Overreaching on Abortion?
It has happened before. Will it happen again?
Vice President Harris says she would support eliminating the filibuster in the U.S. Senate in order to bring back federal protections for a woman's right to an abortion as they existed under Roe v. Wade. (NPR, 24 Sept. 2024)
This worries me. I’m getting flashbacks of 2000. There is reason to believe that Al Gore’s stance on abortion cost him more votes than Ralph Nader did.
Something nobody on the left wants to acknowledge is that Gore's approach to abortion contributed to his defeat. Yes, Florida was stolen, but he also lost his home state of Tennessee, which would have put him over the top had he won it, even with the loss of Florida. Why did he lose Tennessee? Not because a few people voted for Nader. It may well have been because he not only shifted his position on abortion from one that was borderline pro-life to one that was fully pro-choice, but did so in a way that alienated many of those who had previously voted for him and/or Bill Clinton. Instead of Clinton’s conciliatory "safe, legal, and rare", which at least acknowledged that this was a moral issue to many people, Gore adopted the tone and language of pro-choice activists, dropped his previous opposition to federal funding for abortions, and pretended that he had always been unequivocally pro-choice.
Gore wasn't the only one. Some heartland politicians like Dick Gephardt and Dennis Kucinich switched their positions on abortion and were defeated anyway. Others like Bob Casey, Sr. didn't switch but were silenced by the Democratic Party elite, which may have led some of their supporters to vote for Republicans for other offices, including the presidency.
The Harris camp would do well to consider what Regan Arntz-Gray says in her Substack post Is Abortion a “Losing” Issue for Republicans? (So would certain less thoughtful writers whom I will not name, who have tried to portray the abortion issue as one of men trying to control women.) Although I ultimately come to a different conclusion about abortion than Regan Arntz-Gray does, I appreciate the points she has raised in her posts on this topic.
Roe v. Wade was judicial overreach, and it got backlash that coalesced into a national movement that was largely co-opted by the GOP. Dobbs v. Jackson was also judicial overreach, and it also got backlash, which has benefited the Democrats in recent elections. But, as surveys have repeatedly shown over the years, most Americans, including me, do not favor the extreme positions put forth by the loudest voices in this debate. Abortion may increase Democratic-leaning voter turnout this year, but if this election is as close as recent polls indicate, it is still possible for Harris to overplay her hand.
Also, if we’re going to do away with the filibuster, then the very first order of business should be passing the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. With voting secured, it may finally be possible to reach a consensus on abortion that reflects the will of the people, whether this occurs at the state or federal level.
Interesting debate and yet we need to be explicit about the part played by religion. As an English man I understand USA to be in many places a deeply religious land. I have only been to USA once, New York and Vermont which are democrat areas beyond dispute? But I understand that there are deeply religious areas where abortion will never hold sway. Life for many belongs to God, hence your title of Logos and to kill human life is sinful. It then astonishes me why in the Deep South there is still the death penalty. Prolife should be exactly that against abortion And against the death penalty. I subscribe to both of these positions but then I must declare that I am a practising Catholic. Thanks for your article. Dave.
Pro-Birth, Anti-Life: The GOP's Child Welfare Hypocrisy
From anti-abortion crusades to shrugging at child care—because who needs health care or food, right?
https://substack.com/home/post/p-148613239?r=4d7sow&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web