Yves here. While many women are legitimately upset about the loss of abortion rights under Roe v.Wade, it’s pretty disingenuous to depict the Democrats as stauncher defenders of abortion rights. Like “fighting” for workers when the Dems presided over an erosion of organizing rights (which could have been bolstered by legislation) and perilous little effort on raising minimum wages, there’s been a long and marked gap between Democratic party virtual signaling and action on the abortion front.
Let’s start with an issue this article skips over: that by pushing ballot initiatives on the state level, the Dems look not even to be considering national abortion legislation. Yet in Europe, most states that provide for abortions have made these protections a matter of law. The Democrats did nothing to secure abortion right when it would have been politically uncontroversial, in the era of peak feminism, the 1970s, or at the start of Obama’s first term, when the desperation over the financial crisis and the filibuster-proof majority gave him a once-in-century opportunity to pass all sorts of sweeping reforms, not just related to finance. He punted instead.
Mind you, feminist activists in the 1970s were just as culpable. They focused on the sure to be unattainable Equal Right amendment, rather than securiting the most important elements, equal pay for equal work, and solid abortion rights, which could have been done much more easily via new laws. But then what would happen to all those donations when the “fight” was won?
Another ground for criticizing Dems and disingenuous feminists is the packing of the Federal bench with conservatives. Where were feminists when the Dems supported these appointments, which they did in the overwhelming majority of cases? I don’t recall a peep about this, even though the clear intent was to advance a whole host of right-wing agenda items, including on “the right to life”. So even though Trump fell in with the anti-abortion types after being pro-abortion before he won the Republican nomination in 2016, it’s misleading to depict the loss of Federal abortion rights yet another Hair Furore evil. This change came about as a result of a decades-spanning campaign.
And for families struggling to make their money last to the next paycheck, or choosing between paying the rent or for gas, abortion rights are a comparative luxury. Poverty rose markedly under Biden, and voters made clear that the economy and immigration (which is perceived to affect pay rates and the cost of rental housing in communities with a noticable increase) were their top issues.
By Susan Varney, previously a senior correspondent for KFF Health News. Originally published at KFF Health News
Voters in three states — Arizona, Missouri, and Nevada — chose on Tuesday to advance protections for abortion rights in their state constitutions. Donald Trump, meanwhile, is likely to win all three states in his victorious bid for the White House.
It’s a conundrum for Democrats, who expected ballot initiatives on abortion rights in those states to boost the prospects of their candidates, including Vice President Kamala Harris. But data from VoteCast, a large survey of U.S. voters conducted by The Associated Press and partners including KFF, found that about 3 in 10 voters in Arizona, Missouri, and Nevada who supported the abortion rights measures also voted for Trump.
“We saw lots of people who voted in favor of abortion access and still voted for Donald Trump,” said Liz Hamel, director of Public Opinion and Survey Research for KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.
VoteCast is a survey of more than 115,000 registered voters in all 50 states conducted between Oct. 28 and Nov. 5. It’s intended to be “the most accurate picture possible of who has voted, and why,” according to the AP.
About 1 in 4 of the polled voters said abortion was the “single most important” factor to their vote, though that number was higher among Democrats, young women, Black adults, and Hispanic adults.
Abortion rights referendums passed in seven states on Tuesday, including Missouri and Arizona, where state bans were overturned. Vice President Kamala Harris made reproductive rights a cornerstone of her campaign, but the VoteCast results reinforce earlier surveys that indicated economic concerns were the foremost issue in the election.
Tuesday’s was the first presidential election since the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority overturned Roe v. Wade. During Trump’s first term as president, he nominated three Supreme Court justices who later joined the 2022 ruling that eliminated women’s constitutional right to abortion care.
Mike Islami, 20, voted for Trump in Madison, Wisconsin, where he’s a full-time student. He said abortion is “a woman’s right” that “was definitely in the back of my mind” when he cast his ballot.
“I don’t think much is going to change” about abortion access during Trump’s second term, he said. “I believe his policy is that he’s just going to give it back to the states and from there they could decide how important it was.”
The survey found that the percentage of voters who said abortion was the most important factor in their vote was similar in states that had abortion measures on the ballot and states without them.
When voters cast their ballots, they were more motivated by economic anxiety and the cost of filling up their gas tanks, housing, and food, according to the survey results. Trump won those voters as much in hotly contested states such as Pennsylvania and Wisconsin as in reliably red states.
Glen Bolger, a Republican campaign strategist, said the 2022 election results demonstrated that Republican candidates are better off talking about the economy and the cost of living than they are about abortion.
This year, Trump voters who supported abortion rights amendments may have decided to take Trump “at his word that he was not going to support a national ban,” Bolger said. In casting their vote for Trump, he said, those supporters may have thought, “Let’s elect him to deal with the cost of living and health care and gasoline and everything else.”
The VoteCast survey found stronger support for abortion ballot initiatives from female voters: 72% of women in Nevada, 69% in Arizona, 62% in Missouri.
Erica Wallace, 39, of Miami, voted for Harris and in favor of an abortion rights ballot measure in Florida, which fell just short of the 60% threshold needed to amend the state constitution.
“As a grown woman, you’re out and you’re working, living your life,” said Wallace, an executive secretary who lives in Miami. She said the state’s ban, which criminalizes abortion care before many women know they’re pregnant, amounts to unequal treatment for women.
“I pay my taxes. I live good,” she said. “I’m doing everything every other citizen does.”
Men were more likely to vote against protecting abortion rights. Men voted 67% in Nevada, 64% in Arizona, and 55% in Missouri for the abortion rights ballot initiatives.
The VoteCast survey found that, overall, voters believed Harris was better able to handle health care. That is consistent with the long-standing view that “Democrats traditionally have the advantage on health care,” Hamel said. Still, Trump outperformed Harris among more than half of voters who said they were very concerned about health care costs.
Family premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance rose 7% in 2024 to an average of $25,572 annually, according to KFF’s 2024 Employer Health Benefits Survey. On average, workers contribute $6,296 annually to the cost of family coverage.
“Everybody is impacted by high health-care costs, and nobody has a solution to it,” Bolger said. “That’s something voters are very frustrated about.”
Florence Robbins in Madison, Wisconsin, and Denise Hruby in Miami contributed to this report.
34 comments
Comments are closed.
To think it took a Constitutional Amendment to institute Prohibition and another to repeal it. How quaint, but that’s how the operating manual of the nation works, including the 10th Amendment – any powers not listed are reserved for the states or the people.
Mike Islami in the article gets it.
“A conundrum for Democrats..?” The DP has been the party of its donor class for quite a while but even more so since 2016. Unfortunately, donor interests are usually at odds with the the substantive interests of the public. The end result is that through a constant flurry of virtue signaling, demonizing the other, and narrative control supported by the MSM, little of actual substance is done by the DP (no doubt true for the GOP as well) for the public.
So what is the conundrum? The DP dangles issues of interest in front of its base and the public in order to herd them into voting for the DP which in turn has no intention of doing anything for them, and doesn’t. Basically, their election strategy is to have people vote for them based on false pretenses. This time, the public did not fall for it.
Sounds like a pretty phony conundrum to me.
A slight correction – there was no way any abortion rights legislation was getting passed with Obama. Back then Dems at least semi-welcomed pro-life reps into the party. Recall the whole Stupak affair? ACA was barely passed because of Dem pro-lifer concerns in the House that required Obama promises. A few Senators also made pro-lifer noises (Casey), though I never believed them.
Would Casey say no to a trip to the White House?
Would Casey say no after Obama mentions all those bright young democrats he could endorse?
Obama moved on Rangel and failed over cyncical reasons, but Obama never played the game. He never lobbied for positive reasons. LBJ told reluctant Dim congress critters how to vote while sitting on the can letting them know they would be ostracized.
ACA was ACA starting with Obama going back on policies he ran and dominated on. He just didn’t want to do anything other than bail out insurers.
I concur. Roe did not get codified because Obama did no want to or did not care to. End of story.
Eh, I agree on Casey. He’s always struck me as a go-along kind of guy. My point was more about the Stupak 12: they were explicitly recruited and welcomed by Rahm as pro-life to make the tent bigger. It’s one thing for a rep to compromise on the many secondary things that come up. But for those 12, it was one of their primary messages of their campaign.
Beyond correcting the record, my more subtle point was that this is what class-based politics looks like. There are typically non-econ trade-offs like this somewhere. That crowd was on board with normal D econ policy (which … I know, but they weren’t on board w R extremes), but reassured that their culture concerns would be respected.
To me, a big part of the Clinton shift (minus this Rahm interlude) was a conscious welcome of socially liberal suburbans in exchange for neo liberal economics, finishing off the exile of more socially conservative New Dealer types.
But Rahm ushered all of those Pro-life Democrats into the tent precisely because Obama didn’t want to “spend his political capital” on abortion, and the pro-lifers gave Obama cover to ignore the issue.
Fair enough. I guess always about trade-offs, vs kicking people out of the tent. Some trade-offs better than others.
There is value in bringing something to a vote, and then having the results published for all to see. Dems don’t even take that meager step, for abortion or any other thing.
Dems ran a new statehouse candidate in my state. One of the pitches was said candidate would fight (fighting for you, ha) to keep choice legal in my state, Idiots. The voters here insured that over 2 years a ago in a statewide vote. I watched the candidate’s campaign ads and thought ‘what is he talking about?’ It’s a moot point in my state. Said candidate lost his election. This is a GOP state. Same thing happened in Ohio. Happened again this year is many other states.
We will get a national ban on abortion. Turning things over to the states is like term limits – a political tool to be used and then dropped as fits the overall political goal of ever increasing power.
Who is ‘we?’ Women should individually decide and not men. After all, they are the ones risking their own lives and health during pregnancy and birth.
That depends–those who oppose abortion say that the organism that is developing to be born is an individual and thus has the right to live. This is an issue for metaphysics the one part of Western tradition that studiously avoided by everyone in the USA. Thinking deeply is a mortal sin in our country and seems to have become so in Europe as well. Personally, I tend to agree with you.
Well, if women all formed and joined a Womens’ Party to Make It So legally, then “should” would become “would”.
Till then, it won’t.
Every vote is a bullet on the battlefield of electoral combat.
Every vote is a Nerf bullet on the adult playground battlefield of electoral combat.
Making Shit Up is a violation of our written site Policies.
There is no evidence for that. Trump personally is pro choice but has to pander to evangelicals in one of his many erratic courses of behavior. The evangelicals do not have the votes.
If the Gilead Republicans could actually really truly somehow get a National Abortion Ban, they would discover that they had become the ” dog who caught the skunk”. The ensuing political hilarity would take years to play out, but play out it would.
There is no evidence for that. Trump personally is pro choice but has to pander to evangelicals. The evangelicals do not have the votes.
My wife and I have said this for years. Trump needed evangelical voters and now he can tell them to pound sand. They lost their main issue. Evangelicals are forced to turn their focus on state issues BUT
I have a lot of common ground with Evangelicals and that is in the the MAHA movement.
Despite being in the Midwest I am not familiar with evangelical voters engaging over abortion. Every anti-abortion activist/clinic protester I have ever dealt with was Catholic. My experiences, however, have always been in urban settings. It may be on their checklist but rural evangelicals I meet in farm country seem more focused on getting government out of their lives, not in giving government still more authority.
Evangelical kids — even those who stay within the faith — are not their parents. And in all evangelical generations there have always been those who don’t vote (a group that also includes Amish, Mennonites, some Mormons, etc.). Trump reached out to evangelicals and the horse-drawn crowd, not just asking them to vote for him, but asking them to vote, period.
Health is a very big issue with religious conservatives but they have the small town advantage in this regard. In a small town, people see who eats fast food and who’s overweight. The connection is, to local observers, incredibly obvious. Once you’ve twigged to fast good as a culprit, you start to lose trust in Big Pharma (“simple” rural folks talk about meds even more than city folk, in my experience). Note: small towns without fast food have bars that serve food that makes fast food look healthy.
Trump understands rural evangelicals, Democrats with their national top>down campaigns have plenty of people (like Phenix) who live in evangelical country and understand their neighbors. The DNC NEVER talks to people in the trenches who get their GOTV instructions from leaflets dropped from consultant planes high over the battleground.
And add to this, his chief of staff is a moderate Episcopalian. I doubt she is going to prioritize abortion bans. I recall in a talk he did several months ago, (wish I had bookmarked it) that he wanted to find a reasonable compromise on abortion and once and for all remove it from politics.
Seems like a topic he might try kicking the can down the road. JD can pick it up for his run in 4 years?
Political minutes and micro-history of fight over abortion aside – it is simply mind-boggling that in the year 2024 the US still is discussing this as a question that has yet to be answered. Abortion rights have to be enshrined in the Constitution forever. Simple as that.
It´s scandalous enough that Germany e.g. is still incapable of banning Art. 218 completely and allow abortion without any idiotic restrictions.
It should be obvious to understand that an abortion in itself is “punishment” enough for any woman and father/family involved. You dont´t just do an abortion like smoke a cigar.
So even if it were guaranteed civil right the act itself poses a major challenge. Only delusion caused by ideological deformations can cause people not to see this.
And squander abortion rights on some bullshit political strategy by the Party is a shame of historic proportions. And will refrain from commenting on the other Uniparty on this issue.
The bar for getting a Constitutional Amendment passed is extremely high. It was not a realistic idea even in Peak Feminism. Legislation will do.
>”bar for getting a Constitutional Amendment passed is extremely high”
Yes, I have learned that by now.
And as I said being in Europe I shouldn´t be throwing stones. France introduced a law – just as I suggested for the US – as late as this very year.
Spain, Italy are stuck somewhere in a time loop. And then you have the Dutch of course.
fun fact: USSR legalized abortion between 1920-1936! To then criminalize it for some time.
According to Wiki abortion in the UK was legal until 1803!
Which makes space for an argument over capitalism promoting abortion bans.
Don´t know about Pacific and Asia.
edit: “I will refrain”
Sorry for being so upset.
Where are the libertarians? “I don’t want the god-damned gubment interfering in my private life”. They spoke up against mandated vaccines, but silent on this one. Double standards and hypocrisy? Liberty for me, but not for thee.
If I were cynical, I might think that the Ds and Rs NEED this emotional wedge issue to maintain the illusion of choice and distract/divide the proles. There is no incentive to resolve the issue, so the Ds talk from both sides of the mouth as usual.
Meanwhile, the US still does not have a modern, comprehensive health care system. There is a serious health care crisis, elder care crisis, and even vet care crisis, yet I don’t hear the MassMedia cartel or politricksters talking about any of it.
The Israelis have methods for forced abortion in Gaza I hear. “One shot, two kills”
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2009/03/23/israeli-soldiers-t-shirts-depict-shooting-arabs/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israeli-t-shirts-joke-about-killing-arabs/
Yes, I have reluctantly come to agree with my wife that the hypocrisy with regard to abortion is much more about the control of woman. With me, it’s always been how can you claim to be “pro-life” and then support this nightmare of a healthcare insurance system?
But the Democrats trying to run on fixing problems when they have, as Yves points out, a multi decade long track record of not fixing them? As even the not the sharpest tool in the shed Sara Palin pointed out:
Sarah Palin: “How’s That Hopey-Changey Stuff Working Out For Ya?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y02iZcTjHo
The reality is that everybody now knows the Democrats campaign as if they are the second coming of FDR, and then govern to the right of Ronald Reagan. Good luck with that.
If some people were to create a Party to be overtly called the New Deal Revival Party or New Deal Restoration Party or some such thing, running on reviving or restoring the New Deal, they might find themselves with an opportunity to run wild in the power vacuum of the Democrats’ hopeless bullsh!t ( to paraphrase Hunter S. Thompson from another context).
They could even use FDR’s portrait as their Party Symbol and dare the Democratic Party to sue them over it.
( I read once that decades ago, the creators of Rocky and Bullwinkle crafted a set of episodes involving a magical hat called the Kerwood Derby, a play on the name of one of the two co-presenters of the original Candid Camera whose name was Durward Kirby. He and Candid Camera threatened to sue Jay Ward over the Kerwood Derby and Jay Ward replied back to the lawyers ” please sue us! We need the publicity!” So Candid Camera and Durward Kirby quietly dropped their lawsuit plans.
Here is a wikipage about Durward Kirby.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durward_Kirby
I pity anyone who believes what comes out of Trump’s mouth.
The next four years are going to be a circus.
True, but at least the DT is more freakishly entertaining than KH, she’s so phony and boring. The bread and circuses are necessary to distract the proles.
It would appear that many Abortion Rights voters have decided that the Democratic Party is damage, and have learned how to route around it.
The only thing which could make Illinois more welcoming to abortion is if the governor comped the tolls from those driving in on I-294, I-90 and I-88 from Wisconsin, Indiana and Iowa.
The abortion issue had been essentially settled by Roe vs. Wade, as it has been in virtually all western countries. Abortion on demand when the fetus is just a cell or a few cells and looks like a soap bubble or maybe a fried egg. Restrictions on abortion later when the fetus looks and acts like a baby. If you ask most people specifically, that’s what they support.
The repeal of Roe v. Wade was a political act, designed to rile up the proles on an issue the super rich just don’t care about. OF COURSE the Democrats don’t want national legislation, that would re-settle the issue and remove a weapon they can use against (nominal) populists. We have been fed the false narrative that the only two sides are that abortion at any age – even in-vitro fertilization – is murder, and the other side that even the abortion of an eight month old pregnancy is essential to women’s rights. The issue has been polarized by massive propaganda to divide and conquer.
“Abortions at 8 months” don’t occur, unless the woman’s life is in danger. Furthermore, women don’t suddenly decide at 8 months that they don’t want to be pregnant. Something has gone wrong. In that event it would very likely be an emergent c-section delivery, if the fetus is viable. It seems to me that the anti-abortion folks never take the medical ethics committee at the hospital into any consideration, when they make their tired tropes. They just want to control women’s bodies.