Republicans hope to prove the legitimacy of “consensus” bans.
Few states have major elections coming up in November. But in those that do, abortion rights are playing a pivotal role.
The outcome of those contests — an abortion rights ballot measure in Ohio, a competitive gubernatorial election in Kentucky, and a fight over whether Republicans in Virginia will gain full control of state government — will shape reproductive health care in those states. The results also have big ramifications for political strategy and investments into 2024, as leaders wait to see if abortion rights yield the same kinds of electoral wins for Democrats as they did in 2022.
For many on the left, the question of whether abortion rights serve as a winning issue has already been decisively answered. Activists and progressive leaders point to the fact that abortion rights ballot measures won in all six states where they appeared in 2022, including red and purple states that otherwise elected Republican candidates. They point to a slew of special elections in battleground states that Democrats have won over the past 18 months, a closely watched Wisconsin state supreme court election where the pro-choice candidate won, and polls showing voters appear to have grown even more supportive of abortion rights than they were before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022.
Still, anti-abortion groups and some Republican officials continue to argue this electoral confidence in messaging that supports abortion rights is misplaced. After the midterms last year, anti-abortion leaders were quick to point out that Democrats failed to unseat incumbent anti-abortion governors, and that candidates who promised to aggressively restrict abortion access, including Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance, prevailed in their contests, compared to Republican candidates such as Mehmet Oz in Pennsylvania and Adam Laxalt in Nevada who shied more from the topic. More recently, activist groups have argued that Republican presidential candidates must double down on anti-abortion bans, contending that any electoral losses the party has suffered to date have been driven by meek commitment and insufficient spending.
The outcomes this November will play a key role in shaping the narratives and expectations headed into 2024. If abortion rights prove salient once again, advocates will be able to more confidently rebut those who worry the earlier wins were driven primarily by other factors.
If Democrats lose or the Ohio abortion rights ballot measure fails, there will likely be more debate and hand-wringing about what went wrong and what that means for the presidential campaign next fall.
Abortion rights are at the center of the fight for Virginia’s legislature
Virginia is the only Southern state that has not restricted abortion rights since the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade, though not for lack of trying. Republicans currently hold a small majority in the state’s House of Delegates, and Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, controls the governorship. But when Republican lawmakers tried to pass a 15-week ban earlier this year, Democrats, who retain a small majority in the state Senate, blocked it. A revival of that effort is front and center for voters this coming November, when every seat in both legislative chambers is on the ballot.
Republicans, for their part, are trying to market their support for a 15-week ban as a “consensus” position, though a number of polls suggest that may be overstated in a post-Roe world. It’s true that before Roe v. Wade was overturned, national polls showed broad support for restricting abortion after 15 weeks, but since the Dobbs decision, voters have been signaling opposition to bans. One poll released this summer even showed a third of Republican primary voters opposing the 15-week ban idea.
Highlighting these emotional complexities, a Washington Post/Schar School poll from April found a small plurality of Virginia voters said they’d back a 15-week abortion ban with exceptions (49 to 46 percent), but the same poll found only 17 percent of Virginia voters wanted abortion laws to become more restrictive.
Youngkin and anti-abortion groups are betting that if they can win in Virginia by running emphatically on a 15-week ban (they prefer the more euphemistic “15-week limit”), then Republicans nationwide should feel more confident adopting their playbook in 2024. They want to prove they can win not only conservatives in deep red America, but also the same Biden-to-Youngkin voters who helped flip Virginia’s governor’s mansion in 2021. (Some GOP donors also continue to hold out hope that Youngkin might emerge as a plausible alternative to Donald Trump.)
Abortion rights groups, by contrast, are betting that voters will reject what Republicans are selling, and show once and for all there’s no such thing as a “consensus” ban. Abortion was a motivating force in Virginia’s Democratic primaries, and Virginia Democrats are going all in now to frame the election as a referendum on abortion rights, with more than 40 percent of TV ads released this cycle highlighting the issue.
Gubernatorial elections in Kentucky and Mississippi reveal contrasting approaches for Democrats in red states
Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear is running for reelection in Kentucky, and leaning hard on abortion rights in his conservative state. The Republican running in the race, state Attorney General Daniel Cameron, has voiced support for a total abortion ban with no exceptions for rape or incest, and Beshear’s campaign has worked to highlight his opponent’s anti-abortion views. (More recently, Cameron said he would sign an anti-abortion bill that included exceptions, but then clarified he meant only if a court ordered it.)
Part of Besehar’s political calculus to focus on abortion rights is fueled by the victory of a ballot measure last year in his red state where 52 percent of Kentucky voters rejected a proposed change to the state’s constitution that would have stripped rights to abortion. The incumbent governor is also hoping to motivate younger voters and suburban women, and if he pulls off a win, the implications for 2024 will be clear.
In the red state of Mississippi, however, Democratic candidate Brandon Presley is making a different calculation, and hoping to win his uphill gubernatorial contest by emphasizing that he’s “pro-life,” supports the state’s current abortion restrictions, and believes life begins at conception. His opponent, Republican Gov. Tate Reeves, has sought to paint Presley as a puppet for the national Democratic Party, and though Reeves is not very popular himself, he’s still favored to win the election.
All eyes are on Ohio’s big abortion ballot rights measure
The only abortion rights ballot measure for the 2023 cycle is in Ohio, where people will vote on a proposed state constitutional amendment to codify abortion access up to the point of fetal viability, and permit abortions beyond that point if a patient’s doctor deems it necessary to protect their life or health. A win for abortion rights in Ohio could bode well for Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown, who faces a competitive reelection next year and who hopes he can win over independents and conservatives concerned about reproductive freedom. A win for abortion rights in Ohio would also be promising news for those activists organizing for 2024 abortion rights ballot measures, such as those in Florida and Arizona.
Republicans and local anti-abortion groups tried earlier this year to change state law so that it would be harder for Ohio voters to approve the pro-abortion rights measure in November. But their efforts failed, losing by 14 percentage points in August. While polls have indicated that Ohio voters are broadly supportive of the proposed constitutional amendment, it’s not clear what will happen on Election Day in the increasingly conservative state, and anti-abortion groups are eager to change the narrative that their ideas are political losers. One added wrinkle is that the ballot measure is confusingly named Issue 1, the same name as the measure anti-abortion groups in Ohio backed just a few months ago.
Expert-approved advice that’ll help you rethink romance.
Popular opinion would suggest that budding romance in an always-connected, app-forward culture is, well, a mess. After all, dating has been described as a “minefield,” a “numbers game,” and “exhausting.” If you’ve been on a first date within the last few years, you may agree; you might even have a few horror stories you share at parties.
Still, dating doesn’t have to be a slog. It can be exhilarating and romantic, novel and affectionate, regardless of your age or dating history. Finding a partner doesn’t require a rigid strategy, but it could necessitate a change in perspective. Instead of viewing dating as work, take it as an opportunity to seriously consider what you want out of life — and who you want to spend it with. Ten matchmakers, communication experts, and therapists offer paradigm-shifting dating insights that might make you reconsider modern courtship.
Responses have been edited and condensed for clarity.
Don’t rely on only one form of dating to try to meet someone
“Create a three-pronged dating plan that includes online dating, meeting people in real life, and getting your ‘super connector’ contacts to set you up on good dates with people they know.”
—Bela Gandhi, dating coach at Smart Dating Academy and host of the podcast Smart Dating Academy
Take it slow — but not too slow
“Don’t linger online waiting for some magical insight to appear. If this person seems to have potential, get into a face-to-face context and start talking and sharing time together. But don’t be impatient. Sometimes very high-quality and long-lasting relationships can take off slowly and have a number of false starts and missteps. A rush to judgment has probably cost all of us at least one potentially good relationship in our lives.”
—Chris Segrin, head of the University of Arizona’s department of communication and a behavioral scientist whose specialty is interpersonal relationships
Prioritize your dating life as much as your work life
“Put as much energy into dating as you do trying to build your career. It takes a lot to be successful. I mostly work with professionals and even I spend a lot of time investing in my career and my company and have to remind myself to do the same with my relationship.”
—Daphney Poyser, matchmaker at Fern Connections
Let your 20s be for discovery
“The human brain does not fully mature until your mid-to-late 20s, particularly the prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for impulse control and decision-making. Statistically speaking, couples who get married at age 20 are 50 percent more likely to divorce than those who wait until they’re at least 25. Your 20s are for figuring yourself out.”
—Tennesha Wood, founder of The Broom List, a matchmaking firm for marriage-minded Black professionals
Use dates as an opportunity to connect with someone, no strings attached
“We often assume that love has to follow some grand romantic script and the only meaningful relationships are those that lead to marriage or long-term commitment. Of course it’s totally fine to pursue commitment, but it’s also okay to throw that script out the window. To make dating feel less like a slog to find ‘the one,’ you could reframe it as an opportunity to genuinely connect with someone you might not otherwise get to know. That connection could be friendly or romantic, physical or intellectual. It can last an hour or decades. I once spent a rainy afternoon trading dad jokes over beers with someone I never saw again. I was disappointed when we didn’t hang out again, but that didn’t change the fact that I’d had a great afternoon. The moments we spend genuinely connecting with other people make us, and them, healthier and happier humans.”
—Mandy Len Catron, author of How to Fall in Love With Anyone
Do a chemistry test before meeting someone from an app
“Go on a video chat before each first in-person date to check the chemistry. Make it a must, because their potential unwillingness to video chat is communication too. I did this with each guy I matched with and it helped me avoid spending regrettable dates with complete strangers, or weeks of stilted chatting to find out we didn’t have the same values. Get on camera to introduce yourself, flirt, ask your hardball value questions, and set a date — or not — while live on the line.”
—Joy Ofodu, host of the podcast Dating Unsettled
Have only one expectation on a first date: to enjoy yourself
“On a first date, do not ask questions to determine where they fit in your future, like, ‘What are you looking for?’ ‘Do you want to get married?’ The first date is only to establish if there’s a base connection. The question you ask is, ‘Am I having fun? Do I want to see them again?’
When you ask questions to see if they fit your vision, you objectify them as a means to an end to your timeline and the plan in your head. Looking for ‘the one’ puts a lot of pressure on you and the date, and that job interview energy can extinguish any chance of a flame. Also, you will prematurely judge them without actually getting to know a person. You don’t know enough about the person or know if you want to even go on a second date with them. You shouldn’t be trying to see if they fit in your future — it takes you out of the present.
I hear a lot of pushback from clients that their clock is ticking or they have no time to waste. That is a scarcity mindset and that can give off an intense or desperate energy on the date, which is a sure way to not go on a second.”
—Amy Chan, founder and chief heart hacker of Renew Breakup Bootcamp
Focus on quality over quantity
“Be choosy. This may be a bit counterintuitive for people who like to keep their options open, but when dating it is really important to prioritize quality over quantity. This does not mean creating a long list of deal breakers. Reflect on the kind of life you wish to create with someone and the kind of qualities a person must have in order to create that life together. This will give you a more adequate depiction of who is a good match for you. The more you really sit with yourself and understand your actual desires for a relationship, the better you will be able to select the kinds of partners who align with the kind of life you want to create.”
—Moe Ari Brown, love and connection expert at Hinge and owner of Transcendent Therapy & Consulting
Expect challenges and have support ready for when things get tough
“Embrace pessimism. People are often shocked by the amount of disappointment and anguish that comes with dating. Having an idea that things will likely be terrible before they are good helps to alleviate some of that stress. Expecting challenges means that you can also prepare for them. What support might you need if you get ghosted so many times you’re ready to throw in the towel? Who can you turn to when your date says something horrible like ‘I’m just not attracted to you’? These things happen, and they are awful. But planning for the worst will help you move through disappointments quicker. The trick is to not descend into thoughts like ‘It’s never going to happen for me.’ That’s fatalistic, and definitely not true.”
—Myisha Battle, certified clinical sexologist and founder of Sex For Life LLC
Don’t allow your phone to become the third wheel on your date
“You may be tempted to check your phone if there’s an awkward silence, but you risk tanking the date if you’re staring at your screen instead of trying to connect. So my advice is to put your phone away and focus on creating those memorable first-date conversations that propel you into a relationship. If your date keeps pulling out their device, playfully call out this behavior and invite them to join you in a no-phones experience. For example: ‘I’ve been trying phone-free dates lately and it’s actually been a nice break for my brain. Want to see how long we can go without checking ours? First person to break buys the next round.’”
—Logan Ury, director of relationship science at Hinge and author of How to Not Die Alone: The Surprising Science That Will Help You Find Love
A recent poll shows high support for a ground invasion in Gaza, but dismal numbers for the prime minister.
Two weeks after Hamas’ deadly attack on Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government are likely preparing to wage a massive ground assault in Gaza. Though many Israelis are supportive of such a move, they don’t necessarily trust Netanyahu to carry it out — or have their future security in mind.
Prior to the October 7 attacks Netanyahu’s right-wing government was already deeply unpopular among large swathes of society. A plan to degrade the ability of the Supreme Court to push back on laws passed by the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, sparked massive national protests out of concern that Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition would pass increasingly hard-line laws with no mechanism for pushback. Now, his government is being held at least partly responsible for the massive security failure that enabled the attacks.
Some of the highest-ranking officials in the government, including the head of the armed forces and the security services, have taken responsibility for the lapses and blind spots that allowed Hamas to kill at least 1,400 Israelis and kidnap 200, mostly civilians.
“The Military Intelligence Directorate, under my command, failed to warn of the terror attack carried out by Hamas,” Maj. Gen Aharon Haliva, head of the Israel Defense Forces military intelligence unit, said in a letter to IDF personnel. “We failed in our most important mission, and as the head of the Military Intelligence Directorate, I bear full responsibility for the failure.”
But Netanyahu himself has thus far failed apologize or take responsibility for his government’s failure to carry out its primary task — to protect Israel’s citizens. Furthermore, the government’s strategy in Gaza and its war with Hamas remains unclear.
Israel’s military response — and the future of Gaza — is still being determined
Nearly two weeks after Netanyahu declared war on Hamas and 360,000 IDF reservists reported for duty, Israel’s military response — other than to make sure Hamas is “crushed and eliminated” — is as yet unknown, as is the government’s plans for Gaza once it achieves that objective.
In the past, Netanyahu has opted for airstrikes as retaliation against Hamas, rather than bloody and costly ground invasions.
According to a 2017 research brief by the RAND corporation, Israel has the military capability to wipe out Hamas, but doing so could perhaps be even riskier than not, given that an even more extreme organization could come into power — or that Israel could be put into the position of governing the territory itself. “As such, Israel’s grand strategy became ‘mowing the grass’ — accepting its inability to permanently solve the problem and instead repeatedly targeting leadership of Palestinian militant organizations to keep violence manageable.”
That strategy, of “mowing the grass,” is no longer satisfactory given its ineffectiveness and the enormous breach of the Israeli public’s trust that happened on October 7. There is support for a ground invasion, per a limited poll from the Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv; 65 percent of Israelis believe it’s the correct response.
A ground operation could be incredibly difficult and costly both for Palestinians in Gaza and for the IDF, as Vox’s Zack Beauchamp explained:
“Clearing and holding this kind of environment poses an immense challenge for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Their soldiers would need to move very slowly with limited air support, intentionally putting their own lives at risk — or else risk absolutely massive civilian casualties. Success also requires good intelligence, but the fact that Hamas managed such a horrific surprise attack on October 7 suggests that Israel’s understanding of militants in the Strip — including their defenses — may be much weaker than widely appreciated.”
As Natan Sachs, director of the Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution told Vox, “We’re closer [to a ground invasion] in the sense that it is coming. Israel taking some time to prepare and define some clear objectives is a good choice and one that could ultimately save not only Israeli but also Palestinian lives.”
As the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported Saturday, the IDF has already begun launching airstrikes in northern Gaza to prepare for the ground invasion.
Perhaps even more of a challenge, though, is what happens once the ground invasion is over.
As the Times of Israel reported Tuesday, National Unity Party head Benny Gantz and Gadi Eizenkot, both of whom are part of Netanyahu’s unity security cabinet, have demanded an exit plan from Gaza should a ground invasion go through.
“Given the stated goal of destroying Hamas, both the Israeli government and the IDF must consider how the war ends as well as how it is conducted,” Kevin Benson, a retired US Army colonel and an adjunct scholar at West Point’s Modern War Institute wrote in a recent piece. “The Israeli government knows, or should know, what force can and cannot do.”
After such a failure on the part of the state, how can Israelis get behind a government they’re so angry with?
They’re not, exactly. The same Ma’ariv poll that indicated support for the ground invasion showed an abysmal lack of support — 28 percent — for Netanyahu himself. Forty-eight percent of respondents thought Gantz, part of the newly-formed unity government and a former defense minister, would make a better prime minister.
Gantz and other moderate, experienced members of the unity government did instill a bit more trust in the state’s response to the crisis, Shany Granot-Lubaton, an Israeli protest leader living in the US told Vox in an interview. “I’m happy that they’re there — it’s a life-risking moment and I feel better that more people who I trust are sitting around the table,” she said.
But even more moderate and experienced voices have to contend with hard-right ministers such as Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir — not to mention Netanyahu himself. “I think they should have replaced this government and not get into a unity with [Netanyahu],” Granot said.
Ideally, “the unity government provides a basis for solidarity and offers a ‘timeout’ from the usual political struggles, enabling crucial decisions to be made in line with a broad national consensus,” Assaf Shapira, director of the political reform program at the Israel Democracy Institute, wrote in an October 10 piece.
“It’s about bringing in people who were chief of staff, and who were not involved in the current disaster,” said Gideon Rahat, a political scientist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, told the New York Times last week. “They are not responsible for it, so they can help to get out of it.”
In the wake of the attacks some 360,000 reservists — Israel’s largest mobilization effort — reported for duty. Just months ago, many of those reservists said they would refuse to serve if the government’s controversial judicial reforms became law.
“The government isn’t really a government, it’s more a vehicle for the creation of the mini war cabinet,” Sachs said. It can only make decisions related to the war — and it’s “pivotal” for that purpose, Sachs told vox.
“You see the protest movement is literally running the country right now,” Granot-Lubaton said. “We see Brothers and Sisters [for Israel, the civil aid group] have their headquarters down south, they’ve been saving people from their homes … because the government didn’t do their job.”
Families of the hostages presumed to be in Gaza have been notified that their loved ones are among those kidnapped, but there has been no government effort to inform the families about what is being done to help rescue their family members, Yardena Schwarz reported for Foreign Policy on Friday.
Many civilians who participated in this summer’s protest movement have pivoted to form a system to support people displaced from the towns and villages devastated by the October 7 Hamas raid. They collect food and clothing for the displaced and coordinate medical care, as well as collect information about hostages and identify people still missing after the attack.
“There isn’t even one minister that we say that we can trust,” Granot-Lubaton said. “There isn’t even one office that is doing what we are expecting them to do — not the health system, not the social security system, not the defense system — no one is doing their job, and people are feeling so scared.”