Amidst all the talk about the impact of a likely reversal of Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, I thought a history lesson was in order, so I wrote one at New York:
Last week, the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would have codified abortion rights, died in in the Senate by a vote of 51 to 49. All 210 House Republicans and all 50 Senate Republicans voted against the legislation. This surprised no one, but it’s actually odd in several ways. While Republican elected officials are almost monolithically opposed to abortion rights, pro-choice Republican voters didn’t entirely cease to exist, and this could become a problem for the party if, as expected, the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down the right to abortion at the end of this term.
Though polling on the issue is notoriously slippery, our best guess is that a little over a third of Republicans disagree with their party on whether to outlaw abortion (while about one-quarter of Democrats disagree with their party on the topic). These Americans have virtually no representation in Congress with the limited exceptions of Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski (both GOP senators support some abortion rights, but they are still opposed the WHPA and are against dropping the filibuster to preserve abortion rights).
Ironically, abortion rights as we know them are, to a considerable extent, the product of Republican lawmaking at every level of government. The most obvious examples are the two Supreme Court decisions that established and reaffirmed a constitutional right to abortion. Of the seven justices who supported
Roe v.
Wade, the 1973 decision that
struck down pre-viability-abortion bans, five were appointed by Republican presidents, including the author of the majority opinion, Harry Blackmun, and then–Chief Justice Warren Burger. All five justices who voted to confirm the constitutional right to pre-viability abortions in 1992’s
Planned Parenthood v. Casey were appointed by Republican presidents as well.
These pro-choice Republicans weren’t just rogue jurists (though their alleged perfidy has become a deep grievance in the anti-abortion movement). Today’s lock-step opposition to abortion rights among GOP elected officials took a long time to develop. Indeed, before Roe, Republicans were more likely to favor legal abortion than Democrats. In New York and Washington, two of the four states that fully legalized pre-viability abortions in 1970, Republican governors Nelson Rockefeller and Daniel Evans were at the forefront of abortion-rights efforts. They weren’t fringe figures; Rockefeller went on to become vice-president of the United States under Gerald Ford. Pre-Roe, various other Republican officials supported more modest efforts to ease abortion bans; among them was then–California governor Ronald Reagan, who signed a bill significantly liberalizing exceptions to an abortion ban in 1967.
The anti-abortion movement’s strength in the Republican Party grew steadily after Roe in part because of a more general ideological sorting out of the two major parties as liberals drifted into the Democratic Party and conservatives were drawn into the GOP. To put it another way, there has always been ideological polarization in American politics, but only in recent decades has it been reflected in parallel party polarization. But that doesn’t fully explain the GOP’s shift on abortion policy.
Beginning in 1972 with Richard Nixon’s reelection campaign, Republicans began actively trying to recruit historically Democratic Roman Catholic voters. Soon thereafter, they started working to mobilize conservative Evangelical voters. This effort coincided with the Evangelicals’ conversion into strident abortion opponents, though they were generally in favor of the modest liberalization of abortion laws until the late 1970s. All these trends culminated in the adoption of a militantly anti-abortion platform plank in the 1980 Republican National Convention that nominated Reagan for president. The Gipper said he regretted his earlier openness to relaxed abortion laws. Reagan’s strongest intraparty rival was George H.W. Bush, the scion of a family with a powerful multigenerational connection to Planned Parenthood. He found it expedient to renounce any support for abortion rights before launching his campaign.
Still, there remained a significant pro-choice faction among Republican elected officials until quite recently. In 1992, the year Republican Supreme Court appointees saved abortion rights in Casey, there was a healthy number of pro-choice Republicans serving in the Senate: Ted Stevens of Alaska, John Seymour of California, Nancy Kassebaum of Kansas, William Cohen of Maine, Bob Packwood of Oregon, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, John Chafee of Rhode Island, Jim Jeffords of Vermont, John Warner of Virginia, and Alan Simpson and Malcolm Wallop of Wyoming. Another, John Heinz of Pennsylvania, had recently died.
Partisan polarization on abortion (which, of course, was taking place among Democrats as well) has been slow but steady, as Aaron Blake of the Washington Post recently observed:
“In a 1997 study, Carnegie Mellon University professor Greg D. Adams sought to track abortion votes in Congress over time. His finding: In the Senate, there was almost no daylight between the two parties in 1973, with both parties voting for ‘pro-choice’ positions about 40 percent of the time.
“But that quickly changed.
“There was more of a difference in the House in 1973, with Republicans significantly more opposed to abortion rights than both House Democrats and senators of both parties. But there, too, the gap soon widened.
“Including votes in both chambers, Adams found that a 22 percentage- point gap between the two parties’ votes in 1973 expanded to nearly 65 points two decades later, after Casey was decided.”
By 2018, every pro-choice House Republican had been defeated or had retired. The rigidity of the party line on abortion was perhaps best reflected in late 2019, when a House Democrat with a record of strong support for abortion rights, Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, switched parties. Almost instantly, Van Drew switched sides on reproductive rights and was hailed by the hard-core anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List for voting “consistently to defend the lives of the unborn and infants.”
With the 2020 primary loss by Illinois Democratic representative Dan Lipinski, a staunch opponent of abortion rights, there’s now just one House member whose abortion stance is out of step with his party: Texas Democrat Henry Cuellar, who is very vulnerable to defeat in a May 24 runoff.
If the Supreme Court does fully reverse Roe in the coming weeks, making abortion a more highly salient 2022 campaign issue, the one-third of pro-choice Republican voters may take issue with their lack of congressional representation. Will the first big threat to abortion rights in nearly a half-century make them change their priorities? Or will they still care more about party loyalty and issues like inflation? Perhaps nothing will change for most of these voters. But in close races, the abandoned tradition of pro-choice Republicanism could make a comeback to the detriment of the GOP’s ambitious plans for major midterm gains.
Kerry’s op-ed on Iraq in today’s Washington Post is at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6753-2004Apr12.html
I agree that Kerry should lay low. All these bad things that are happening to Bush are Bush’s own fault, and there is no way the worst of it can get better for him. However bad Iraq looks now, it will get worse. Furthermore, Bush is so irresponsible that, whenever new facts are discovered about his conduct, they will always be bad.
What you do not want is for John Kerry’s name, voice, or face to be associated with the bad Bush stuff. Let those things stick to Bush.
Sometimes I don’t understand how people can come up with certain ads. For instance, there is this attack ad of Bush’s that has a bunch of goofy talk about John Kerry and taxes or something. What sticks with me about that ad is how upbeat it sounds. I don’t care what they are saying, I just associate “John Kerry” and the upbeat tone. Wouldn’t it be nice if Bush would run upbeat “John Kerry” ads right up to Election Day!
We really do not want to see Kerry juxtapose himself with mayhem in Iraq or an irresponsible and frankly criminal White House.
I certainly agree with Kerry laying back right now, talking economics and jobs and raising money. The “Free Media” is working to discredit Bush on his strengths — War President and Anti-Terrorist — and what Kerry needs to do is be prepared to sell his case to those who are open to retiring Bush after they have been convinced by non-partisian information that a new President is in order. It’s a two step thing — first, strong questioning of Bush’s effectiveness, and then movement toward the alternative. Kerry needs to save his energy and assets for the right time to make the sale and close the deal with Independent voters.
The methodology behind the Rasmussen polls is, I gather, pretty unconventional, since, apparently, it involves robo-calling. Other things being equal, I’d give more weight to the conventional (and more expensive) polls.
On the other hand, I’m not sure why the Rasmussen polls should not be measuring genuine movements within whatever subset of the American population their methodology actually selects. On still another hand, I’ve certainly seen a number of cases in which Rasmussen goes one way, and conventional polls another, even on the same days.
RE: “And the latest Newsweek poll, conducted April 8-9, has Kerry ahead by 7 (50-43).”
You should qualify your statement, that these particular numbers are the projected result in a head-to-head matchup, and in the absence of a Ralph Nader candidacy.
When Nader’s candidacy is factored into the equation, Kerry leads the Newsweek poll, 46% to 42%.
Okay, so let me get this straight: Iraq is becoming a quagmire of immense military, political, economic proportions, AND in terms of lives lost. The actions of Mr. bush prior to 9/11 define the word mis-management.
How can he be moving UP in the polls?
I say that the dems need to draft Richard Clarke as their nominee.
Ruy Teixeira really needs to explain why he is so positive with Newsweek,CBS, and other polls and does not even mention Rasmuusen. Rasmuusen seems the most legit because it has a large sample (1600) and is of likely voters as opposed to registered voters or adults.
Help me understand Ruy!!
Yes, but . . . if the strategy of letting Bush self-destruct all by himself is working so well, then why are the two men essentially even in the polls? I know that it’s still early, but if this is how Bush looks during a BAD stretch, what is he going to look like after his campaign succeeds in defining Kerry as a waffling, tax-supporting, Jane Fonda-loving Massachusetts liberal? Because that’s what they doing with those ads. And I’m just not seeing a very urgent response by the Kerry people to (1) counter those images, and (2) keep the pressure on Bush. Complacency with this incredibly ruthless crowd is a mistake.
My suggestion being, I’d like you to consider reading the text for a “state of the union” address that I believe is imperative for this country of ours. To get to it, all you need do is click on the below enclosed U.R.L
http://www.bcvoice.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=205
By the way, the proprietors of the http://www.BCVoice.com website have provided a couple ways for you to leave your comments.
Plus, the media isn’t focusing that much on Kerry right now anyway, so he should wait until Sept. for some really hard hitting speeches.
I agree with FranklyO. I think Kerry needs to let events take Bush down while he promotes his positive alternative. A couple weeks before the election when a critical mass of voters have become critical or doubtful will be the time to have some hard hitting ads. And them the ads should be Buish’s words . For example an ad built around him laughing about the nonexistant WMDs or an ad quoting from Woodward’s book.
Kerry is doing the right thing for the right time, right now. The Bush admin is in a self detruct – death spiral mode and Mr. Kerry is taking full advantage by staying out of the way. Doesn’t cost him a penny, and every time they open their mouths to gasp for air, they get weaker and weaker.
Hey if the oponent is knocking himself out why waste your energy (and limited funds) trying to achieve what he is going to acheive on his own.
Kerry has been too cautious in the past two weeks. Bush is vulnerable right now, and Kerry needs to be attacking at the same time he’s unveiling his major policies. Let’s not forgot that Bush/Cheney is running lot and lots of negative ads in key states, taking full advantage of their current, substantial advantage in funds raised. Thus, while Bush is other respects seems to be reeling from the situation in Iraq, the 9/11 hearings, and the still-weak economy, he and his people are hammering Kerry on TV. And history shows that negative ads are very effective, particularly when the opposing candidates is not yet well-known among the general electorate (remember the Alamo and Mike Dukakis).
Kerry is back to trailing in Rasmussen. Condi has made America go back to loving and fearing Bush, as has the continued turmoil in Iraq. Bush is still the favorite, by a wide margin.
So Debra,
This means then that the next ARG and Newsweek polls are likely to show Bush ahead? More and more I’m getting the feeling that Texeira’s analysis has a lot of pro-Dem spin, rather than objective analysis that would help Dems make mid-course corrections.
Dan O.: “Does the DNC and Kerry campaign have a major ORGANIZED EFFORT to register voters and to get out the vote?”
I’m sure there’s an effort. It’s the “organized” bit that, at least for the moment, I have my doubts.
These results track the Rasmussen Daily polls for the dates they were condutced. April 8-9 for Newsweek Kerry was ahead: April 6-9 for ARG Kerry had the largest lead over Bush on April 7th.
The results mesh.
Independents will probably wait until the debates to decide. Democrats and Republicans have already made up their minds. If you look at the data, Independents are more critical of Bush than that of the national average, especially w/ Iraq related things. Kerry should do well w/ Independents, and we should see that in the home stretch. A Kerry-Edwards ticket would ice it, considering how well Edwards did w/ Independents and Republicans in the primaries (ex. Wisconsin). Edwards could also help out in West Virginia.
As for the electoral college, if you have a lead in the popular vote by about 5%, it will be virtually impossible to lose the electoral college. The popular vote and the electoral college were both virtual ties in 2000. In fact, looking at the 1948, 1960, and 1976 elections, the winner of the popular vote won by a humble margin, while he won the electoral college by quite a bit.
I’m not yet convinced of a Kerry lead. There’s the Rasmussen poll, and his numbers among independents in the ARG poll are statistically even with Bush’s. His lead comes from having (at least apparently for now) solid backing among Democrats, whereas Bush’s numbers have softened a bit among Repugs. Bush will, in the end, carry more than 90% of Republicans who turn out, and if Kerry is going to have a chance he needs at least a five point margin among Independents. So far, that ain’t happening.
I agree with the other posters. Until Bush is defeated and is safely back in Crawford, TX, we cannot rest on our laurels. We need to be ahead by 20-plus percentage points or until the electoral college votes him out in December of 2004. We cannot relax until a new president is sworn in!
Individual State polls can better indicate any important trends.
However, actual votes that are COUNTED in each State will determine the election.
Does the DNC and Kerry campaign have a major ORGANIZED EFFORT to register voters and to get out the vote?
Remember you can alway vote using absentee ballot, but you need to request a absentee ballot early!
You will also note that these polls are of either registered voter or just “adults”. That makes them not much less useful than a poll of “likely voters” or one that performs an analysis electorally. I know it is more expensive but I would much rather see polls generally show electoral spreads, not popularity spreads. We all know too well from 2000 that the popular vote means little if the electoral battle is lost.
But how does this translate into electoral votes? If all the lead is in New York or California or Massachusetts, it does little good.
I think Kerry is ahead also but Rasmuusen Reports, which had Kerry ahead earlier in the week on their daily tracking poll now has Bush ahead by 3 because they say Ms. Condoleeza’s testimony went over well with the American Public. Also, a recent poll on Florida by Mason-Dixon has Bush ahead there by 51-43. Help me I’m confused!