Abortion is the deliberate ending of a pregnancy somewhere along the path between conception and birth, and it has been the subject of controversy for at least half a century, if not longer. In the United States, the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v Wade (1973) took the issue out of the hands of the several states and declared a constitutional right to abortion, the Court undoubtedly assuming that it had settled the issue for good. That proved to be a severe miscalculation because the ruling sparked an acrimonious division between those styling themselves pro-choice and pro-life. Pro-choicers argued that a woman has a right to her own bodily integrity and that this right includes the personal decision to end a pregnancy. Pro-lifers, to the contrary, argued that the foetus growing in the womb is a person who deserves to live and not merely a mass of tissue to be disposed of at will.
For a time, it seemed that the pro-life position had a demographic advantage. The argument went something like this:
Pro-lifers and pro-choicers represent two divergent subcultures. Pro-choicers are less likely to be religiously observant and generally have fewer children. They disproportionately inhabit the large urban centres where most abortion clinics are located. They are less persuaded by arguments that the unborn child is a human being worthy of protection and have a (religious!) belief in individual autonomy. Many pro-choicers do not even bother to marry and are content to live in childless relationships with members of the opposite sex.
Pro-lifers, on the other hand, tend to be more religiously observant, marry, and have greater numbers of children. They are more likely to live outside the major metropolitan areas in middle-sized communities, smaller towns, and rural regions. They are convinced that the unborn child is indeed a human being, created in the image of God, and embrace what Thomas Sowell has called a constrained vision, namely, the recognition that we live within limits and that autonomy is a dangerous illusion tempting us to assume godlike ambitions. Because this second subculture is pro-natalist and is more committed to reproducing the next generation, they will inherit the earth by dint of superior numbers. Pro-choicers will gradually fade away, as their share of the population diminishes with the passing of time.
Under this narrative, the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v Wade in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) should have sparked general rejoicing with pro-life majorities, reaffirming the right to life in state after state where the opportunity to do so arose. But this, of course, is not what has happened. In reality, wherever the issue has been on the ballot, as in Kansas, California, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, Vermont, and, most recently, Ohio, majorities have favoured abortion rights. Where abortion has not been on the ballot, the issue has aided Democrats against Republicans in key races. Writing for Forbes, Alison Durkee pointed out a surprising fact:
A Politico analysis of counties in Ohio found support for the state’s abortion ballot measure was an average of 10% higher than support for President Joe Biden in 2020 in counties that Biden lost. That suggests turnout for the ballot measure was actually driven by voters in right-leaning counties that favored former President Donald Trump. Ballot measures may thus be particularly useful for shoring up abortion rights in red and purple states, Politico notes, where voters who may not want to support Democratic candidates will nevertheless vote in favor of abortion rights.
In other words, it is wrong to assume that inhabitants of the so-called red states, that is, those dominated by the Republican Party, are necessarily pro-life on abortion. Why? Where did the demographic reasoning go astray? I believe there are at least four factors.
First, it is easy to pick on the media, and I don’t wish to fall into the trap of blaming the press when things happen with which many of us disagree. The producers of news programmes, the editors of the major print dailies and their electronic counterparts, and reporters on the ground try their best to maintain a certain posture of impartiality in communicating the news to their readers, listeners, and viewers. In covering the current conflict between Israel and Hamas, the PBS Newshour, which my wife and I watch regularly, has done a fairly good job of balancing the concerns of Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs.
However, even balanced reporting necessarily occurs within the larger context of a worldview that distinguishes between the acceptable and the unacceptable, between the central and the peripheral. In particular, we will rarely see anyone in the mainstream media question the basic assumptions of expressive individualism, or what I have called the choice-enhancement state. Thus, pro-lifers are always called anti-abortion, that very label focussing on the negative. Legislative efforts to limit the abortion license will have the media disproportionately interviewing women adversely affected by these, but, with few exceptions, not women who are pro-life. Voters who watch such programmes cannot help but be affected by what they see and the way such issues are portrayed. In short, they unconsciously imbibe the worldview of the information providers.
Second, it is a mistake to assume that residents of so-called red states, with their higher rates of church attendance and claimed adherence to traditional values, are immune to the blandishments of the prevailing political illusions. They may correctly see through the pretensions of socialism and (to some extent) expressive individualism, but they may too easily accept possessive individualism and outright nationalism, making them blind to their distortions. Peter Berger once observed that, if Sweden is the most secular country on earth and India is the most religious, America is a nation of Indians ruled by Swedes. This saying is appealing to those who prefer to think that their troubles can be attributed to unaccountable elites who are out of tune with the people they lead.
Yet this attitude fails to account for the complexities of human nature and draws too drastic a line between leaders and led, much as Marxists persist in positing a facile cleavage between oppressors and oppressed when in reality, each of us is both oppressor and oppressed, depending on the constantly shifting circumstances in which we find ourselves. George Bernard Shaw’s wry observation is closer to the truth: “Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.” Leaders and led are inextricably connected with each other, and the gap between their respective worldviews is less than some would prefer to believe.
Third, not only blue-state people but also red-state people have become accustomed over the past five or six decades to viewing sexual activity as a right to be protected against its natural consequences. This is the upshot of the choice-enhancement state. The right to choose is a good, full stop. Moreover, we have come to think of it as the supreme good, with any limits to our choices regarded as oppressive, even if they are rooted in our very nature and the limits intrinsic to it. Those who have become accustomed to viewing abortion as a backup guarantee against the natural consequences of sexual intercourse respond with alarm and dismay to this option being taken away. This explains, in large measure, the pro-choice majorities in the several states. It is one thing for a court to reverse a badly argued decision; it is another for people to adjust to an abrupt change in the legal regime. This suggests that protecting the lives of the unborn must be preceded by a change of heart in the larger culture—a change prompting people to recognize the humanity of the unborn. Given the strength of expressive individualism, this will not come quickly and easily.
Fourth and finally, the pro-life cause has been damaged at the polls by those states that have moved, in the wake of Dobbs, to prohibit abortion under all circumstances. While I am pro-life with respect to abortion, both in principle and for deep personal reasons, the law needs to be framed very carefully to account for situations arising in extremity. In some states, abortion bans have left physicians reluctant even to provide ordinary obstetrical care to expectant mothers for fear of running afoul of the law. That such unintended negative consequences can follow the best of intentions has inadvertently aided the pro-choice cause, thereby contributing to the poll results we’ve seen in Ohio and elsewhere.
The pro-life cause will best be aided by recognizing that zeal needs to be tempered with a large measure of wisdom and that changing the law will not by itself change a culture that has been so affected by the sexual revolution and expressive individualism.
