OPINION:
A version of this story appeared in the On Background newsletter from The Washington Times. Click here to receive On Background delivered directly to your inbox each Friday.
The recent defeat of the pro-life cause in Ohio has been identified as the ratification of a new moment in American politics, one in which red states ultimately are turned blue over the issue of access to abortion, which is popular, even in many red states.
When voters have had a chance to vote on the issue — in isolation — since the Dobbs decision, abortion access has won all seven times. Not surprisingly, the left, increasingly divided over fundamental economic and foreign policy issues, intends to use the abortion issue to improve turnout and reverse their recent electoral fortunes in states such as Virginia and Florida.
That certainly seems reasonable, but it is not at all clear the extent to which abortion politics affect general elections.
For example, last year in Ohio, both the Democratic Senate and gubernatorial candidates (Tim Ryan and Nan Whaley, respectively) decided to make abortion the centerpiece of their campaign pitch. In Ms. Whaley’s case, it was the only issue she talked about.
How did that turn out? Both lost, Ms. Whaley by 25 points.
The story was the same in Texas, in Georgia, in Florida. Nationwide, not a single Republican governor or senator has lost reelection since the Dobbs decision. In fact, no incumbent governor or senator has lost, except for Steve Sisolak, a Democrat from Nevada.
How does all that square with the run of success for ballot initiatives on abortion? It suggests that if the issue is isolated, the results appear dispositive, while in an election between two candidates, only a small percentage of people are likely to vote differently because of their sentiments with respect to abortion.
What does that mean for 2024?
At the moment, there seems to be as much as a quarter of the electorate that leans Republican but is prepared to vote for the preservation of abortion if they have no countervailing issue preferences. In general elections, however, there are always countervailing issue preferences.
In short, the issue is probably not going to save President Biden, nor is it likely to help former President Donald Trump, who has already taken a few shuffling steps away from the pro-life movement. At the moment, it is also difficult to identify a single competitive statewide race (Montana? Pennsylvania?) where access to abortion will make a material difference in the outcome.
The one race where it might make a difference is the coming Republican caucuses in Iowa. In that race, Gov. Ron DeSantis has been endorsed by both the popular pro-life governor, Kim Reynolds, and the influential religious leader Bob Vander Plaats. A key part of their pitch to the intensely pro-life Republicans in Iowa has been Mr. DeSantis’ sturdy pro-life credentials compared to Mr. Trump’s halting attempts to find the right place to land on the issue.
After being a dependable ally on the issue, Mr. Trump described the six-week limit imposed in Florida as a “terrible thing and a terrible mistake.”
Even if that description was an assessment of the political wisdom of the limit, it still deserves some scrutiny, especially since it was offered by a candidate who, within living memory, has supported access to abortion more or less without restrictions.
It would be ironic if the first political loss directly attributable to the Dobbs decision were absorbed by the man who appointed three of the justices who made it possible.
• Michael McKenna is a contributing editor at the Washington Times and was previously a deputy assistant for legislative affairs for President Trump.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.