The Abortion Trap
Prior to last night’s election results, I had been planning on writing an article with the same title, posting a few days after the anticipated ebullience of the election had waned. The main point was a caution to a resurgent Republican party not to make the same mistake Democrats did in 2020, i.e. confusing the election with a mandate for their policies, rather than a repudiation of their opponents’. And make no mistake, in the run-up to the “red wave”, there were many right wing pundits who were trying to push a narrative that the country was broadly supportive of severely restricting abortion rights—it’s not.
Republicans still have an opportunity to build a broad and lasting coalition for 2024, built on a powerful, positive pro-freedom and pro-family message—Florida shows that. But they need to take the time to better understand the would-be members of their coalition, and to try to craft policies that are appealing to all parties.
I wrote in my last piece that I am and will for the foreseeable future be a single issue voter.
After this cycle, my vote will always be for the party that represents the most decentralized power structure, and the greatest respect for individual rights and responsibility. For me, the new f-word is “federal”.
The coalition that was building prior to Dobbs—was a pro-child, pro-family, pro-freedom, pro-personal liberty and responsibility one. Many women never dreamed that Roe could be over-turned, so they were OK siding with pro-life Republicans—because they figured it didn’t matter. “My body, my choice” was thrown out as a sneering example of Democrat hypocrisy, when it came to vaccine mandates. Republicans hammered on Democrats that their abortion policies were extreme and out of touch with the majority of Americans, all the while ignoring that the only nationally-accepted position for Republicans, is no abortion at any point, with no exceptions—not 15 weeks with well-articulated exceptions to protect the life of the mother, as Republican pundits constantly remind us is the consensus view of Americans.
For myself, I was quite nervous about the permanence of this coalition. What I had come to understand from a constitutional perspective, was that Roe had been wrongly decided—even Ruth Bader Ginsberg acknowledged this. Thus, if a case were to come before a more originalist court, it would likely be over-turned. Speaking to pro-choice people, they truly did not believe that this was a real possibility. And pro-life people were dismissive of the significant importance this issue held for pro-choice women. Unless efforts were undertaken by these groups to understand one another, it was not a question of “if,” but “when” this coalition would implode. Now we know when.
Before I go on, we need to set a few baselines. A majority of women and men do believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
I know many of my readers see a woman’s right to abort a baby as fundamentally at odds with the baby’s right to life. But in order for us to continue with this discussion, it is important for this group of readers to understand—even if they do not agree—that a majority of women in the U.S., including many who joined this pro-freedom coalition do not see it that way. They do view it as a right, the freedom to choose. You may disagree vehemently, but that is not what we are discussing here. We are discussing why this coalition dissolved, and ultimately what can be done to restore it—because I think it can be restored and both “sides” make considerable strides towards the achievement of their, pro-child, pro-family, pro-freedom—and limited government—goals.
After Dobbs, pro-choice women who wanted to stay in this “Pro-freedom” coalition had to make a choice between which of their freedoms they valued more highly, their reproductive freedom, or freedom of speech, association, and all the other freedoms that were encroached upon, or fully suspended over the last 2.5+ years. But it was a bitter pill to swallow for many. Making your partners swallow bitter pills is not the foundation of a strong coalition. In this case, it proved to be its dissolution. Why?
Women—and particularly mothers—were a major force in drawing the curtain and exposing the harmfulness and cold political calculation of COVID policies, particularly as they affected children. But such women were a minority. There are a large number of women—just as there are a large number of men—who still believe either a) we had to do this or b) we just didn’t know. For these people, when asked to choose between one freedom and another, they chose the one they viewed as under assault right now—reproductive freedom (you might not like that phrase, but we’re trying to understand others now). The falsehood of Osterism, that “we just didn’t know,” that it won’t happen again, or worse, that it was necessary—but at any rate that it is in the past—is quite widely accepted, particularly among swing voters.
For some apoplexy will now be setting in, with mental sputterings of “But they should have known! Why are they so stupid?” That won’t help win them over—and yes, we need them.
We need them, because widespread understanding that the policies of the past two years were both harmful, and known to be unnecessary before, during and after their implementation is crucial to making sure these policies—and worse—do not get re-implemented. Freedom is a winning message. Republican anti-abortion policies inject hypocrisy into that message for many.
For myself, I view the reality-destroying policies of the left as a totalitarian ideology that will consume all rights. But I am an outlier. Particularly among women.
Now, let’s turn to how we re-build this coalition, and protect ourselves from the predations of this incipient totalitarianism, shall we?
As I noted in my last piece, despite having come to believe that the pro-life position has the moral high ground, I remain pro-choice. There are several reasons for this, but chief among them is that I don’t want government involved in legislating morality. The government destroys almost everything it touches. Why on god’s green earth would we trust it with morality? The second is that humans are fallible. Just ask Herschel Walker. We often fail to live up to our values.
Beyond this, I think we need to assess the ultimate goals of restricting abortion. If the goal of restricting abortion is to increase birth rates, it doesn’t seem to work that well. While there is a slight correlation, it is not strong. What’s more, viewed politically, in the top half of states for abortion rates, are many swing states. This includes, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Arizona—even Texas is right around 25.
While abortion utilization is not tightly linked to birthrate, I do believe that in creating the idea that abortion is a right, the left has created an ideology that is anti-natal, and anti-child. When we look at the rates of access to in-person education in the 2020-21 school year there is also a weak correlation between higher level of access to school, and lower abortion rates. If Georgia and Florida are removed, the R^2 value jumps over 0.3. As I have noted previously, I genuinely do believe that the states that kept schools open do value children more highly, and a higher proportion of pro-life voters, and lower abortion rates is a part of that.
Is it possible to harness the pro-natal, pro-child aspects of the pro-life movement, without resorting to bans and restrictions? To heal this pro-freedom coalition? I believe it is. I don’t believe that mandates and bans are good policy tools. I believed it with regard to vaccines and I believe it with regard to abortion. I think if we instead cast our goals as being supportive of children and families, with metrics such as increasing birthrates, improving education scores and choice, making it easier for families to thrive, and reducing the rate of abortions (which have been falling since 1990, until a resurgence in 2017 under president Trump)—there is ample room for common ground.
Below are just a few ideas that I think are consistent with a pro-natal policy approach. These are policies that would advance the pro-life agenda, without infringing on the freedom of choice that is so highly valued by pro-choice voters. All of them would, I think, help to create a more pro-natal, pro-child country, founded on a pro-freedom framework.
Re-humanize fetuses. I think it is important that we begin to re-internalize that fetuses are humans—it dehumanizes us to claim otherwise. Abortion should be a choice (in my mind), but it should be a hard choice. In most circumstances it should be made unnecessary by birth control. Making mothers—and fathers, if available—see an ultrasound of their babies, and see the actual process of the abortion they are considering before they make the decision to abort, is a reasonable step towards trying to re-humanize fetuses. It does not remove choice, but it does inject awareness and responsibility.
Adoption should always be offered as an option. If a women’s right to choose is paramount, then making sure she is aware that adoption is a real choice, and the supports that are available for that decision, is part of making an informed choice.
Tax dollars should not be used to support abortion, nor doctors forced to perform them. There are far too many ways to get an abortion—including chemical, by mail—to make it necessary for either of these things. Pro-choice people do not typically understand how profoundly evil pro-life people view abortion, nor how sincerely held that belief is. It is like telling an abolitionist that slavery is acceptable in some cases. No one should be forced to support something they see as profoundly evil with their tax dollars—much less their own hands.
Gestation-based bans. If gestation-based bans are put in place, e.g. 15-20 weeks, they ought to be in line with broader—not just pro-life—public opinion. Beyond this, they need to have clearly articulated exceptions, especially for the health of the mother. It is important that no doctor hesitate to deliver life-saving care to a woman in crisis in the latter portion of her pregnancy, because he or she thinks they may be prosecuted for doing so. But on the other hand, nor should “mental health” crises be used to justify late-term abortions.
Continued reduction of the abortion rate through informed choice. Getting an abortion doesn’t mean you have control of your reproductive health, it is the opposite. It means something didn’t work as planned. We empower women, when we give them the tools not to need an abortion.
Pro-pregnancy. Mama-care? While I am not generally a fan of government run healthcare, covering the medical costs associated with pregnancy for all women who choose to give birth would likely increase the number of women choosing adoption, or even to keep their own children. Few things would likely increase the birthrate more. And it is a time-limited program—you’re only pregnant for 9 months.
GI-style Bill for Caregiving Parents. One of my own personal hobby horses has been that if we want more people to choose to be parents, we need to view parenting as a valuable job, viewing the skills acquired during that time as transferrable to other fields—just like we view military experience. Tax incentives to companies to support training for hiring parents who were primarily caregivers would be one way to make this a reality. Or perhaps training stipends for needed transitional education (as long as it is linked to requirements of real employers).
None of the above is intended to be prescriptive, comprehensive, or even correct. There may be many unintended consequences that I have not thought of. My goal in putting these things out there is to show that I, as someone who is pro-choice, want to try to find common ground with people who are pro-life to help forge a lasting alliance that is both pro-natal, and pro-freedom.
We can do this. I think we must do this, or 2024 is going to be bleak. Let’s start the conversation. What do you think?
Another great article Emily. The Republicans must figure out a unified message on this. I am pro-life, however realize others don’t feel the same. Conservatives will never win again if the Dems can threaten that we will “ban” abortion. If you saw how Desantis handled it (he does allow up to 15 weeks, which is PLENTY of time) in his debate with Crist, he said regarding unborn children “I think we should give everyone a shot at life”. It’s all about messaging and how you use words to change minds. Realistically, anyone can get a pill that works up to 12 weeks anyway, so any thought of tight restrictions is pointless.
This issue should be considered akin to the slavery issue that the Founding Fathers considered. They knew they had no hopes of a Union if the didn’t push this issue into the future—not because they were incapable or unwilling to debate it, but because the CULTURE needed to change before the legislation would work. The abortion topic is similar. Culture would need to determine that protecting a baby’s murder takes priority over “reproductive rights.” Until that time, it is in Republican’s best interest to compromise and wait for the day that culture catches up. My compromise: 1. Up to 10 weeks, 2. Mandatory counseling (including stuff you suggested) that the male partner attends and pays for 3. Mother and partner (if applicable) must sign a form acknowledging that she is, indeed, choosing to kill a baby. To your point, we can humanize the baby while allowing this to happen.