Follow this authorRamesh Ponnuru's opinions
Follow
Republicans have convinced themselves that their passivity is shrewd: Why should politicians at the federal level talk about an issue when the public leans against them and they lack the power to enact legislation anyway? (Some conservatives are even saying that Republicans opposed federal involvement in abortion policy all along, which is not true.)
But this sets up a skewed debate. Pro-lifers in deep-red states will continue to enact laws that go beyond what most Americans favor. And these laws will keep generating stories — some of them genuine, some of them distorted — that put restrictions on abortion in a bad light.
Advertisement
Democrats will keep saying that they want laws that make these stories impossible anywhere in the country by ensuring all Americans have access to abortion. Republicans will respond not by defending these laws, or saying what they think abortion policy should look like, or discussing their own proposals for national legislation — but by saying states should have the power to decide.
Republicans are betting that saying it’s a state matter will look more reasonable to voters than saying, for example, that they want to build a national consensus to ban abortions late in pregnancy. But that means they will be talking about abortion in contexts of Democratic choosing. And Republicans run the risk of looking evasive since, well, they’re trying to avoid the subject — which also creates suspicions that they have an agenda they are not willing to share with voters.
What should pro-lifers do, then, amid adverse trends in public opinion and Republican cowardice? The top political priority this year must be to avoid a big election win for Democrats. If they get one, they could enact a sweeping national pro-choice policy, and too many Republicans would then be eager to pronounce the debate closed.
Advertisement
Pro-lifers must also try to stiffen Republican spines. You would never guess from the tenor of the political debate that in the first elections after Roe v. Wade fell, zero pro-life governors or senators lost their offices (in fact, the only incumbent who was defeated was Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak, a Democrat), and Republicans took the House. That’s not to say that opposition to abortion, especially when married to flawed strategies, has no political costs for Republicans. But it does put those costs in perspective.
Those congressional Republicans who have been arguing for federal legislation that limits abortion — such as Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), who has advocated a 15-week federal limit — should keep up their efforts. That’s not because they are likely to achieve near-term success, but because the case for limits must keep being made.
At the state level, pro-lifers should be pushing for the maximum protection for unborn children that can be sustained over time. In some states, that might mean amending old abortion laws that go too far beyond a public consensus. Pro-lifers should also expand public and private efforts to provide support for women facing pregnancies in difficult circumstances and push state governments to offer stronger guidance that physicians can treat medical emergencies that arise in pregnancy without waiting for imminent harm.
Lincoln lost to Douglas, but only for a time.
Share Comments
Popular opinions articles
HAND CURATED
- Opinion|Leaders of Jordan, France and Egypt: Cease fire now in GazaApril 8, 2024Opinion|Leaders of Jordan, France and Egypt: Cease fire now in GazaApril 8, 2024
- Opinion|Don’t overlook these five aspects of Trump’s N.Y. trialApril 9, 2024Opinion|Don’t overlook these five aspects of Trump’s N.Y. trialApril 9, 2024
- Opinion|I’m Jewish, and I’ve covered wars. I know war crimes when I see them. April 9, 2024Opinion|I’m Jewish, and I’ve covered wars. I know war crimes when I see them. April 9, 2024
View 3 more stories Sign up
The pro-life movement has often drawn parallels between itself and the abolitionists, identifying Abraham Lincoln’s statesmanship as a model of political prudence combined with moral clarity. But that movement is now allied — and, for the moment, even led — by a modern heir to Lincoln’s great opponent, Stephen Douglas.
Douglas professed agnosticism about slavery. He argued that policy on it should be set state by state (and territory by territory) and that what mattered is that it reflected the will of the people. This is now Donald Trump’s view of abortion. He expresses no hope that states will protect unborn children, specifying only what exceptions he wants any law to have. That indifference to the pro-life cause is probably his most honest statement of his views in years.
His taking federal legislation off the table is not a terrible defeat for pro-lifers, since even modest restrictions on abortion would have little shot of making it through Congress in the near future, even if Trump supported them. The bigger problem for pro-lifers is Republicans’ defensiveness on the issue. Trump’s new stance is just a symptom.
The Democratic Party is all-in for unrestricted and subsidized abortion. It downplays the full extent of its support but nevertheless makes the case for broad access. Republicans would rather not talk about it. Democrats nationally will fundraise and rally to pass state referendums blocking abortion regulations. Republicans, by and large, will say those ballot initiatives are local matters to be determined by the voters.
Republicans have convinced themselves that their passivity is shrewd: Why should politicians at the federal level talk about an issue when the public leans against them and they lack the power to enact legislation anyway? (Some conservatives are even saying that Republicans opposed federal involvement in abortion policy all along, which is not true.)
But this sets up a skewed debate. Pro-lifers in deep-red states will continue to enact laws that go beyond what most Americans favor. And these laws will keep generating stories — some of them genuine, some of them distorted — that put restrictions on abortion in a bad light.
Democrats will keep saying that they want laws that make these stories impossible anywhere in the country by ensuring all Americans have access to abortion. Republicans will respond not by defending these laws, or saying what they think abortion policy should look like, or discussing their own proposals for national legislation — but by saying states should have the power to decide.
Republicans are betting that saying it’s a state matter will look more reasonable to voters than saying, for example, that they want to build a national consensus to ban abortions late in pregnancy. But that means they will be talking about abortion in contexts of Democratic choosing. And Republicans run the risk of looking evasive since, well, they’re trying to avoid the subject — which also creates suspicions that they have an agenda they are not willing to share with voters.
What should pro-lifers do, then, amid adverse trends in public opinion and Republican cowardice? The top political priority this year must be to avoid a big election win for Democrats. If they get one, they could enact a sweeping national pro-choice policy, and too many Republicans would then be eager to pronounce the debate closed.
Pro-lifers must also try to stiffen Republican spines. You would never guess from the tenor of the political debate that in the first elections after Roe v. Wade fell, zero pro-life governors or senators lost their offices (in fact, the only incumbent who was defeated was Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak, a Democrat), and Republicans took the House. That’s not to say that opposition to abortion, especially when married to flawed strategies, has no political costs for Republicans. But it does put those costs in perspective.
Those congressional Republicans who have been arguing for federal legislation that limits abortion — such as Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), who has advocated a 15-week federal limit — should keep up their efforts. That’s not because they are likely to achieve near-term success, but because the case for limits must keep being made.
At the state level, pro-lifers should be pushing for the maximum protection for unborn children that can be sustained over time. In some states, that might mean amending old abortion laws that go too far beyond a public consensus. Pro-lifers should also expand public and private efforts to provide support for women facing pregnancies in difficult circumstances and push state governments to offer stronger guidance that physicians can treat medical emergencies that arise in pregnancy without waiting for imminent harm.
Lincoln lost to Douglas, but only for a time.
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Andrew Mitrovica
Mort Laitner
Rami G Khouri
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
visit website
