How the pro-choice movement can win
The pro-choice movement is going to have a lot of work to do. Assuming Roe v Wade is reversed, there will be many states that ban abortion altogether or come very close to it. The most immediate task will be to prevent such laws from coming into effect in states that are not solidly red. Beyond that it will be to make their case that abortion should be legal, which will be a longer-term project that may not be settled for a long time, if ever.
Winning is never guaranteed. The effort on behalf of abortion rights will have to be nimble, flexible and willing to compromise. The pro-choice movement will have to decide which hills are worth dying on. The good news is they have a lot going for them, but in many states are at a disadvantage right now. That can change, but will take time.
I want to lay out several things I think the pro-choice movement needs to do to be successful. Some of it is short-term while other parts are long-term. Some is related to messaging and other parts are related to substance.
First, do no harm
I have written many times before, including in the last piece I wrote about abortion, about how the left-wing non-profit world is hell bent on sabotaging themselves. Since the leak from the Supreme Court, some pro-choice groups have decided now is the time to police language. If they want to lose, that is what they will do.
Last week, the House Pro-Choice Caucus put out a memo decrying the use of the phrase pro-choice as being “harmful.” Instead, they used pro-decision. Exactly how those words are any different is beyond me since I do not speak woke. Harmful was also used to describe the phrase “safe, legal and rare.” I doubt there is ever a good time to argue over language policing, but now is especially inopportune given the stakes.
Planned Parenthood has decided to use the phrase pro-abortion rather than pro-choice. The idea is that abortion is 100% morally right and that should be the message used. I personally share that view on the morality of abortion, but most do not. There are many people who believe that abortion should be legal, but also believe it is immoral or morally ambiguous. The kind of language promoted by Planned Parenthood is a great way to alienate them.
I have written before about why I am worried about Planned Parenthood and the actions of their national leadership lately have done nothing to alleviate that. Like the leaders of almost every left-wing non-profit group, Planned Parenthood’s national leadership inhabits a microscopic bubble where everyone is just like them, i.e., woke, extremely online, college-educated, high-income, obsessed with race, etc. Living in that kind of bubble is what convinced the national leadership to endorse defunding the police in 2020. Never mind that it is a toxically unpopular and bad idea having nothing to do with their mission. They saw their fellow bubble dwellers jumping off a cliff and just had to join them.
I like Planned Parenthood very much and the work they do is absolutely vital. It makes my blood boil seeing their national leadership put that at risk for no reason. I wonder how many people in the national leadership have ever interacted with a single patient at any of their clinics. If they did they would quickly discover how insular they are and how disconnected they are from those they are supposed to be helping. I suspect few if any patients at any of their clinics have ever heard any woke jargon.
The language policing has to stop. It does not win the pro-choice movement any supporters they do not already have. The benefits of it are zero while the costs are massive. Only in the woke bubbles left-wing activists inhabit does language policing have any appeal. It is at best irrelevant in the real world and otherwise toxic.
It is all the more frustrating because this phenomenon is so recent. It was not too long ago that the people in the left-wing non-profit world spoke like normal humans. Only in the last few years have all these new words popped up and that crowd has ensconced itself in the tiniest bubble. That bubble needs to be popped if the pro-choice movement wants to win. The pro-choice movement has to talk like normal people, not like they are teaching a graduate school seminar in gender studies.
The pro-choice movement not only needs to not police language, but also needs to talk about abortion with sensitivity. Screaming about it being an absolute right does not win any converts. Calling anyone who disagrees with that a misogynist or worse helps nobody. Abortion is a delicate issue for many people, even those who support it. It is not a black-and-white issue. The pro-choice movement has to acknowledge ambiguities and the uneasiness many people feel about it.
The pro-choice movement needs to keep their eye on the ball. They have to ask themselves whether saying or doing X, Y and Z will help their cause. If the answer is anything other than an unambiguous yes, then they should not say or do it. Millions of people (not just women) will be negatively impacted by the coming wave of anti-abortion laws. The pro-choice movement has to be ready to fight and not get distracted by the purists and bubble dwellers in their ranks.
Compromise
Right now, the stance of Democrats in Congress is that they will not compromise on abortion. I can cut them a little slack given that they are angry and emotional right now. But that mindset will have to change and fast. While the Republican position on abortion is extreme, i.e., 6-week bans, no rape or incest exceptions, etc., the Democratic position is also extreme. It is essentially that abortion should be legal on demand right up until birth, paid for by the federal government and that all medical providers must be forced to provide abortions even if they do not believe in it.
Both of those positions are very unpopular and out of step with most people. The pro-choice movement is going to have to live with more limits on abortion than their most militant members will want. That is not a question, it is a given. People cannot be forced to choose between two extreme positions. If they are forced to, then the pro-choice movement should be prepared for many states to have draconian bans even if they are unpopular.
The good news is most people are in favor of legal abortion in the large majority of cases where it happens. It is critical for everyone to keep abortion in perspective. Much of the abortion debate since Roe v Wade has focused on marginal cases. Examples include abortions at 20 weeks and “partial-birth” abortions. As much emotion as those cases generate, the reality is they make up a tiny percentage of abortions. Approximately 1% of abortions happen after 20 weeks and the tiniest fraction of 1% happen at 24 weeks or later.
In contrast, roughly 66% of abortions happen during the first 8 weeks. Another 15% happen within 8-10 weeks. Almost 90% of abortions happen within the first 12 weeks. Fighting abortion bans that encroach into the first 12 weeks is the hill to die on for the pro-choice movement. It is an area where public opinion outside of the reddest states is already on their side.
The most militant members of the pro-choice movement will never agree to that. They will insist on fighting for every last abortion and not budging one inch. I admire their passion, but they should be ignored. Doing that is suicidal and is not a battle that will be won. Worse, by losing that battle, the pro-choice movement risks losing other battles it should win.
Inevitably, there will be some tragedies that happen with later term abortions. Maybe over time, public opinion will become more permissive of abortion then, but that is not the case today. I am looking at this from a purely pragmatic standpoint and have no interest in emotion, purity or idealism. The reality is you cannot save everyone and trying to save everyone means you will save no one. Those in the pro-choice movement need to ask themselves if they are willing to risk losing first trimester abortions to fight for abortions at 20 weeks or later.
As an aside, I am sure someone reading this will think something along the lines of, “He is a white male. It is easy for him to say all that.” Anyone who thinks it is only white men who have qualms about abortion needs to get out more. In fact, the views on abortion between men and women are not that different. Religiosity is a much bigger factor than gender. Plenty of people who are not white men are opposed to abortion while plenty of white men are pro-choice. In wokeville, skin color and gender determine everything about a person, but the real world is much more complicated.
Besides bans on abortions after 12 weeks, the pro-choice movement will have to live with other indirect limits on abortion. Parental notification and waiting period laws will probably be popular and prevalent in most states. Some of that could be mitigated by pushing for some exemptions or adjustments, but by and large such laws will be in effect. The pro-choice movement will also have to live with the Hyde Amendment.
On the issue of the Hyde Amendment, I am personally conflicted on it. On the one hand, poor women should not be denied abortions because they cannot afford them. On the other hand, I am not enthusiastic at all about forcing someone who thinks abortion is wrong to pay for it. In the end, it is a compromise I am willing to live with and not a hill to die on. A majority of the public also supports it.
When it comes to providers who object to abortion, they will not be compelled to provide them. I do not think they should be and I find it almost offensive that Democrats think otherwise. In my view, part of being pro-choice means not being compelled to provide abortions just as it means being able to provide them. There will be plenty of abortion providers, especially if nurse practitioners are allowed to provide them, which should be pushed for. There is no need to needlessly provoke outrage and raise the temperature by requiring people to provide abortions who are opposed to them.
In general, refusing to compromise is a great way to lose. If your goal is to feel good about yourself, then by all means pound your chest and scream at the top of your lungs about how you will go for all or nothing. Just do not surprised when you get nothing. There is way too much at stake here for the pro-choice movement to do that. The good news is I think they will learn to compromise fairly quickly because they will have to. If they want to win the fight for abortion rights, they are going to have to learn to live with some limits on it and to broaden what they consider to be pro-choice. The most optimal position the pro-choice movement should be pushing for right now is that it should be legal on demand during the first 12 weeks, easily accessible during that time and heavily restricted afterwards with a narrow exception for the health of the mother.
Put the anti-abortion movement on the defensive
I often think that linking one issue to a whole set of other issues is a bad approach. For example, linking support for climate change efforts to demolishing capitalism is bad. In the case of abortion, there are other issues that are tangentially related to it that the pro-choice movement would be wise to exploit.
For example, one reason women give for having abortions is that they are not financially able to take care of kids. There are many ways to solve that problem having nothing to do with abortion itself. For example, the pro-choice movement should make a push for an expanded child tax credit and paid parental leave. They could also advocate for expanding Medicaid in states that have not done so. Doing those things could go a long way towards alleviating financial concerns, which would do a lot to prevent women from feeling they need an abortion.
The fact is it is Republicans who are pushing to ban abortion and also Republicans who oppose those things. The states that did not expand Medicaid are almost all going to ban abortion. Many of the Republicans in Congress would love to ban abortion nationwide and also want to slash the social safety net to the bone. They are all but saying “Great, you were born, now drop dead.” That is an inexcusable position to have and the pro-choice movement should call them out on it.
One unintended consequence of abortion bans will be that many people will be born who are unwanted. Many of them will be treated poorly because of it. Women who have abortions tend to be disproportionately lower income and so bans on abortion will mean an increase in the number of poor people. Those who push for abortion bans have a duty to help them and, yes, that means through governmental efforts, not charity. There is nothing more morally despicable than forcing someone to give birth against their will and then telling them they are on their own.
We need to expand the safety net in the US in many areas, regardless of what happens with abortion. The abortion debate creates an opening to do that. It also forces the anti-abortion crowd to put their money where their mouths are. Are they truly pro-life or just pro-birth? If they agree to support all kinds of new programs and to expand existing ones, that would be great despite their being wrong on abortion. If they oppose those efforts then they will be admitting they only care about someone right up until they are born.
Five pillars to adhere to
During the 1990s and early 2000s, the Democrats’ position on abortion was best articulated by Bill Clinton and other moderate Democrats. That position was that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. Democrats have, unfortunately, long since abandoned that phrase. It was a good approach and should be used again, but more needs to be added.
Safe – abortion should be safe. Women should not be at increased risk from it. Regulations to promote safety are legitimate so long as they are about safety and not inhibiting access to abortion. The pro-choice movement should be supportive of the former.
Legal – abortion should be legal. When it is outlawed, it does not go away. It goes to back alleys, which are much more dangerous. Countries where abortion is illegal still have them and some places such as Latin America have a higher rate of abortion than in Europe where it is legal.
Rare – reducing abortions is a good goal. The pro-choice movement should advocate for comprehensive sex education in schools and the easy availability of contraception. IUDs should be as easy and cheap to access as fast food and soft drinks. The pro-choice movement should also advocate for expanding the safety net on everything from healthcare to the child tax credit. The pro-choice movement should emphasize that having a safety net will probably do more to reduce abortions than any ban will.
Early – the earlier an abortion happens, the better. That is true not just for potential health risks, but for moral reasons, too. Earlier abortions are much less controversial than later ones. Arguments over balancing the rights of the woman and fetus become much more fraught later on in the pregnancy. It is best to avoid that. Abortion pills, which make up a majority of abortion in the US, generally work during the first 10-12 weeks. Abortion pills are safe, effective, convenient and their use should be encouraged.
Accessible – because the pro-choice movement will have to live with sharp limits on abortion after 12 weeks, it is essential to make sure it is accessible during that time. Laws that are designed solely to hinder accessibility should be fought tooth and nail. Ditto with laws designed solely to make it impossible for abortion clinics to operate. While many European countries limit abortion to 12-14 weeks, they also make it very accessible during that time. The pro-choice movement should follow their lead.