Some Rural Democrats See Political Hope After Dobbs

An issue that has long animated Republicans is now firing up centrist Democrats.

By
62

Lacy Watson, a Bluefield, West Virginia, native and a Democrat, has run for elected office in West Virginia three times—twice for delegate, and currently for the U.S. House of Representatives in the state’s 1st Congressional District. 

“Before Roe v. Wade was overturned,” he told The Dispatch, abortion “really never came up.” 

Before the June 24 Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that handed the power to regulate abortion back to elected officials, “maybe 5 percent” of Watson’s current congressional campaign was oriented around abortion access. After the decision, he said, the subject amounts to “95 percent of the comments I hear in my campaign, just regarding that one issue.” Now, he has people from all across the political spectrum coming up to him to discuss abortion.

“In my experience, it’s an issue that is often as distant as the abortion clinic itself” for rural Democrats, said Joe Shepherd, founder and president of United Rural Democrats, a political action comittee focused on electing Democrats in rural constituencies. 

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
62
By
Comments (62)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Paul Britton

    "Other states like Missouri, Kentucky, Missississippi, and North and South Dakota have one clinic apiece."

    I understand that "Mississippi" is hard to spell, but . . .

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Pat Riot

    For the first time in modern history Republicans have to *defend* a *positive* agenda of abortion abolition. They can no longer just sit back and own the libs. They have done the polar *opposite* of, "standing athwart and yelling stop!", and have instead executed the most sweeping change to the American law and lifestyle in a half century.

    The dog has caught the car.

    A few months ago every single parent in the USA with a teenaged daughter had to wonder what would happen... what if... Every single married couple with an already-full house full of children had to wonder... what if... Every single single man or woman on the dating scene had to wonder... what if... Every single grandparent, hopeful that their young adult grandchildren will do everything "right" with their life had to wonder... what if...

    Republicans worked for 40 years to make this change to the American lifestyle. Before it was overturned RvW was supported by 67% of Americans. But Republicans burned the Supreme Court to the ground in order to do it anyhow.

    Now Republicans have to defend what they've done. They can't blame "the libs" this time.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Kmregan7

      https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/18/opinion/miscarriages-abortion-ban.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article

      Collapse
    2. Mathew A

      "Before it was overturned RvW was supported by 67% of Americans."

      Yes, but simultaneously majorities support limiting abortion after the 1st trimester. Whereas Roe allowed it up to the 2nd trimester.

      So most Americans want some access to abortion, but no where near what Roe allowed.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Pat Riot

        Yes, but most wanted RvW kept in place. Probably because they didn't want the fustercluck we have now...

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Kmregan7

          I maintain it's partly because anyone with a decent imagination, any knowledge of pregnancy/healthcare, or you know, a heart, would change their "not abortion after 1st trimester" when they hear WHY women would have those abortions. Would it change what THEY would do? Maybe, maybe not. But they'd probably give an inch. And Americans also don't like government intruding on private decisions - they wouldn't like it if the government did it when it came to THEIR healthcare decisions. That's hard to get through polling though.

          Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Bill Nelson

      “…instead executed the most sweeping change to the American law and lifestyle in a half century.”
      I think not. After Dobbs I did an internal assessment of my family and no one is impacted by the decision. And I expect many are like that.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Kmregan7

        That's lucky then.

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Pat Riot

        Nobody has sex, huh. How boring. :-)

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          BWG

          Maybe they're just thoughtful and intentional about it.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Pat Riot

            Thoughtful and intentional sex. How boring. :-)

            Collapse
    4. Avatar photo
      Kmregan7

      Oh, but they will. "We HAVE to pass draconian bans with extremely narrow exceptions (if any) because the libs want to kill babies moments before birth." Why not? The lie has worked before.

      Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Patrick

    I think that very last quote is wrong. Sure, there are extremes on both sides who won’t negotiate. But there is a majority in the middle who are happy to.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      Virtually every single person I've ever debated about abortion who wants it abolished considers it to be *murder*. That's where the logic of abortion abolition begins. If it's not murder then laws against it are terrible, awful violations of a woman's body.


      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Kmregan7

        Yes. And they twist themselves into pretzels to avoid the logical implications of that (prosecuting women, child abide charges for things done during pregnancy, prosecuting “suspicious” miscarriages, women dying, etc.)

        Collapse
        1. Ron Croxton

          This!
          I've heard so many people say abortion is murder and then cheerfully chat about the importance of exceptions for the life of the mother.
          Huh?
          You wouldn't shoot a 3 year old in the head to give his mother an organ, so their whole stance is illogical.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Kmregan7

            Logical inconsistencies abound. Abortion is murder - but you don't prosecute the woman who gets one, just the doctor. Wouldn't happen if she hired someone to murder her three year old (or husband). We don't force organ donation for anyone, not even from dead people, but the government must force women to donate their uterus against her will. Although, I guess I'm glad many people are logically inconsistent here. That is a lot of women convicted of murder. And I don't want people to start thinking forced organ donation is necessarily a good thing.

            Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Patrick

          Good thing the “abolish abortion” crowd is only like 20% of us. Very little legislative clout, and it will only get smaller as you rightly point out the logistic issues.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Kmregan7

            20% but outsized influence and power

            Collapse
          2. Avatar photo
            Pat Riot

            But 30% will go along with the 20% in order to win their election to own the libs.

            Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Kmregan7

      I consider myself somewhat extreme (heck, on abortion, I'm basically a libertarian) but I will negotiate. Codify Roe with the trimester framework. Most people think it worked well, IMO. I'll compromise, though I won't like it.

      Collapse
  4. cb76

    I understand that "federalism" and "states rights" are cherished articles of faith with folks on the right, but if you can't see how travel to neighboring states to get abortions your state has outlawed, or receiving abortion pills through the mail in a state that purports to ban such things doesn't fall within Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce, you're being willfully blind. And while I'm sure Clarence Thomas would be delighted to wipe out a century's worth of federal regulatory infrastructure with the stroke of a pen, I don't have the impression the other conservative justices are the kind of wild-eyed revolutionaries that would sign on to that. So I doubt even this Court is going to scale back ICC precedent in any meaningful way.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Synchronize Your Dogmas (Bill B)

      I agree. I frankly think it's ridiculous leaving this up to the states. I don't believe it will end up being a tolerable state of affairs. Either a women has some control over thier reproductive choices or they don't and allowing a crazy-quilt of laws that require women to hop-scotch from state to state simply can't be sustained. If the issue weren't driven by zealots on both sides we could come to a workable compromise nationally. I suspect SCOTUS will eventually have to get involved in this again.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Kmregan7

        I'm too suspicious of states rights.....it hasn't exactly been used in the past for good means (segregation comes to mind, the Civil War, etc.).....I also believe abortion is a human right - or rather, within the framework of the human right of body autonomy and proper healthcare for women. So leaving a human right up to the states strikes me as wrong.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Synchronize Your Dogmas (Bill B)

          Agree 100%. Slavery injected federalism and the filibuster with steroids.

          Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      John D. Wright

      I think receiving pills by mail would fall under state jurisdiction but I absolutely agree with you that travel between states is a federal concern. In my perfect world the feds could regulate far less than they get away with regulating now but on travel I think even the founders would have agreed wholeheartedly.

      Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Rjosephpaquette

    I think SCOTUS isn’t going to allow a national ban or national right to abortion by congress to stand if passed. This will end up being left to the states. Where I humbly thinks it belongs.

    Till SCOTUS makes that ruling, federal candidates will have the issue—whether they want it or not.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      That's not how the law works. Congress makes the laws and SCOTUS strikes them down if they are challenged.

      The Republican majority ruled that you do not have a fundamental right to your own body. That means any sort of law is fair game for either the states or Congress. If there can be federal laws against murder then there can be federal laws against abortion (and there **already is** a federal law against abortion and it has not been challenged).

      Republicans have lied to their own voters about this for decades. "Leave it to the States" was just some campaign speak to make their blue state voters feel okay about voting for abortion abolitionists.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Rjosephpaquette

        I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear.
        Congress will try to either set a national right to abortion (by Democrats) or Republicans will try to set a national ban on abortions after some date.
        Whoever gets there first is likely to have the law struck down by SCOTUS as congressional overreach.

        I understand how checks and balances work. As many times as you’ve trolled me, I think you’d understand my level of understanding. Good day sir.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Pat Riot

          There is *already* a law against one type of abortion and it *survived* a Court challenge.

          And now you are going to tell me that the same Republicans who just lit the Constitution on fire in order to make abortion illegal are suddenly going to reverse themselves and *stop* the Republican's 40 year campaign of abortion abolition?

          As far as predictions go, that's a pretty weak one. You have to imagine both new law being created as well as in ideological 180.

          Abortion is now on the ballot for *every* race both state *and* federal.

          And that's going to be the state of things until there's a Democratic majority in the Supreme Court again at which point it will take about five milliseconds for them to overturn the obscenity that is Dobbs...


          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Rjosephpaquette

            I'm pro-choice, and would like to see a woman's right to choose to a reasonable point in the pregnancy (for me 20 weeks would be fair and just). I do not think it's appropriate for congress to have a role in that--it should be up to each state.

            I'm not sure your case cited, Gonzales, which allowed a ban on a specific form of abortion, is the same as a nationwide ban on all abortions by congress. But that's a good question for AO podcast and possibly the Supreme court.

            Again, I'm pro-choice, but it's 14 on my list of 20 issues that help me select a candidate.

            Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      John D. Wright

      This would be the correct SCOTUS ruling. The federal government has not right to make that decision for every state. Either way. If they want to define life, they will need an amendment to do that and honestly I'm for it but you have to get that amendment passed. Until then each state makes it's own laws.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Rjosephpaquette

        Agree completely. But until SCOTUS makes that ruling my point was both parties will nationalize the issue.

        Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Paul B

    As a conservative constitutional aficionado, my more progressive friends will periodically rub this now-proven polling bump in my face.
    Not once have I ever come close to questioning whether the decision was worth the cost. Frankly, I hope the Democrats keep both houses of Congress so they can pass a federal abortion guarantee.
    The Tenth Amendment is an uncomfortable fact and Commerce Clause jurisprudence more generally is still too broad. I would *love* to hand this Court that softball on a nice, fat tee.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      John D. Wright

      In some ways I wish the Republicans would pass a nationwide ban and have that shot down by the courts for the same reason. Otherwise the Democrats will wrongly say it's purely political when in fact it is entirely consistent with legal theory.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Paul B

        To be clear, I'm rather moderate in my personal politics but a frothing-at-the-mouth, rightwing nutjob when it comes to constitutional interpretation.
        In that spirit, I believe I'm clear-eye enough to recognize that KatWyant is not entirely unreasonable in her fears of Alito excuse to uphold a nationwide abortion ban. Frankly, I'm not a huge fan of his jurisprudential record, unlike Thomas, who is fingers-to-the-world in his willingness to say the (correct) quiet part out loud.

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Kmregan7

        You are really putting a lot of faith on SCOTUS shooting that down. I have far less faith that they would. I think Alito would LOVE to rule that a nationwide ban is fine and he'll gladly find legal arguments, and historical evidence to support it. I don't know if he can convince all 6 "conservative" justices to do the same.....

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Greenknight

          I'm sure that there is a 200 year-old witch-hunter somewhere who wrote something that Alito can use as historical evidence of anything.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Kmregan7

            Just so long as he is able to completely ignore some history in favor of his own views (and he will) a ban will be upheld.

            Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Old guy named Bill (OGNB)

    I have been following the political implications of the Dobbs decision, and it seems that Democratic candidates could also use potential threats to access to contraceptives and to gay marriage as ways to promote turnout for voters with aligned interests. (In addition to appeals to pro-choice voters.) From my limited observation, it seems like a significant group of voters in red states exist who (1) are either pro-life or ambivalent about the abortion issue and yet (2) do not want to see removal of access to contraceptives - something very personal and immediate for them. As for gay marriage, I think a common attitude in red states may be "Why would someone care about gay marriage? Let people get married if they want to."

    I'm sure campaign strategists and political scientists are already looking at groups of voters like these.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Greenknight

      What "potential" threats? Justice Thomas came out directly and said that the right to contraception and gay marriage should be reviewed. This isn't hypothetical.

      Collapse
      1. Nicco

        And Kavanaugh, Alito, and Roberts have said the opposite. There aren’t 5 votes for it. Until and unless we get to that place, there is nothing but “potential” threats.

        Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Jen

    If you want some good reporting on abortion read Alexandra Desanctis over at NR. Her latest piece explains how every state handles ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages.
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/07/how-every-state-pro-life-law-handles-ectopic-pregnancy-and-miscarriage/

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Pat @ Tavi Hall

      As someone who thinks Dobbs was correct, but state responses are much less so to the point of disappointing, I don't think this overview article is doing the thoughtful analysis you think it is.

      My evidence this article, https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/07/26/1111280165/because-of-texas-abortion-law-her-wanted-pregnancy-became-a-medical-nightmare

      I've fought with pro choice advocates here over this book, https://www.amazon.com/Dispelling-Abortion-History-Joseph-Dellapenna/dp/0890895090/ref=sr_1_1?crid=LAAJCCRODA7M&keywords=dispelling+the+myths+of+abortion+history&qid=1659159660&sprefix=The+myth+of+abortion+%2Caps%2C188&sr=8-1
      The bredth of his investigation is both wide and deep. What this article describes is exactly what women experienced in the 50s and 60s pre Roe. While this woman seems to have come through this, other will not, besides death, I'm aware that these types of infections can also cause sterility. The Texas law is poorly written and caused this, it doesn't have to be poorly written, and should be immediately fixed.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      We won't have to wait very long for one of the new Republican laws to kill a woman. Spreading this disinformation will make that come all the sooner.

      Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Kmregan7

      She does the same thing many of those who are anti-abortion do: changes the meaning of abortion so things like ectopic pregnancy care is "not" an abortion (it is) and then claims, by linking to an opinion piece by LILA ROSE, that induced abortions are never medically necessary. This is an anti-abortion opinion article masquerading as a fact-based article. You can tell just by her language alone. I wouldn't trust her to be factual regarding the legislation she outlines, but that is easily fact-checked, and I think she did a good job, at least, putting in the relevant state legislation.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Jen

        Sorry I didn’t see it that way at all. I think her reporting on abortion is stellar. This site could use more abortion reporting from a pro-life perspective.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Kmregan7

          Reporting from any perspective is an opinion piece. They have their place. But it's not news.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Jen

            I guess I’m not sure how you define “news”. Do you consider this piece on the dispatch to be an “opinion piece”?

            Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Kmregan7

          You agree with her….
          This site has plenty of factual news, and I think they’re very balanced when it comes to abortion even though I know many of the writers are anti-abortion

          Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Rick Schwartz

    To me, the Dobbs decision was a win win. It was a favorable decision in my opinion and it also might prevent Republicans taking control of the House and/or the Senate in the fall.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      It will take its place along side Dred Scott as one of the worst decisions a corrupt partisan Court has ever ruled.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      John D. Wright

      I don't think it will make that much difference. The pro-choice people putting that #1 will never vote for Republicans. Long term I think it's a winning issue for Republicans.

      I think bad candidates will sink the GOP and that is their stupidity so they are getting what they deserve. Though I suspect a 51-49 senate when it's all done. Dems will gain one seat PA. GA is already blue. Otherwise nothing will change much.

      The Republicans will take the house. It's just a matter of big the margin is going to be.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Kmregan7

        And independents and more moderate Republicans? We're seeing this in Kansas right now. The Catholic Church is spending a LOT of money to legislate their morality into our Constitution here because we have an amendment on the ballot overturning abortion rights.....and many people, even religious people who don't like abortion, are not fans. I don't know what will happen, if this will change things, but it sure shook up a lot of people.

        Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Kmregan7

      Possibly the Senate. I think (though I'd love to be wrong) that Republicans have a lock on the House.

      Collapse