Republican. [Anonym] (3. April 1939). ‚Gallery Rejects Anti-Fascist Art.‘ In: New York Times. [Anonym] (15. April 1939). ‚Citizen or Artist?‘ In: The Art Digest. Xx. 00, Xx. 00. S. 7. [Anonym] (12. Mai 1939). ‚An Appeal For Freedom.‘ In: El Paso Times. [Anonym] (26. Mai 1939). ‚Art and Artists. Must Artists Have Freedom In Which to Do Their Work?‘ In: Kansas City Star. [Anonym] (4. Juni 1939). ‚German Art Show Fails as Shocker.‘ In: [unbekannt]. [Anonym] (16. Juni 1939). ‚„Normal“ Juvenile Art Teachings Are Urged.‘ In: Sentinel[?]. [Anonym] (17. Juni 1939). ‚Pelikan Defends Art as Taught in Milwaukee.‘ In: Sentinel. [Anonym] (17. Juli 1939). ‚Boycott Nazi Type, Aid U.S. Trade, Urge Craftsmen Here.‘ In: Daily Worker. [Anonym] (8. August 1939). ‚Expelled German Art Acquired by Museum of Modern Art. Exiled Reich Art Put on View Here.‘ In: New York Times. [Anonym] (13. August 1939). ‚Modernist Art Courses Here Again Blasted.‘ In: News- Sentinel. [Anonym] (25. August 1939). ‚Works of Artists Banned by Nazis Draw Attention.‘ In: Star- Times. [Anonym] (September 1939). ‚News and Comment.‘ In: American Magazine of Art. S. 534–540. [Anonym] (30. Dezember 1939). ‚The Year In Art: A Review Of 1939.‘ In: American Art News. [Anonym] (3. Juli 1940). ‚Xxxx Xxxx, Artist Banned by Nazis.‘ In: New York Times. [Anonym] (10. Februar 1957). ‚New Acquisitions at Modern Museum.‘ In: The Milwaukee Journal. [Anonym] (7. Oktober 1957). ‚Out of the Ruins.‘ In: Time. Xx. 00, Xx. 00. S. 38–43. [Anonym] (7. Oktober 1957). ‚The Creative German.‘ In: Newsweek. [Anonym] (24. Oktober 1957). ‚Neglected German Art Is Exhibited in N.Y. Museum.‘ In: Jersey Shore Herald. [Anonym] (2. Februar 1958). ‚20th Century German Art in Big St. Louis Exhibition.‘ In: The Milwaukee Journal. [Anonym] (12. Mai 1958). ‚Images of Emotion.‘ In: Life Magazine. S. 82–88.
Republican c. Independent
Republican. Conversely, views on women’s autonomy and personal choice were also part of personal values. “So things like that were very very disturbing to me because, you know, if we value life, we should value all life. Mother as well as the child. And then of course at the end of the day these are very personal decisions that have to be made and women should be able to have the freedom to make those decisions based upon the advice and consent of their doctor and their and their husbands and other family members and in line with their own faith tradition.” - Democrat Rights and the law were other influential factors. These included discussion of reproductive rights and freedom as universal, and the potential negative impact of removing those rights. “Reproductive Justice is part of something that I am very serious about. And so when we started hearing at the beginning of session that this bill was on the table, that would restrict a woman's right to have that access for her body…We didn't really know if it was going to get a committee hearing and where this bill was going. But as it progressed further into the legislative session we knew that this bill was becoming a major piece of legislation that we needed to take a strong stance against.” - Democrat This theme also included the view of current abortion law in the U.S. as sufficient, including among one Republican who voted for HB 481, and the view that bills like HB 481 are unconstitutional. “There’s been a benchmark here for years, cause of the Supreme Court rulings, that you can't do anything to tamper with a woman's right in that first trimester. I've always accepted that as a pretty damn good solution.” - Republican Evidence of various kinds was used by both supporters and opponents of HB 481 and tended to affirm previously held beliefs. Those who supported HB 481 used the presence of fetal cardiac activity, “heartbeat”, as proof of life. “So, if a doctor can find that heartbeat at six weeks then it's true heartbeat. But most of the time it's going to be closer to eight weeks. So, it's not really a date for saying timewise. It's when that heartbeat is heard. And when there is a heartbeat, this baby has its own special DNA. It has already started forming all its parts and it has a heartbeat.”
Republican. Those who opposed HB 481 used medical evidence that the heart organ was formed later in fetal development to support their position opposing the bill. Opponents also cited evidence that abortion restrictions do not stop abortion from happening and that such restrictions are known to increase unsafe abortion. “Doctors were coming down, in particular, because doctors were like, you know, first of all this is a horrible decision, speaking from a medical perspective, because when you tell people they cannot get the health care that they have decided they want…women will just take matters into their own hands and things go back to what we saw pre-1970, when Xxx
Republican. Other legislator’s beliefs were reinforced through the legislative session and the presentation of “heartbeat science.” One legislator who expressed his opposition to abortion said of the evidence presented: “And I wished it was something different. I wished that the fetus was not developing as fast as it did, and it wasn’t a living fetus until, you know, 8 or 10 weeks or something like that. But that's not the case.” - Republican One Republican was personally opposed to HB 481 and said that it should not have been introduced due to the existence of Xxx x. Xxxx. He also expressed support for individual choice. Ultimately, he voted in support of the bill because of his pro-life constituency. “But, a lot of us couldn’t NOT vote for it. They’d skin us alive … I got more damn churches than a dog’s got fleas [in my district].” - Republican Existing, strongly-held beliefs about abortion make abortion legislation controversial and challenging. The communication strategies used by legislators, lobbyists, and activists did not change existing beliefs and different approaches will be needed to affect abortion legislation in the future.
