The pushback from the right has relied heavily on anti-trans rhetoric, a line of attack that internal polling shows has proven persuasive to voters in battleground House districts, three people who have reviewed the data told POLITICO. They were granted anonymity to discuss the inside information.
Without a well-funded campaign to defend and bolster the equality amendment, deep blue New York could reject a referendum in support of abortion rights — with dire national political implications for Democrats.
…
In addition to cementing protections for reproductive health care and LGBTQ+ rights in the state constitution: It includes language also meant to bolster rights based on age. On LGBTQ+ protection it specifies: sexual orientation, gender, gender expression and gender identity.
Republican candidates for the House and state Legislature warn the amendment would lead to trans people playing in women’s sports or weaken statutory rape laws — claims supporters of the amendment have said are false and amount to fearmongering.
GOP candidates running statewide on an anti-abortion platform have not been successful, but their approach to the amendment is different. And Democrats competing in battleground House seats acknowledge that unanswered attacks against it could be effective.
…
One Democratic consultant who has reviewed internal polling found voters in battleground House districts are susceptible to the argument that the amendment would harm kids. Voters generally support abortion rights and the rights of LGBTQ+ people, the polling found.
“But if you add in the far-right talking points about this — boys competing in girls’ sports — support erodes quickly, and in these swing districts it can dampen the enthusiasm for the candidates who are running on a support position,” said one Democrat who reviewed the data and was granted anonymity to speak frankly about the internal polling.
This is bad math on a bunch of levels. Abortion laws don’t just affect people who get abortions, because the laws prevent access to abortions. You have to look at the total pool of pregnant women, of which there are around 3.6M/year. That’s 1.2% of the population.
And the consequences of not getting a pregnancy don’t end the year you’re pregnant. A woman who is forced to carry an ectopic pregnancy to term or give birth to a still born baby will carry the physical and psychological impact of that her entire life. So now you’re talking about pregnancies per lifetime rather than per year. And now you’re talking about 84.6% of the population of American women.
Now we should talk about men, because anyone who has been married to a pregnant woman will tell you they are also affect by pregnancy. So add in the 66% of the male population that’s married.
That’s a significantly bigger cohort than your 0.2%
Well it’s a good point - my math is not bad but it is limited, as you have shown.
However, I wouldn’t rush to support your effort to amortise the issue over such a broad cross section of the electorate and certainly not to speculate about a lifetime impact.