference of opinions or would have changed their votes on this based on the attire of protestors.

Do you think those republican lawmakers are more swayed by the standpoints of other lawmakers, or the lobbiests that purport to represent those lawmaker’s voting constituents?

I don’t think you can really separate the two. Whether the majority of Republican lawmakers aren’t voting to change these laws because they truly believe in them in spite of the consequences for women, or whether they’re not budging because they know what the consequences will be from the anti-abortion groups who’ll work to primary them, the end result is the same - the documented suffering of women isn’t motivating them to change anything.

[Slimshandy]

Yes. If they’re not swayed by black and white evidence of women’s suffering and the consequences of these laws now, I find it very hard to believe costumes made any difference in the grand scheme of things.

Let’s consider this example from the article I posted earlier:



I have a very, very hard time believing that Republicans totally cool with maintaining the status quo they created - legally forcing preteens to give birth - would’ve had any difference of opinions or would have changed their votes on this based on the attire of protestors.

Do you think those republican lawmakers are more swayed by the standpoints of other lawmakers, or the lobbiests that purport to represent those lawmaker’s voting constituents?

I don’t think you can really separate the two. Whether the majority of Republican lawmakers aren’t voting to change these laws because they truly believe in them in spite of the consequences for women, or whether they’re not budging because they know what the consequences will be from the anti-abortion groups who’ll work to primary them, the end result is the same - the documented suffering of women isn’t motivating them to change anything.

I disagree, I think if their vote is swayed by what they believe to be the consequences of their vote, whether that be financial gain or keeping their seat, their vote can be changed by enough pressure.

[Francee89]

Do you think those republican lawmakers are more swayed by the standpoints of other lawmakers, or the lobbiests that purport to represent those lawmaker’s voting constituents?

I don’t think you can really separate the two. Whether the majority of Republican lawmakers aren’t voting to change these laws because they truly believe in them in spite of the consequences for women, or whether they’re not budging because they know what the consequences will be from the anti-abortion groups who’ll work to primary them, the end result is the same - the documented suffering of women isn’t motivating them to change anything.

I disagree, I think if their vote is swayed by what they believe to be the consequences of their vote, whether that be financial gain or keeping their seat, their vote can be changed by enough pressure.

I’m skeptical that somehow pressuring the ones who care about the consequences to women’s health (and I’m not sure how you would, given that the threats of primaries are very real) would make enough of a difference given that many of these Republicans are clearly fine with the status quo and not at all moved by testimony and evidence of the result of these laws to want to change them.

[Slimshandy]

I don’t think you can really separate the two. Whether the majority of Republican lawmakers aren’t voting to change these laws because they truly believe in them in spite of the consequences for women, or whether they’re not budging because they know what the consequences will be from the anti-abortion groups who’ll work to primary them, the end result is the same - the documented suffering of women isn’t motivating them to change anything.

I disagree, I think if their vote is swayed by what they believe to be the consequences of their vote, whether that be financial gain or keeping their seat, their vote can be changed by enough pressure.

I’m skeptical that somehow pressuring the ones who care about the consequences to women’s health (and I’m not sure how you would, given that the threats of primaries are very real) would make enough of a difference given that many of these Republicans are clearly fine with the status quo and not at all moved by testimony and evidence of the result of these laws to want to change them.

No, they’re not moved by testimony or evidence, they’re moved by financial pressures and the need to keep their job.


Republicans are doing a really good job right now of getting most of their elected officials to believe both their finances and their job will be negatively impacted if they don’t vote a certain way. They are doing that mostly through lobbiests.


If Democrats want things to start going their way, they need to start doing the things that will matter. The frivolity of dancing vaginas isn’t it.

[jessilin0113]

I disagree, I think if their vote is swayed by what they believe to be the consequences of their vote, whether that be financial gain or keeping their seat, their vote can be changed by enough pressure.

I’m skeptical that somehow pressuring the ones who care about the consequences to women’s health (and I’m not sure how you would, given that the threats of primaries are very real) would make enough of a difference given that many of these Republicans are clearly fine with the status quo and not at all moved by testimony and evidence of the result of these laws to want to change them.

No, they’re not moved by testimony or evidence, they’re moved by financial pressures and the need to keep their job.


Republicans are doing a really good job right now of getting most of their elected officials to believe both their finances and their job will be negatively impacted if they don’t vote a certain way. They are doing that mostly through lobbiests.


If Democrats want things to start going their way, they need to start doing the things that will matter. The frivolity of dancing vaginas isn’t it.

You are weirdly focused on that. Maybe we had dancing vaginas because literally nothing else worked. Do you think p**sy hats are our first line of defense or something?

[Francee89]

I disagree, I think if their vote is swayed by what they believe to be the consequences of their vote, whether that be financial gain or keeping their seat, their vote can be changed by enough pressure.

I’m skeptical that somehow pressuring the ones who care about the consequences to women’s health (and I’m not sure how you would, given that the threats of primaries are very real) would make enough of a difference given that many of these Republicans are clearly fine with the status quo and not at all moved by testimony and evidence of the result of these laws to want to change them.

No, they’re not moved by testimony or evidence, they’re moved by financial pressures and the need to keep their job.


Republicans are doing a really good job right now of getting most of their elected officials to believe both their finances and their job will be negatively impacted if they don’t vote a certain way. They are doing that mostly through lobbiests.


If Democrats want things to start going their way, they need to start doing the things that will matter. The frivolity of dancing vaginas isn’t it.

To bring this back to my original point, if somber testimony and documented evidence doesn’t work, the frivolity of dancing vaginas isn’t impacting anything either, because neither of those things move the needle for people who either don’t care about or don’t care enough about women’s health to amend these laws.

What are things that Democrats can do that will matter in the context of red state Republicans understanding the reality that they can and will be primaried by the pro-life lobbyist groups that they made powerful for being insufficiently restrictive on abortion? Abortion rights are going Democrat’s way in many states (either directly via ballot initiatives, like in Ohio, or indirectly through proposed abortion restrictions being a losing message, like in Virginia), but it’s not the fault of Democrats that Republicans in Tennessee or South Dakota or wherever else are either fine with the current laws, or too scared of the consequences to amend them.