Abortion Is Suddenly the Biggest Issue in the Presidential Election

Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died today, leaving the court with only three liberals. If Republicans successfully confirm a replacement, the court will have a 6-3 conservative majority that will almost certainly overturn Roe v. Wade and make abortions all but impossible to get for millions of women.Jeff Malet/Newscom via ZUMA

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Rarely have I been so close and yet so far away in a prediction. This was me yesterday:

Abortion May Be the Sleeper Issue of 2020

With the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg today, Republicans now have the opportunity to replace her with a nominee whose anti-abortion credentials are impeccable. This means that everything has changed and Roe v. Wade is no longer a sleeper. It’s now the primary issue of the 2020 election. If a new justice, as part of a 6-3 conservative majority, leads to Roe’s overturning, abortion will return to being a state issue and at least half of all states will probably ban it outright. Another dozen will likely put additional restrictions on it. Millions of women will find it all but impossible to get abortions if this happens.

(As an aside, liberals can complain all they want that Mitch McConnell would be a hypocrite for blocking a Supreme Court nomination during Barack Obama’s final year while allowing one during Donald Trump’s final year, but Mitch McConnell doesn’t care. He’s going to do it and that’s that. Still, liberals should complain anyway. Not only is it worthwhile to make McConnell look bad, but if it’s done right it’s even possible—barely—that it could persuade four Republican senators to block a nomination. The odds are long, but it’s worth a try.)

Obviously firm pro-life voters and firm pro-choice voters have already made up their minds about how to vote on abortion issues, but there are still plenty of voters in the middle and it’s genuinely unclear how to appeal to them. Consider the following:

  • Only about a third of Americans think abortion should be banned in all or most cases.
  • On the other hand, a majority believe abortion rules should be stricter.
  • About 60 percent want Roe v. Wade to stay on the books. Only about 30 percent want it overturned.

Republicans have a very fine line to walk on abortion. They’re going to be under considerable pressure to nominate a justice who will, at a minimum, flat-out overturn Roe v. Wade. In fact, social conservatives would ideally like to see Roe overturned and onerous restrictions placed on states at the same time. The nominee, of course, will go through the usual kabuki dance of swearing that they’ve barely even heard of Roe v. Wade, let alone formed an opinion about it, but that hardly matters. What matters, since everyone knows this is a charade, is what social conservatives say. If they go overboard on their demands, it could turn off a big chunk of voters.

Democrats have the same problem in reverse. If they stick to supporting Roe, everything is probably fine. But if they start yelling about declaring war on Republicans and packing the Supreme Court if Trump’s nominee is confirmed, that could turn off a big chunk of voters too.

For liberals, then, the best strategy is likely the following:

  • Behind the scenes, Democratic senators should quietly make it clear that confirmation of a Republican nominee does indeed mean war. But they should do it in a way that keeps it out of the public eye.
  • Publicly, Democrats should hold their noses and appeal to voters in the middle by talking about how abortion is a heart-rending decision, but one that should be left up to a woman and her doctor.
  • At the same time, Democrats should try to figure out a way to bait conservatives into going full lunatic over abortion. This would go a long way toward turning off a lot of people.

Does it make any sense that an election that a few hours ago seemed to be about everything at once has suddenly condensed into one that will probably end up being decided by 46 days of arguments about abortion above all else? Of course not. But that’s the situation we’re in. We have to deal with it.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate