First, the difficult truth for pro-lifers is that after the overdue fall of Roe, which was bad law from word one, voters have generally identified as more pro-choice on the issue. While the national Democratic Party's radical position on the issue remains broadly unpopular, the growing plurality position in the country is that abortion should be mostly or sometimes legal, with a smaller share saying the practice should be mostly illegal. The 'purist' pro-life position is fractional, held by an even smaller segment of the electorate than the most gruesome pro-abortion stance. Popularity does not equate to moral or ethical correctness, and polling should not dictate values, but public opinion matters a lot when it comes to winning elections and shaping public policy.
The abortion movement, funded very heavily -- including by foreign money -- has been successful at getting amendments onto state ballots, then flooding the zone on advertising. Their marketing has been deeply deceptive, framing the abortion question in the most favorable terms (highlighting sympathetic and rare cases that would almost always be covered by exceptions supported by many pro-lifers), and leaving the distinct impression that the referenda would simply prevent total bans from going into effect. Faced with an apparent choice between sweeping bans, and perhaps overreaching a bit while blocking said bans, voters have opted for the former. They've done so in red states like Ohio and Kansas. They've been on an uninterrupted winning streak in the aftermath of Dobbs. And while they enjoyed more success in this week's elections, their undefeated record was finally disrupted in several states.
The most prominent pro-life victory on this front was in Florida, where supporters of Amendment Four ran the same playbook as they have elsewhere. They sell their idea as a moderate enshrinement of some legalized abortion, but the fine print is much more extreme. They yet again overwhelmed their opposition, in terms of funding. But Florida, sensibly, doesn't change its constitution based on a bare majority vote of a single year's electorate. The state requires a 60 percent threshold. With some polling showing Amendment Four in the ballpark of being able to pass, Gov. Ron DeSantis leaned in. He displayed leadership. He made an aggressive, factual argument against the measure, and quite a few Republicans followed his lead. He pressed his case, and the 'no' side was able to prevail. Florida looked blood red in this election, with Donald Trump, Rick Scott and others dramatically over-performing polling, so that helped. Pro-lifers defeated the amendment, despite the imbalance in spending and the tested messaging strategy of the other side:
With polls now closed in Florida —
— Ron DeSantis (@GovRonDeSantis) November 6, 2024
Amendment 3 has failed.
Amendment 4 has failed.
Meanwhile, in Nebraska, where a Republican incumbent Senator fairly narrowly staved off an independent challenge, and a moderate Republican survived in a closely-watched district carried by Kamala Harris, abortion was on the ballot -- twice. Competing abortion measures were put before voters, as the pro-life side decided to get more proactive. Result:
...interestingly, it looks like there was some crossover support for *both* measures, illustrating how complicated the politics of this issue can be. A lot of voters are fairly moderate on it. They don't want sweeping bans, but they also support common-sense limitations.
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) November 7, 2024
Nebraska voters approved a ballot measure enshrining current abortion restrictions in the state's constitution, NBC News projects, a setback for reproductive rights advocates in the red state. Unlike most states where the abortion issue was put directly before voters this year, the Nebraska ballot pitted two competing abortion measures against each other. One amendment, known as “Protect Our Rights,” proposed expanding abortion access to the point of fetal viability, generally considered to be around the 24th week of pregnancy. The other, called “Protect Women and Children,” which sought to codify the state’s 12-week ban in the constitution while keeping the door open for additional restrictions. The amendment to codify the current abortion restrictions was receiving 55% support with 92% of the vote in, while the measure to add constitutional protections for abortion received 49% support.
And in South Dakota, a tiered amendment to expand abortion in the state failed decisively, getting voted down by what ended up being a 19-point margin:
Amendment G, a ballot measure establishing the right to abortion and outlining a legal framework for regulating abortions, will not be enshrined into the South Dakota Constitution. Multiple media outlets, including the Associated Press, called the race Tuesday night into Wednesday morning with 67% of all votes counted...Amendment G would have allowed pregnant women to obtain an abortion through the first trimester, or first three months of pregnancy. The state would not be allowed to implement regulations on "a pregnant woman's abortion decision" nor on the carrying out of an abortion during this stage of pregnancy...The state would have been allowed to impose limited regulations on abortion during the second trimester, but "only in ways that are reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman." The state would have been allowed to regulate or prohibit abortions in the third trimester, except if the life and health of the mother is threatened... "[The opposition] had a stronger message, but it was through overwhelming misinformation."
As usual, 'heart of the mother' is the slippery verbiage that sounds reasonable to people, but actually opens the door wide open for essentially unregulated abortion-on-demand, even late in pregnancy. Opponents said this was too extreme, and South Dakota voters lopsidedly agreed. And of course upporters of the change blamed their loss on "misinformation." Abortion rights amendments succeeded in several other states this week, but the cascade of losses for the pro-life side was interrupted in significant ways in the three places mentioned above. South Dakota offers an example of a very pro-life state asserting its beliefs and rejecting an abortion template that has succeeded elsewhere. Florida offers an example of gubernatorial leadership and taking advantage of the system to shoot down a misleading push that goes too far. And Nebraska offers an instance of pro-lifers moving from pure defense, onto limited and strategic offense. All states that have voted on this thorny issue -- in both directions -- represent a post-Roe era in which people and representatives are deciding, state by state, how their values should be reflected in law, rather than imposed by a handful of judges from on high.
