Political issues by themselves are not winners and losers. Yet, since 2022, Republicans have lost on every single abortion initiative in every state, even in red states like Ohio and Kansas. Nationally, we are at a demographic disadvantage due to the 81 million unmarried women in the United States, the largest voting bloc. These women support Democrats at a rate of 2:1 and support abortion at an even higher rate. However, acknowledging our disadvantages does not require us to throw in the political towel. Abortion is one of the greatest moral evils propagated throughout our society, and as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, we have an obligation to stand for life.
Instead of being hopeless at our recent losses and abandoning the issue, perhaps as Republicans, we should reevaluate our message.
One question immediately comes to mind: Why haven’t pro-life groups mobilized their own ballot initiatives? By creating the initiative, you can word the question in advantageous ways. Take a look at the first paragraph of the Ohio abortion referendum. “The proposed amendment would: Establish in the Constitution of the State of Ohio an individual right to one’s own reproductive medical treatment, including but not limited to abortion…”
The left has successfully distracted abortion away from the primary issue of life and to the issue of bodily autonomy. Additionally, due to feminism, many subconsciously view a woman’s biology as an impediment to equality. Many factors work against us, and we must understand that we cannot win this issue with simple quips and soundbites.
That said, we must have some wins in the media through debate and discussion. In the days of the founding, written and oral arguments of rationalism were the primary medium, but within these arguments were strong emotional appeals. Despite our modern sensibilities, humans primarily make decisions based on gut feelings. This helps to explain why the average voter supports abortion in the first trimester, is mixed in the second, and is generally opposed in the third.
To begin with, we must not get caught in the weeds when we actively debate abortion. Whenever we are met with the common quip, “It’s about a woman’s right to choose,” our primary response should be, “To choose what?” This will lead the conversation in your direction. If you are explaining, you are losing the debate. Attacking the opponent’s position is debating 101, so defend concisely and attack on your terms. Changing the opponent’s mind will often be impractical in political and formal debates, so your purpose should be to persuade those on the fence.
While the most pro-life among us object to abortion even in cases of rape, when it comes to public debate, grant these extreme exceptions to get them off the debate stage; grant the exceptions of rape, incest, and of course, the life of the mother. Getting these complex cases off the table will give you an advantage in the discussion. Beyond these exceptions, you can then provide examples of your own. Bring up scenarios in which your opponent cannot defend their position, such as abortion beyond the stage of “viability.” If they support abortion in this case, ask why the mother could not give birth and the baby live. If they do not support abortion, ask why and then call them out on their prior hypocrisy in other scenarios. To win in the public eye requires portraying the opponent as extreme; the above tactics can influence the electorate in favor of the issue of life.
These tools are how to win personal and political debates, but how can we further these ideals into actual policy? The answer is simple: lift where you stand. While most of us would love to heavily restrict abortion nationwide, political action must often be accomplished in small steps. I call on legislators to create strategic plans to defend life and take what they can get in the current session. I would propose the following restriction in pro-choice states: Propose the idea that abortions cannot be performed based on the sex of the child. Appeal to the feminist impulses of your political opponents, just as the left has appealed to the impulse of a less intrusive government.
The left has had over 50 years to entrench abortion in the minds of the public, so be prepared for the current fight to last generations. The left succeeded by appointing judges friendly to their interpretations; the right must do the same. The Dobbs ruling is a sign that we can successfully appoint our political allies to positions of power. Ultimately, political power must choose to be wielded, and if we decide to run, we cannot have sustained success. To the libertarians, I understand the concern of using power, but we currently find ourselves in a prisoner’s dilemma. If we do not wield power for our just political ends, our opponents will wield power for their unjust political ends. Using power is a morally neutral act; how power is used will define the morality of politics.
Written by: Ian Farris
Senior Contributor at the Cougar Chronicle
The opinions in this article are those of the author.
The Cougar Chronicle is an independent student-run newspaper and is not affiliated with Brigham Young University or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
