How Women’s Health and Social Media Won 2012: Retrospective

This is a guest post by Echo Zen. Echo is a feminist filmmaker, blogger, speaker and sexual health advocate, currently deployed in the States to counter the influence of Tea Party moppets. When ze’s not doing ad consulting for birth control, ze tries to blog semi-regularly for Feministe (partly to set a good example for zir sister).

“Gentleman and ladies, your hard work paid off. Tonight we demonstrated to the other party what happens when you sneer at rape survivors, birth control and equal pay for equal work.”

By all accounts, it shouldn’t have ended like this. The president running for re-election was supposed to be an enemy of American values, waging the real “war on women” by giving out free contraception on street corners, encouraging girls to become sex objects by sleeping with hundreds of men and covering themselves in venereal disease, having abortion after abortion as their birth control inevitably failed them, until they no longer had any respect for their own bodies or lives – thus destroying the Christian work ethic that once made America’s economy great. And that was on top of Obama’s takeover of healthcare, bailouts for the billion-dollar abortion industry, and attacks on religious institutions that believe they have a right to discriminate against the healthcare of female employees.

This should have been a sufficient platform for the opposition’s campaign, so accustomed to winning elections by smearing liberals and women’s health advocates as morally depraved baby killers. But in defiance of all political wisdom about U.S. politics, it didn’t work. Instead, as Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman observed, “human dignity for women swung votes the other way.” And social media was a key element in securing that swing.

Long before the dust had cleared, it was clear the 2012 election was a win for American women. Quite a few had noticed a major political party in the U.S. was earnestly campaigning on a platform of violating women’s bodies, allowing employers to discriminate against them and pay them less, and raping them with mandatory, medically useless transvaginal ultrasounds if they needed abortion care.7 No wonder the party of misogyny lost by the largest gender gap in U.S. history.

But the election was also an unprecedented win for women’s health advocates who believe reproductive healthcare is a basic human right. Consider how in 2010 the Tea Party rode to power on a Trojan horse promise of jobs – and once in power, immediately proposed a shocking 1,860 bills to restrict women’s access to abortion, birth control and basic reproductive healthcare, while refusing to pass a single credible jobs bill. Between attempts to ban contraception and bar impregnated rape victims from obtaining abortions if their rapes weren’t “forcible” enough, one ex-senator from Pennsylvania managed to campaign for the GOP presidential nomination on a virulently anti-birth control platform, the first politician to run a viable campaign on such a platform.

Even by today’s standards, where Congressional Republicans have now politicised sexual assault by refusing to re-authorise the (once bipartisan) Violence Against Women Act, Rick Santorum’s attempt at the presidency was an especially shameful development. And from these developments, one might conclude Americans as a whole are hostile to the notion that women deserve control over their bodies. For many advocates, working in reproductive healthcare for the past few years was a soul-draining experience, and that was without the periodic death threats from “pro-lifers” trying to terrorise them for daring to care for women.

But contrary to previous elections where women’s health was an afterthought in voters’ minds, it was a centrepiece of the 2012 election – which devolved into a rout for the party that had tried for years to ram their anti-health agenda down the throats of our communities. Presidential results came early in the night (it tends to happen when a candidate wins by a landslide), and as the night wore on, the scale of victory became unmistakable.

One by one, extremists in competitive races – who’d campaigned to strip rape survivors of abortion access and ban women from accessing birth control through their own insurance – fell in flames. Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock earned the most visible defeats for their questionable views on legitimate rape and gifts from God, but even minor candidates like Linda McMahon – who’d advocated for Catholic hospitals to deny emergency contraception to rape survivors – lost to opponents with more respect for women as people. At times the night grew confusing, as some of the dozen aspiring members of the Republican Rape Caucus lost races simultaneously. As one observer tweeted, “You know your party’s in trouble when you read this: A: The rape guy lost. B: Which one?”

Impactful, dynamic, and cheap – that’s what made social media outlets like Twitter and Facebook so vital to women’s health advocacy in this election. And that’s what differentiates social media from the limited, static and costly traditional media that dominated past election cycles, when whoever bought the most TV spots could drown out the grassroots and anyone with less money than Wall Street. Politicians could traffic in blatant lies without repercussion from reporters, intimidated by decades of “bias” claims whenever they reported facts that conservatives disliked. And facts were certainly absent when reporters repeated the Tea Party’s lies about Obamacare “death panels,” and the GOP’s claims that healthcare reform was “the biggest advance of the abortion industry” in U.S. history.

Such rhetoric was nonsense, of course, as confirmed by fact-checkers across the country. Taxpayer funding for abortion was banned by the 1970 Hyde Amendmentlifestyle convenience for irresponsible sluts – much like the modern GOP’s attitude toward contraception, family planning, anti-rape laws, etc. Such contempt for women’s health has been endemic to U.S. politics since the 1980s, when the Religious Right began developing a strategy of smearing abortion providers as murderers to encourage their assassination. That same contempt was at play when the Republican Party, believing 2010 was a mandate to re-enact the 1950s, launched an all-out assault on rape victims, domestic violence laws, pay equality in the workplace and Planned Parenthood.

And that same contempt was what defeated the party that chose to politicise rape, sex discrimination and birth control, as social media bypassed the gatekeepers of traditional media and communicated facts directly to voters. Social media may have been around since the mid-2000s, but never before has it reshaped a political fault line like women’s health – something no politician ordinarily wants to talk about, except to smear women’s health supporters as anti-family monsters – to such an extent that it became a pivotal issue on which advocates could campaign to victory.


Women’s health advocates flipped conventional wisdom about U.S. politics on its head. They demonstrated that, even when traditional media abdicate their role as society’s watchdogs and instead engage in the lazy he-said-she-said stenography of modern U.S. journalism, advocates can still speak truth unto people, if not unto power. Without social media, the GOP’s assault on women may have gone the same route as their attacks on healthcare reform – an avalanche of lies, debunked by fact-checkers everywhere but embraced by millions of Americans who could not hear the fact-checkers.

That’s why Facebook and Twitter were the game-changers that enabled advocates to fight back, when the opposition attempted its same strategy of deceit to destroy women’s access to healthcare. When the House GOP’s first act of 2011 turned out not to be about creating jobs but rather denying abortion access to rape survivors whose rapes weren’t violent enough, the news spread like a fire through the social networks of millions of Americans, whose outrage forced the GOP to at least remove “forcible rape” from their bill of female-only government regulations.

Then when they tried to ban funding to Planned Parenthood, claiming the nation’s oldest family planning provider actually kills babies and turns women into diseased sluts, the response was backlash not just from women who rely on PP for healthcare but also millions of family members and friends who know someone who depends on PP. The GOP genuinely believed shutting down the federal government over birth control pills was a winning issue.

But the last straw, according to surveys commissioned by women’s health agencies, was when the GOP smeared no-co-pay birth control for insured women as an assault on family values – despite every study demonstrating birth control reduces the abortion rate that “pro-lifers” love screaming about. Unmistakable to millions of women then was that the “party of life” had no concern for actual people’s lives, and was instead driven by a pathological obsession with preventing women from pursuing education and careers by stripping them of the ability to plan their families and futures.

That might have made sense in a Religious Right universe where sex is evil and birth control destroyed the work ethic that once made America’s economy strong. But for millions of women who believe their worth should be measured by their achievements rather than what they do between their legs, this GOP obsession with their bodies had nothing to do with job creation.

And women didn’t simply voice their disgust through Facebook updates. They became advocates for advocates, using social networks to relay to millions of friends the latest insults to their bodies and dignity, whether it was Rush Limbaugh’s attack on Sandra Fluke or the Komen Foundation’s politically motivated ban on funding for Planned Parenthood. Both Rush and Komen suffered for their contempt for basic decency – but even the most cynical consultants were surprised by the ferocity of the backlash to Limbaugh’s pornographic tirade against Fluke. After all, he already had a long history of claiming women enjoy sexual harassment and that Native Americans should be grateful for genocide committed against them. What changed?

Kate Harding offers the most succinct analysis of how social media altered the advocacy landscape: “Feminists were always out there, but often isolated from one another.” As individuals speaking in isolation, advocates were easy to dismiss as isolated cranks – which is why women’s groups have historically had to rely on marches and rallies to raise the visibility necessary to force media coverage of the issues. This wasn’t easy, or cheap. They required ongoing leadership and material support, and since both were always in limited supply, the capacity of advocates for messaging was limited as well.

With social networking, advocates succeeded in their Limbaugh boycott and Komen backlash, because they finally had a visible space – online or otherwise – to express themselves. As Harding points out, “Who knows how many feminists were sending letters and making phone calls over similar instances in the past? But without any way for an outside observer to measure it, the target of a boycott or letter-writing campaign was never forced to acknowledge that criticism publicly. When your brand’s Facebook Wall is overtaken by feminist outrage, you can’t just write it off as a few man-hating cranks and continue on as usual.”

So with tiny budgets and largely behind-the-scenes leadership, millions of women exercised their power to fight back. Social media was a cost-effective force multiplier, though that alone would have been meaningless without a steady stream of focusing events from anti-women extremists to draw attention to the issue. And the GOP supplied those focusing events in spades, whether through Darrell Issa’s all-male contraceptive hearings, or Todd Akin’s theories on rape, pregnancy and women’s magical powers.

Ultimately the party that was projected to lose seats – by virtue of running an allegedly hated Muslim incumbent for President, and being funded more by people than by corporations – ended up gaining them. It defied not only political wisdom, but also the bank accounts of conservative superPACs that had attempted to defeat liberals by outspending them by record-setting 4-to-1 margins.41 Instead, a dozen women’s health advocates were elected to office – so if anyone needs binders full of women, just look to Capitol Hill, where they’ll make up 20 percent of the new Senate in 2013. As a comedian named Groucho once said, money can’t always buy everything.


Social media may be a cost-effective force multiplier, especially for cash-strapped women’s health advocates without the $700 US billion budget of conservative superPACs. Why else did women’s health emerge victorious in this election cycle?

Analysts have assessed all sorts of reasons, from demographics shifts to President Obama’s GOTV strategy, to poor messaging by the opposition party’s campaign. It’s a bit redundant to point out that social media enhanced all these elements, but it’s worth noting you need material to work with for your social media to work. Had the GOP been less vocal about how their top priority wasn’t job creation but rather stripping healthcare from sexually active women, social media consultants might have had fewer opportunities to highlight and satirise their agenda.

Still, most advocates would be sceptical that the GOP lost because it did a bad job of communicating its views. Let’s face it – when a party’s platform openly vows to ban lifesaving abortions for dying pregnant women and survivors of legitimate rape… well, it’s hard to make that sound good, no matter how you spin it. Even political wunderkind Karl Rove was stumped when responding to Akin’s claims about women’s bodies, aside from awkwardly joking that someone should murder Akin (to protect the reputation of the “party of life,” of course).

Of course there were the usual pundits who, like clockwork, emerged from the post-election woodwork to claim the GOP lost because… its messaging wasn’t conservative enough. To which any reasonable person should respond: Huh? People voted against you because your message wasn’t extreme enough?

Hello? Your party ran on a platform of eliminating protections for domestic violence survivors, pay equality for women, and health plans that cover contraception without co-pay. You attacked birth control users as sluts who want government to pay for their sex – as if women don’t know that if they pay wages into their health insurance, then they already paid for their contraceptive benefits and simply believe they have a right to access it, without co-pay discrimination from employers who think they have a right to control how women spend their wages.

By the way, did you think women wouldn’t notice your party voted 33 times to repeal Obamacare protections that keep insurers from charging women more than men, cancelling policies when women get breast cancer, or denying coverage on the basis that women who’ve suffered domestic violence or rape have “pre-existing conditions”? Did you think women wouldn’t notice that you tried ramming bills through Congress to allow religious hospitals to withhold abortions from women with life-threatening pregnancies, or that your platform calls for abortion bans and criminalisation of birth control?

How exactly would you make your message more conservative? Do you think you should have instead run a candidate who claims the Great Recession was caused not by Wall Street but by gays and abortion destroying the American work ethic, and that prenatal testing should be de-funded because it magically promotes “abortion”? Rick Santorum tried running on that platform. It didn’t turn out so well for him.

Granted, that idea might have worked a few election cycles ago. Darrell Issa of the House GOP certainly thought so, when in February 2012 he held a congressional hearing on restricting women’s access to birth control. Issa likened himself to Martin Luther King Jr., claiming his crusade to strip women of healthcare was about protecting American freedom.58 This was yet another GOP falsehood, of course – King was an adamant supporter of contraceptive rights throughout his life, along with labour unions, family planning and everything else the modern GOP despises.59 A few election cycles ago, Issa may have even come across as believable, just as a certain president seemed believable when he claimed to support a “culture of life” while his war in Iraq killed over 100,000 civilians.

Alas, this being the era of Facebook and Twitter, Darrell Issa’s play at freedom fighter didn’t go quite as planned.

One Planned Parenthood employee noticed Issa’s hearing seemed comprised entirely of male religious leaders – in fact Issa had barred women from testifying, claiming that female patients whose lives would have been threatened by birth control restrictions didn’t “have appropriate credentials.” Said employee took a photo of the hearing and posted it to Facebook, where it quickly became the butt of jokes from comedians curious about how regulating women’s vaginas would create jobs. As an act of advocacy, it was faster than nightly news, cheaper than TV ads, and a powerful reminder to countless friends of friends of advocates of what the GOP’s true priorities were.

And faster, cheaper, more effective advocacy was a game-changer. No longer were advocates forced to tolerate the same mendacity that nearly sank Obama’s healthcare reform, as the GOP screamed that Obama’s attempt to reign in the worst insurance company abuses – denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, spending more on CEO bonuses than on patients, etc – was really about funding abortion and killing grandmas. When the GOP response to journalists who questioned the party’s dishonest ads during the 2012 election was, “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers,” advocates made sure voters heard that position, even if the press didn’t see fit to give much coverage.64 And when a kindergarten teacher at the presidential debates asked why the GOP refused to support pay equality for women, Romney’s meandering response about binders became a spontaneous ongoing meme among voters with Facebook and a desire to make their voices (and values) heard.

America is now coming off an election cycle where, for the first time in history, a major political party (hint: not the one seeking binders) included in its platform unqualified support for women’s reproductive equality; where a family planning provider which for decades has been smeared as an enemy of family values was honoured at the Democratic National Convention for the millions of women’s lives it has saved and changed; where the President himself spoke of every woman’s right to healthcare without discrimination from those who believe in forcing their beliefs between women’s legs.

As we look to the future to begin developing communication strategies for 2014, some advocates might even miss the violent rhetoric that once came from GOP quarters about how women’s healthcare isn’t real healthcare, since only sluts and prostitutes need contraception and family planning. If the extremists have learned anything from this cycle, it’s that openly campaigning against women’s lives is no longer a winning strategy, just as relying entirely on the white Christian vote is no longer a viable tactic. We’ve come a long way since the 1980s. Now we prepare to collaborate with the next generation of advocates – and learn from them as well.


But for now we’re taking time off to work on local issues, like educating high school students and teaching workshops about consent. In the meantime, perhaps this YouTube video we shot in our spare time will inspire. We’ll see you all in 2014!

Similar Posts (automatically generated):

47 comments for “How Women’s Health and Social Media Won 2012: Retrospective

  1. December 18, 2012 at 11:09 am

    FUCK YEAH INTERNET. That is all.

    (And word to pretty much everything you said!)

  2. rain
    December 18, 2012 at 1:37 pm

    I loved reading this post. Thank you, Echo Zen.

  3. karak
    December 18, 2012 at 5:48 pm

    I read a fascinating theory that the GOP deliberately allowed a bunch of ass-clowns to run in the races and shoot off their mouths. The “real” Conservatives, the ones who really care about fiscal policy and the like, knew the likelihood of winning this election was low, and they wanted their people winning seats in 2 years and 4 years, when the presidential office is really up for grabs.

    All the ridiculous characters for the presidential election, all the terrible quotes–they were leaving some people they couldn’t get rid of out to twist in the wind so they could really push an actually palatable agenda in a good year. They were also testing the waters to see if they really could win on birth control and the like, and since they were pretty emphatically told “NO”, the real party is going to back off on that.

    I think 2016 is going to be a hell of an election, and with any luck this election cycle had really tolled the death knell for the power of tea party. I could be all wrong, but I still hope.

    • rain
      December 19, 2012 at 11:07 am

      The “real” Conservatives, the ones who really care about fiscal policy and the like . . .

      The funny thing is, the bit about Conservatives / Republicans being good fiscal managers is a myth.

    • Past my expiration date
      December 19, 2012 at 11:42 am

      I read a fascinating theory that the GOP deliberately allowed a bunch of ass-clowns to run in the races and shoot off their mouths. The “real” Conservatives, the ones who really care about fiscal policy and the like, knew the likelihood of winning this election was low, and they wanted their people winning seats in 2 years and 4 years, when the presidential office is really up for grabs.

      Gee, I bet all of those Republican super PACS are wishing that the behind-the-scenes “‘real’ Conservative” puppet-masters had let them in on the secret before they spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the election. Romney doesn’t seem to have been let in on the secret either.


  4. The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
    December 18, 2012 at 6:05 pm

    Brilliant post. Cheers and high fives from Oz! I was so relieved by that election result.

  5. FYouMudFlaps
    December 18, 2012 at 7:55 pm

    Good stuff, and am still buzzed over 2012’s results, but thought this post would never end.

  6. Foxy
    December 19, 2012 at 5:55 am

    Unbelievable post.The only reason obama won was due to change in demographics.If hispanic population remained same as that in 2000 romney would have won on a land slide

    • EG
      December 19, 2012 at 11:30 am

      Yes, yes. If only the world was exactly the way it was 12 years ago, things would be different. But it’s not, is it?

      • December 19, 2012 at 11:32 am

        I know, right?

        Foxy really is a professional sad-haver.

      • Foxy
        December 20, 2012 at 8:09 am

        For some reason you have been posting negative remarks about me since day one

      • EG
        December 20, 2012 at 9:47 am

        Let me clear that up for you. It’s because you’re very annoying: you have only one thing to say and you keep on repeating it as though nobody has heard it before.

        Oh, OK. Two things to say.

    • December 19, 2012 at 12:22 pm

      Yeah, how much does it suck that all those brown people’s votes were counted, right? Just because they’re, like, citizens with as much right to a voice in the governing of our country as any others, or whatever. I hate it when a group of citizens is outvoted by a different group of equally valid citizens.

      • Foxy
        December 19, 2012 at 11:07 pm

        Why such an angry response.Isnt there good reason for republicans to worry about hispanic immigration

      • December 19, 2012 at 11:46 pm


        I love Dara O’Briain so much…

      • EG
        December 20, 2012 at 9:48 am

        That’s not anger. That’s eye-rolling.

  7. Jurupa
    December 19, 2012 at 6:25 am

    Women gain, men lost, health care wise that is.

    • December 19, 2012 at 11:14 am

      Oh for fuck’s sake. Equality isn’t a loss. Get your head out of your ass.

    • hellkell
      December 19, 2012 at 7:44 pm

      Are you fucking kidding me? Citation needed for this assdata.

    • December 20, 2012 at 4:08 pm

      Men lost.. what exactly?

  8. Angie unduplicated
    December 19, 2012 at 7:49 am

    Echo Zen, that is one beautiful post.
    I love the fact that women knocked the huge funding of the Mormon and Catholic Churches out of the ballpark. What part of “Contraception prevents abortions” do the wingnuts find incomprehensile?
    The Philippines just passed a contraceptive bill which had the well-funded opposition of the Catholics. The irony is that one-third of Philippine pregnancies end in abortions, mostly illegal and dangerous. I suspect that, like the old Southern coalition of Baptists and bootleggers which kept counties from alcohol sales, the abortionists and the church leaders may have a similar under-the-table agreement which funnels donations to the church as hush money.

  9. DSJ
    December 19, 2012 at 8:24 pm

    Obama could make this perfect by having at least one woman in one of the top four cabinet positions (Secretary of State, Defense, Treasury, Chief of Staff) as he did in his first term.

  10. Stella
    December 19, 2012 at 9:29 pm

    Were the polls really that divided along gender lines?

    • Foxy
      December 19, 2012 at 11:10 pm

      No not really.55% women voted for obama.53% of men voted for romney

      • tomek
        December 19, 2012 at 11:32 pm

        this is such like, the head, i have success, the underside, you have failure.

      • Donna L
        December 20, 2012 at 9:52 am

        There’s such an expression in Polish? In English, it’s usually phrased as “heads I win, tails you lose.”

      • tomek
        December 20, 2012 at 11:08 am

        we have it not as expression like in english. but if you are flip coin, you can trick child and say it. it is like how foxy compare number of woman who vote obama with number of men who vote romney, so difference seem small. should compare instead number of woman who vote obama with number of men who vote obama. (or both with romney).

      • Radiant Sophia
        December 20, 2012 at 9:53 am

        Foxy is just really upset that women get to vote at all.

      • Past my expiration date
        December 20, 2012 at 9:59 am

        Yes, the only reason Obama won was due to the changes in voting laws. If the voting laws had remained the same as in 1916, Romney would have won on a land slide.

      • Foxy
        December 20, 2012 at 11:24 am

        Are you serious.Dont misrepresent me

      • Briznecko
        December 20, 2012 at 11:47 am

        Don’t forget brown people too. They give Foxy a sadface :(

      • EG
        December 20, 2012 at 9:59 am

        Divided enough for Obama to win.

      • Esti
        December 21, 2012 at 9:58 am

        The 2012 election had the largest gender gap in history. Which is measured by looking at the difference in the number of women who voted for each candidate and the difference in the number of men who voted for each candidate. Your approach — comparing the number of women won by one candidate with the number of men won by the other — doesn’t make any sense.

  11. Foxy
    December 20, 2012 at 11:31 am

    You dont get it.Republicans know that if they lose texas,its almost impossible to win the election.They are gonna fight hard to restrict immigration from mexico

    • EG
      December 20, 2012 at 11:40 am

      Republicans opposed to immigration from Mexico, you say? Shocking. I have never before known any such thing. Alert the media.

    • Briznecko
      December 20, 2012 at 11:49 am

      In other shocking news, water is wet.

  12. Egalitarian
    December 20, 2012 at 11:54 am

    It’s great that insurance companies are now required to cover a tubal ligation without a deductible or copay, but shouldn’t the same be true for vasectomies? Men who want vasectomies have to pay their deductible/copay (I know this because I might want to get a vasectomy, so I looked into my insurance policy). That doesn’t sound like equal treatment to me.

    • EG
      December 20, 2012 at 12:13 pm

      Yes, it should be the same for vasectomies. I suggest that men organize and agitate around this issue.

    • Foxy
      December 20, 2012 at 11:07 pm

      Why should insurance companies be forced.The interference of government raises costs and hurts every one

      • EG
        December 20, 2012 at 11:44 pm

        Why shouldn’t they be forced?

        The interference of government raises costs and hurts every one

        Except for everywhere that national healthcare has been implemented, of course.

      • shfree
        December 21, 2012 at 12:39 am

        Yeah, because insurance companies aren’t known for arbitrarily raising rates or abruptly changing the terms of coverage. *eyeroll* If nothing else, I see your government interference as consistent coverage–you know what it pays for, and what it does not. It won’t depend on the whims and fancy of a profit-based institution.

  13. December 24, 2012 at 11:38 am

    As a reproductive rights voter I felt visceral relief election night when early word came that Obama had won, falling back and fully breathing for the first time in months (during which I did GOTV work for OFA.) Still, maybe I’m just a glass half-full type, but I do not see the election results in nearly as victorious a light as Echo Zen. It was a good night, for sure, but also a lucky night, not as close as some predicted, but still closer than it should have been, especially given the alarming treatment of repro rights during the Republican primary season.

    Social media made a huge difference in getting out word and amping up outrage at just how far to the right the enemies of reproductive rights were — and still are — prepared to take this country. But we also just got lucky by the right so dramatically overplaying its hand.

    The unprecedented number of bills introduced post-2010 to restrict access to reproductive healthcare is not only a measure of the right’s determination to “shut that whole thing down” (to repurpose Todd Akin’s telling phrase), it also indicates the right’s reading of the social and political climate with respect to reproductive rights, modern sexuality, and female sexuality in particular. Such a reading, or misreading, can only happen in light of a failure of repro rights advocacy, and feminism generally, to prepare the ground on which such opportunistic battles are fought.

    That a “war on women” of such ferocity was launched in the first place, with a shock and awe that felt like a sneak attack, is as much a commentary on the disarray and political ineffectiveness of American feminism over the last decades as it is a sign of the determination of reproductive Luddites to undo the last century of women’s progress.

    As I see it, while we managed to escape catastrophe on election day, the situation was and is still too close for comfort. And I’m less interested in celebrating a narrow and still tenuous victory than in figuring out how to make attacks on basic reproductive rights and justice as politically toxic as attacks on, for example, gun rights. Or tax loopholes.

    The real scandal of the “war on women” is not that it was waged, but why — despite November’s lucky results — it’s been as successful as it has been.

    It’s good that the Democratic party got brave (desperate?) enough to include repro rights language in its platform. Now, how do we establish reproductive rights the “third rail” of American politics?

  14. December 30, 2012 at 7:31 pm

    nico, i too feel like its dangerous to get too comfortable about our victory this election cycle—it felt truly surreal to hear the retro garbage spewed by the right—it was like the 80’s all over again, only worse, because this time around they seemed much more credible and threatening

    i was darkly amused by the statement that female patients directly affected by reproductive policies arent qualified to speak because they dont have the proper credentials—the proper credentials being a cock and balls, right?

    in conclusion– i’ll say that we can breathe easier for a minute, but the fight aint over

Comments are closed.