The first Republican debate in Milwaukee is a make-or-break opportunity for candidates to distinguish themselves. America will be watching to see who is best qualified to lead the nation in the era after Dobbs, which struck down the federal right to abortion.
Anti-abortion voters in particular will be watching to see who is the strongest champion for the least among us. Unborn children deserve our protection; women of America deserve service and healing.
After a string of victories on ballot initiatives, most recently in Ohio, the pro-abortion rights left and their media allies have declared any stance against abortion to be a liability. This false narrative ignores a multitude of victories for limiting abortion in state legislatures, governors’ races and more. But there is a clear lesson for our side in these fights: It is imperative to go on offense and define the issues at stake, early and often, with a simple message.
Democrats have made it clear they are going to continue attacking Republicans on the abortion issue in hopes of sidelining and scaring them off. Their message testing instructs them to paint their opponents as seeking a “national ban” with no exceptions, and to avoid the important reality of the child’s development — such as her heartbeat at six weeks or her ability to feel pain by 15 weeks — also known as “science.”
Why would they not follow this playbook? They believe it helped them in the midterms. They are convinced it works. And when Republicans give weak answers — or worse, no answers — it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
But Republicans should not fear leaning in. In contrast to the Democrats’ extremism, they can have a position to embrace that is both popular and humane. What could be a more enviable job than defending innocent babies and standing with the overwhelming majority of the American people who want to protect them from pain?
There is much that candidates can communicate in this critical moment to appeal to hearts and minds, including evincing compassion for mothers in difficult situations. The goal must always be to fully embrace both. One concrete example that candidates can point to is Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Rep. Ashley Hinson’s (R-Iowa) comprehensive proposal to help women and families thrive with expanded child tax credits, child support during pregnancy, and more.
Vague answers are not going to suffice. Candidates know the abortion question is coming. It is crucial that they come prepared.
There are three major errors that weaker candidates make on this issue but stronger candidates avoid.
The first mistake is to disavow responsibility at the federal level. While half the states have put life-affirming protections into law, the other half have few or no protections for more than 600,000 babies aborted each year or their mothers. With the recent addition of Maine, seven states plus Washington, D.C., have no limits on abortion up to the moment of birth. State-level powers are essential, but leaders in Washington also must support our first freedom, the right to life, which our founders called “self-evident” and “unalienable.”
It makes no sense to leave a child’s life and mothers’ to the vagaries of geography. We need a national minimum standard that puts a stop to brutal late-term abortions — an overwhelmingly popular position — while ensuring that state lawmakers remain free to enact stronger protections in line with the consensus in their state.
Speaking of popular positions, another mistake is to say there is no consensus on abortion. Poll after poll (Marist, Harvard-Harris, Gallup, AP-NORC, NPR, Tarrance) shows that Americans agree abortion should be limited at least to the point when a baby can feel pain — that is, by 15 weeks. Most people would prefer laws like those in France and Germany, which limit elective abortion to 15 weeks into pregnancy or earlier, and less like China and North Korea, which have late-term abortion on demand well past the halfway point of pregnancy, when a child is already learning inside the womb to recognize mom’s voice.
It is the Democrats who are extreme in insisting on abortion anytime, anywhere, for any reason. They deny science, sonograms and sensibility.
The third big mistake is to say that nothing can be done because Congress doesn’t have the votes. Before the election, a presidential candidate who sets a fearless example inspires candidates down-ballot. After being elected, a leader’s job is to work tirelessly to gather those votes.
It took more than a decade of persistence to pass a federal law protecting babies from barbaric partial-birth abortions. Year after year, anti-abortion advocates “didn’t have the votes” — until one day they did. There are many pressing legislative issues that do not currently have the votes but deserve a hearing. Leaders don’t wait for someone else to believe in their cause and put in the effort of convincing others. If everyone took the approach of waiting, nothing would ever be accomplished.
The Dobbs decision was the greatest victory for life in half a century, freeing elected lawmakers to finally act on what they knew was the will of the people all along. But anti-abortion advocates recognize that we are only at the starting line.
America badly needs a national defender of life who will boldly advance this human rights cause into the next phase, with millions of lives at stake and millions of mothers in need. The debate will make it clear who truly understands the moment we are in.
Marjorie Dannenfelser is president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America.
