Pastor Note #135: A Pro-Life Voter Votes Democrat

A Pro-life Voter Votes Democrat

Why would a pro-life voter vote for Democrats?  I’ll explain.  The Republican Party portrays itself as the “pro-life” party.  I would note, however, that the term “pro-life” never appears in the Republican Party’s official 2024 platform.  But in the section of the platform that addresses the issue of abortion, we find this statement:  “We proudly stand for families and Life.”[1]  And that does come pretty close.  The word abortion appears only once in the platform in a sentence expressing the party’s opposition to “late-term abortions.”[2]

In spite of the fact that the platform has relatively little to say on the topic of abortion, I do think it’s fair to characterize the Republican Party as “pro-life.”  It is pretty much impossible for a Republican candidate to win a Republican primary without declaring themselves to be “pro-life.”

For me, however, labels are less important than outcomes.  In other words, claiming to be “pro-life” is less important than whether a candidate will pursue policies that will reduce the number of abortions in America.  So, what policies do the Republican Party and its candidates propose for reducing abortions in America?

As far as I can see, the Republican Party and its candidates rely pretty much on one thing:  criminalization.  They seem to see laws banning abortion as their only policy for reducing abortions in America.  That’s what the platform is referring to in this statement: “the States are, therefore, free to pass Laws protecting [the] right” to Life[3].   Since the Dobbs decision of the Supreme Court, that approach is what we see played out in such states as Texas, Florida, Louisiana, and more than twenty others.  The laws that Republican governors and legislatures have put in place to reduce abortions rely almost exclusively on the imposition of criminal and civil penalties on those who pursue and/or on those who perform abortions.

So, to sum up, the Republican Party and its candidates typically operate under the banner of “pro-life” and propose criminal laws as their primary (only?) policy for reducing abortions in America.  How well does that work?

All the available data that I can find seem to show that criminalization has little effect toward reducing abortions.  Since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision in June 2022, some 26 states have passed laws restricting abortion and imposing criminal and civil penalties on abortion providers and on women seeking abortions.  In other words, in half of the jurisdictions in America, it is illegal to provide abortions in most or all cases.  And yet, in spite of that fact, all available data indicate that the number of abortions in America has increased since the Dobbs decision.[4]  That seems to me to be a strong indication that criminalization is an ineffective way to reduce abortion in America, because clearly that has not been the result.

The historical data seem to suggest the same conclusion.  Between 1990 and 2017[5], the number of abortions in America decreased steadily[6].  And yet, during those years, abortion was legal everywhere in the United States.  We can celebrate that decrease in abortions, but we cannot attribute the decrease to legal restrictions.  Criminalization did not produce that dramatic decrease in abortions.  Something else did.  What?

I believe it was improvements in and expansion of social welfare programs.  If we look at the reasons women give for seeking an abortion, we find that a very high percentage point to socio-economic reasons.  One study[7] published in December 2023 found that the reasons for seeking an abortion were complex, but a very high percentage of those seeking abortions said they did so because they felt financially unable to provide for or support the baby.  Even some of the seemingly non-financial reasons had economic reasons below the surface.  For example, 31% of respondents pointed to “partner-related reasons.”  In other words, their partner was for some reason opposed to the pregnancy.  To risk losing a husband or domestic partner represents not merely the risk of losing emotional support.  It very often represents the risk of losing financial stability as well.  Another 29% cited being overwhelmed and overextended by the responsibilities of caring for other children.  Again, this overextension would be in many cases not just emotional overextension but also financial overextension.

A robust social service support system would not address all reasons women seek abortions, but it would address many of the socio-economic drivers of abortion in America.  It shouldn’t require a lot of empathetic imagination to understand how that works.  Put yourself in the shoes of a woman in stressed economic, social, and/or vocational circumstances who finds herself pregnant.  What might alleviate some of those stressors?  Might it not be such things as the availability of affordable, subsidized childcare, Medicaid benefits that make pre- and post-natal care for child and mother more accessible and affordable, an increased availability of maternity leave, which at least guarantees a job and sometimes a partial salary?  Also, I think, the increasing sensitivity on the part of employers and educational institutions to the needs of single mothers has helped create a downward trend in the number of abortions in America.  This is just a sampling of the kinds of policies that, I’m convinced, contributed to the decline in abortion numbers that we see between 1990 and 2017.

It is precisely these sorts of social service supports that Republicans in government have generally and often strongly opposed and that Democrats have generally supported.  So, Republicans, who claim to be pro-life, primarily offer criminalization, which shows no actual evidence of being an effective means for reducing abortions, and the Democrats, who claim to be pro-choice, offer a social program, which seems to be a significant factor in reducing the number of abortions in America.

And that’s why I, a pro-life voter, have generally voted for Democrats and will certainly be voting for Democratic candidates this year.  I believe that is the best way to continue to reduce abortions in America

---

[1]  Chapter 4, section 4; https://www.2024gopplatform.com/assets/files/RNC2024-Platform.pdf, access 10/8/2024.

[2] I would note that only about 1% of abortions in America take place after 20 weeks of gestation.  Ninety-three percent take place in the first trimester.  https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/25/what-the-data-says-about-abortion-in-the-us/#when-during-pregnancy-do-most-abortions-occur, accessed October 10, 2024.

[3] Again, see Chapter 4, section 4; https://www.2024gopplatform.com/assets/files/RNC2024-Platform.pdf, access 10/8/2024.

[4] “Abortions hit highest number in over a decade after fall of Roe v. Wade”, America: The Jesuit Review, March 22, 2024, https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2024/03/22/abortion-post-dobbs-guttmacher-institute-study-247561, accessed October 10, 2024.

[5] Prior to 1973, abortion was illegal or restricted in much of the United States.  Of course, it is widely understood that abortions were still being performed in most parts of America.  However, because they were illegal in many places, they were typically not reported.  Therefore, it is impossible to know with certainty how many abortions were being performed in America before the Roe decision.  So, all we can say about the abortion rate immediately following the Roe decision is that the number of reported abortions increased dramatically.  How much the number of actual abortions increased, if at all, we cannot really know.

[6] https://www.statista.com/statistics/185274/number-of-legal-abortions-in-the-us-since-2000/, accessed October 10, 2024.

[7] “What are the different reasons to have an abortion?”, Medical News Today; https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/reasons-for-abortions#reasons-for-abortion, accessed October 10, 2024.

© 2024 Gary A. Chorpenning

Photos by GAC