Is the Issue of Abortion Rescuing Democrats?
Democrats cheer a narrow special congressional win in a Hudson Valley district by a candidate who ran on abortion. They should curb their enthusiasm. And the GOP needs to learn to talk about it.
Having been involved in congressional special elections, they are often hard to poll and analyze. They typically aren’t “bellwethers” until they are. This is especially true for special elections in districts that coincide with decennial redistricting. That can be very confusing.
An especially painful memory involves a special election I helped co-manage. In 1985, following Ronald Reagan’s historic 1984 reelection landslide, he nominated a conservative Democratic Congressman from northeast Texas, Sam Hall, to a federal judgeship. Then-newly elected US Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX) sought to seize the opportunity to switch a seat that had never been competitive into the GOP column deep in the heart of then-Democratic east Texas. He recruited a telegenic Texas A&M football legend, Edd Hargett, who played for the New Orleans Saints and Houston Oilers for several seasons in the NFL.
Polling had us consistently competitive or ahead, especially as we approached a Saturday special election in early August. One poll, as I recall, had us up 14 points. None of us believed it, but Democrats were spooked. Then-Democratic Gov. Mark Hill dispatched his legions to east Texas, ensuring a very high Democratic turnout among the district’s nursing home population and God knows what else. I’ll leave it to your imagination how they did that. Suffice it to say that much of it is now illegal under Texas law.
On election day, we lost by 1,900 votes to Democratic trial lawyer Jim Chapman. He would lose a primary election to challenge Gramm for the US Senate 12 years later. I love Edd, one of the nicest, humblest, most sincere, and personable people you’ll ever meet. But he was too nice for the snakepit of east Texas politics at the time.
An honor student at A&M in electrical engineering, Hargett was not the most natural politician and wasn’t especially knowledgeable or quick-witted on issues. Chapman, a gifted debater and full-throated, silver (forked) tongued populist, took full advantage of any miscue, perceived or otherwise. Texas was changing politically, but it had to wait until 2004 when now-retiring Rep. Louie Gohmert took advantage of its increasingly bright red tilt. While the old First District was eventually split between the 4th District (US Rep. Pat Fallon, Republican) and Gohmert, both migrated to the GOP.
All that aside, America would be better if Edd Hargett served in Congress.
But did you catch “Saturday special election in early August?” Do you know how difficult it is to get people to focus on elections and turn out to vote on a lazy summer Saturday in rural Texas or anywhere else? It is a dynamic similar to worthless political polls taken in August, traditionally a month for vacations and getting ready for school.
The same might have been the case in this week’s special election in New York’s changing 19th Congressional district. The district’s former incumbent, Democrat Antonio Delgado, vacated the seat when Gov. Kathy Hochul plucked him to serve as Lieutenant Governor, a job she held until Gov. Andrew Cuomo resigned. Delgado won his previous House election by nearly 12 points. Biden also narrowly carried the seat in 2020 - a true swing district held by Democrats and Republicans in recent years.
The August 23 special election candidates were a pair of County Executives - Republican Marc Molinaro and Democrat Pat Ryan. Both are quality candidates. Ryan is a West Point graduate who ran on one issue - abortion. Molinaro focused on mental health and economic issues. Ryan won narrowly in an election with a remarkably low turnout. Many polls had Molinaro slightly ahead.
Many voters had to be confused, voting for either Ryan or Molinaro in one primary and separately in an expiring district.
And they both remain on the ballot in different congressional districts in November - Ryan in the neighboring 18th and Molinaro in the revamped and slightly more Republican 19th. If you’re Molinaro, you’re probably focused on the more expansive and slightly more favorable new 19th district that will be around for a decade, not the expiring one, when double the number of voters will likely show up. Ryan will face Republican Colin Schmitt in the new 18th District this fall. Both remain toss-ups. And both Ryan and Molinaro could serve in the 118th Congress come January.
But that’s not stopping Democrats from chirping about the power of abortion - the painful killing of an innocent unborn human life - as their great equalizer this Fall. They also point to other recent special elections, including New York’s 23rd District (won by the Republicans) and a tight special election in Nebraska’s Second District, where the GOP candidates slightly underperformed Trump’s percentages there (never mind other special elections - these aren’t the droids we’re looking for - in places like the Rio Grande Valley in Texas).
I can’t help but wonder 1) how much did Molinaro and Republicans invest and focus on turning out Republicans in the old district, including a strong absentee and mail ballot program, for the special election, and 2) how Molinaro talked about the abortion issue, if at all? Ryan also ran cable television spots, while Molinaro didn’t. Ryan slightly outspent the Republican.
Last June, the US Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson decision overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. That decision didn’t ban abortion, even though most polled voters thought it did. Here’s what it “held:” “The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.”
But don’t tell pollsters or the media. Both pathetic polling questions and irresponsible journalism have persuaded most Americans that the repeal of Roe v. Wade was a defacto abortion ban. Democrats pounced with successful fundraising appeals and mobilizations where the issue has salience, facts be damned.
This is not an issue that Republicans and pro-life candidates should shy away from. Unfortunately, they’ve not quite figured out how to talk about it. They’d better learn and fast. Republican candidates can put pro-abortion Democrats on the defensive and expose their extremism in short order without falsehoods, distortions, and hyperbole.
First of all, while the “strongest” pro-life position - prohibiting abortion except to save the life of the mother - isn’t a winning issue in many places, the most extreme “pro-choice” (I insist on calling it pro-abortion because it is) position offends most Americans. Consider these polling realities from surveys that know how to ask the question, including this from a Harris poll conducted in late June, courtesy of reason.com and The Volokh Conspiracy:
[1.] Abortion rights are listed as the greatest concern by 14% of the respondents and as the second greatest by 11%, far behind inflation (total 62%) but at roughly the same level as energy prices, as crime, and as immigration.
[2.] Dobbs appears to have no visible net effect on the midterms, with 36% saying it makes them more likely to vote Democrat and 36% more likely to vote Republican.
[3.] Dobbs is opposed by a slim majority, 55%-45%; the question wording is, "Do you support or oppose the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe vs Wade, which allows each state to decide its own standards for abortion instead of a set right?" At the same time, when asked, "Do you think it is better for abortion standards to be set by judges of the supreme court, by a vote of congress or by the legislatures of each individual state?," only 25% go say "the supreme court," 31% say "Congress," and 44% say "state legislatures."
[4.] The results as to "Do you think your state should allow abortion…?" were
Up to 9 months [10%]
Up to 23 weeks [18%]
Up to 15 weeks [23%]
Up to six weeks [12%]
Only in cases of rape and incest [37%]
The strong national majority thus appears to be both pretty far removed from Roe and Casey (which would have allowed abortions until about 23 weeks or later), which only get 28% support (including the up-to-9-months respondents), and from near-total bans, which only get 37% support. The 15-week mark people seem to be the swing voters.
[5.] There appears to be something of a gender gap on abortion, but it's complicated. Women oppose Dobbs by 61%-39% and men support it by 52%-48%, so that's a significant though not vast difference, a swing of about 13% (I expect the margin of error for each sex category is about 4%, based on a total respondent pool of 1308). But on the other hand, when asked,
Do you think your state should allow abortion
Up to 9 months
Up to 23 weeks
Up to 15 weeks
Up to six weeks
Only in cases of rape and incest
Women respondents preferred the three most restrictive options by 75%-25%, while men preferred them only by 69%-31%. (The published data doesn't break down each individual answer by sex, perhaps because at that level the margins of error would be too large.)
This sets up the second issue, which every GOP congressional candidate should pose to their opponent at any debate where moderators raise abortion (hint: they will): Would you have voted for H.R. 8296, the misbranded Women’s Health Protection Act, on July 15, 2022? It passed the House on a partisan vote (all Republicans voted no along with Democrat Henry Cuellar, D-TX).
And what did that bill do? Democrats said it codified Roe v. Wade, but that’s false. It did much more. I’ll let my friend and US Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) describe it in stark terms via the Congressional Record:
H.R. 8296 would legally authorize and enable the violent death of
unborn baby girls and boys by dismemberment, beheading, forced
expulsion from the womb, deadly poisons, or other methods at any time
and for any reason until birth.
Don't believe it?
Read section 4 of the bill. It couldn't be clearer.
This bill is far outside the American mainstream and goes far beyond Roe v. Wade.
As a matter of fact, when the Harvard/Harris Poll asked whether or
not we should be doing what we are doing today in Congress, they
found--and I was a little bit astonished by this--that less than one-
third of voters--31 percent--say that abortion laws should be federally set by a congressional vote.
Let me point out to my colleagues because mention was made of this
earlier in the debate. Let me be clear, abortion is not healthcare
unless one construes the precious life of an unborn child to be
analogous to a tumor to be excised or a disease to be vanquished.
This legislation constitutes an existential threat to unborn
children. Since Roe v. Wade, approximately 63\1/2\ million babies havebeen killed by dismemberment, chemical poisoning, and beheading--a number that equates with the entire population of everyone living in the country of Italy.
If enacted, this bill would nullify almost every pro-life restriction ever enacted by the States, including parental involvement laws in 37 States and pain-capable unborn child protection laws in 19 States.
I remember when a woman from Virginia formed a group called Mothers
Against Minors' Abortion. That mom found out about her daughter's
abortion when she was hemorrhaging in her bed. She came and testified
before Congress and said: Please, we need to know. We love our
daughters. Parental notification laws do work.
Sadly, these will be nullified by this bill.
For decades abortion advocates have gone through extraordinary
lengths to ignore, trivialize, or cover up the battered baby victim.
But today, thanks to ultrasound, unborn babies are more visible than
ever before. Today science informs us that birth is an event--albeit,
an important one--but only an event in the life of a child. Life is a
continuum.Or perhaps candidates could simply follow the outline here of another friend, US Rep. Bob Latta (R-OH), in his news release over his vote against the misbranded Women’s Health Protection Act:
Today, Congressman Bob Latta (R-OH5) voted against the radical “Abortion on Demand Up Until Birth Act” that would codify and expand the Roe v. Wade framework to allow abortions up to birth, allow for discriminatory abortions on the basis of a baby’s sex, race, and disability, gut commonsense state restrictions on abortion, and ban state parental notification laws. The abortion legislation, H.R. 8296, passed 219 – 210 despite opposition from both sides of the aisle. The legislation had already been passed by the House of Representatives and failed to proceed in the Senate due to bipartisan opposition.
“The American people do not support abortions with no limits,” said Latta. “In light of the SCOTUS decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, House Democrats are continuing to push legislation at the federal level to allow for abortions for any reason and at any stage of pregnancy – even up until birth.
“On top of that, this vote is completely political. Democrats in Congress have had multiple opportunities to codify Roe over the last 50 years with filibuster-proof majorities in the Senate, but they never even attempted to bring legislation forward.
“The bill today goes much further than codifying Roe and is inhumane and wrong. Every life is precious, and we must continue to stand for the most innocent.”
According to GOP polling, 73% of respondents consider an unborn child to be a human being. Not a clump of cells, but a human. A Marist survey found that a majority of those who call themselves pro-choice (52%) believe that abortion should be available, at most, during the first three months of pregnancy, allowed only in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother, or never permitted.
Sure, there are plenty of nuances. You may want to follow the leads of Princeton Professor and leading pro-life advocate Dr. Robert George or perhaps Virginia’s pro-life Governor, Glenn Youngkin. Let’s start with George in an interview with the American Enterprise Institute’s Marc Thiessen and Danielle Pletka via their terrific podcast, “What the Hell is Going On?”
So I'd like to move incrementally. In states where we can get strong protections for the unborn, let's do that. In states where we can't get strong protections for the unborn, let's get what protections we can for now. Not cut off our noses to spite our faces. Get what we can for now, and then continue to do the education that will enable us to bring the public on. Lincoln said, I've been quoting Lincoln a lot lately. Not only his malice toward non-charity for all, but also his famous line that in the United States, public opinion is everything. With it, you can't lose. Without it, you can't win. So we have a sense of where the public is. The public is … sort of somewhere in the middle. They don't want unlimited abortion. They don't want the Democrat's extremism, but they aren't with you or me going all the way to full protection for the unborn.
We have to remember, this is a dispute in the family. This is a dispute that we Americans have with each other. And we're fellow Americans, we're fellow citizens. We are not enemies. If I can quote Lincoln yet again, he says in the first inaugural address, "We are not enemies, but friends. We must never be enemies."
And then there’s Youngkin, seeking to implement Dr. George’s strategy. His legislature features split control between Democrats (Senate) and Republicans (House), and current Virginia law, left alone, allows abortion at any time, for any reason, by any method, with limited restrictions in the third trimester:
With the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe V. Wade, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin announced he will seek a bipartisan coalition to change the state’s abortion laws and suggested a pain threshold bill, but Democrats seem resistant to such plans.
“The Supreme Court of the United States has rightfully returned power to the people and their elected representatives in the states,” the governor said in a statement Friday. “I'm proud to be a pro-life governor and plan to take every action I can to protect life.”
Youngkin said he intends to work with lawmakers to find a bipartisan consensus on bills that would reduce the number of abortions in the commonwealth. He reached out to four lawmakers to work on bills to be ready when the legislature meets in January. Those lawmakers are Sen. Siobhan Dunnavant, R-Henrico, Sen. Steve Newman, R-Forest, Del. Kathy Byron, R-Bedford and Del. Margaret Ransone, R-Westmoreland.
“The truth is, Virginians want fewer abortions, not more abortions,” the governor added. “We can build a bipartisan consensus on protecting the life of unborn children, especially when they begin to feel pain in the womb, and importantly supporting mothers and families who choose life. …I've asked them to do the important work needed and be prepared to introduce legislation when the General Assembly returns in January.”
One refrain raised by abortion supporters is “reproductive rights.” I’m all in favor of reproductive rights up to the creation of human life. The government has long asserted a responsibility to protect innocent life, including against sexual assault. We outlaw murder, for example, and most laws are based on personal and property rights protections. Look at how we rightly recoiled at horrific school shootings in Parkland and Uvalde. Medical technicians and hospitals bend over backward to save lives. That is why conservatives should be willing to accommodate abortions for rape and incest within a specific time frame. Such crimes should also be immediately reported and prosecuted, and victims medically urgently treated and respected.
I think Professor George would be OK with that.
I’m not suggesting conservatives make abortion their top campaign talking point this Fall. Americans are more concerned about affordability (rising grocery and high gas prices), anxiety from rising crime, parental involvement in their kids’ education, and, increasingly, the future of their jobs. But candidates and activists must be ready, even open, to discuss and debate the issue of abortion - knowledgeably, compassionately, respectfully, and confidently.
Take the offense, but don’t be offensive.
(Disclosure: the author is a brand-new grandfather, which may help explain his passion for the pro-life issue)
Well said. I hope Molinaro reads this essay. He said: “I am personally pro-life. I have accepted, however, that the law of America was universal access….” I doubt many Republicans are enthusiastic about voting for someone who accepts “universal access” and no one much cares whether anyone is personally pro-life which is basically a way of saying nothing about public policy.