Poison Pill

Will abortion politics swallow the Republican primary?

By
294
Gov. Ron DeSantis signs Florida’s 15-week abortion ban into law on April 13, 2022. (Photo by Paul Hennessy/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

The governor of Florida typically isn’t shy about celebrating his culture-war victories. Last year, when Ron DeSantis signed his state’s new 15-week abortion ban into law, he did so before a crowd of admirers with reporters looking on.

On Thursday night, he signed a second bill that moves up the ban to six weeks, a point at which many women don’t yet know they’re pregnant. That’s a momentous victory for devout pro-lifers in what was a hotly contested swing state until recently, but there was no media this time to record the signing. This tweet, which went out after bedtime on the East Coast, appears to be the only photographic evidence.

On Friday morning, hours after signing the new ban, DeSantis spoke at Liberty University. Liberty is a Christian school, so the audience was sure to be enthusiastic about his latest legislative achievement. The person who introduced him mentioned it. The governor himself never did.

You're out of free articles
Create an account to unlock 1 more articles
By signing up with your email, you agree to The Dispatch’s privacy policy and terms and conditions
Already have an account? Sign In
294
By
Comments (294)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    “The party’s eventual nominee will try to appease both factions, but there’s no way to do so elegantly. He’ll end up taking sides. The side he doesn’t take won’t react well.”

    You’re preemptively ruling out Nikki Haley, I see.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Xsearnold

    "One recent participant wondered to Rolling Stone: Is Trump 'going to try to make us swallow getting next to nothing in return for our support?'"

    Why not? You've already proven that all you need is an "R" next to his name for him to win your vote?

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    PJ

    The world eventually lands in reason. In the meantime I am enjoying watching Christians and Republicans chase the tail they have caught. Praise Jesus!

    Collapse
    1. Rdtomasello51

      Not all Christians are Republicans. I am a registered independent and a practicing Christian. I don't believe the Republican party, in its current state, is capable of compromising on just about anything. Absolutism, especially on an issue like abortion, will be ruinous to Republican hopes in the upcoming general election and perhaps beyond.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        PJ

        Very true, and not all Republicans are Christian. Christians are not exactly known for compromising either. Both are entertaining for me. I find Christian testimony on who god is to be very diverse in a fascinating way.

        Collapse
  4. Very Old Grumpy Guy

    The bigger picture for me, is the apparent inability of the Republican party to compromise on anything. I do not want to speculate why. We all have our guesses.

    If a political party does not compromise, I only see two outcomes.

    1) They "know" they are right and seize power by extra legal means. We have all seen what happens when a group thinks they are the always the smartest guys in the room. In business, we get Enron. In politics we get , Bolsheviks and the CCP. It NEVER ends well.

    2) They become irrelevant. I do not know what comes next.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    David M

    Thanks Nick

    Collapse
  6. Janicewfahy

    DJT and Prolife, Inc. deserve each other. Watching them both ride the carcass of Roe to the bottom of the deep for a generation is delicious.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Chris Babcock

    Two thoughts on this.

    First, I find it funny what might kill Trump is that he accomplished something the pro-life community wanted for a long time - the end of Roe. In his mind, that means that we owe him loyalty; however, it also means he has nothing to offer (since the kind of man who pays of porn stars is the kind of man who personally sweats a bit about really ending abortion) and therefor he can be discarded. He got used, like he uses others, and all he gets out of it is more resentment.

    (An aside, I always thought Trump was a great sermon example: incredibly rich, elected president even, and still seems to be absolutely miserable. Why? Because he rejects the Gospel - and reject it he does, every time he affirms he's never made a mistake since "he who claims is is without sin lies and the Truth is not in him." Even now, he could give up his grievances, beg forgiveness, and he would find a peace he's never known, because God is merciful, even to jackasses. Like Trump. Like me.)

    Second, this highlights one area that I think the late great David French got wrong: He thought that the Christian pro-life movement should welcome non-Christian support. The politics of abortion are hard. This is a place where I think the Church is best served working for her stance to be known but not commingling with the world. Alliances with Barstool Republicans will, in the end, only hurt us; and an abortion law aimed at preserving life looks very different than one aimed at owning the libs.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Chuckgold

      Well said, Chris, thank you. ♥️

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      PJ

      My experience has been:

      Know god, no peace
      No god, know peace

      I am happy the way you read the gospels gives you peace, enjoy! Been there and I am not going to do it.

      Collapse
      1. Christopher Lake

        PJ, I don't often comment here at "The Dispatch"-- preferring to read the various comments, for various articles, and ponder them, usually--, but I'm honestly curious about something. Why are you so vocally adamant about what you are *not* going to do (believe in God, anymore), in so many of your comments at this site? Okay, we get it-- you don't believe in God (or any gods) anymore. It wasn't a good experience for you, to say the least. That is very clear. Yet, you *mention* God, Jesus, Christianity, and/or religion in general, quite often, derisively, in your comments here, to the point that it has become a fairly predictable pattern. Is anyone at all here, in the various comment sections for articles at "The Dispatch," *even trying* to get you to believe in Christianity, or any other religion, again? I haven't seen anyone try it here, but maybe I missed something. From your many comments on religion, paradoxically, you seem much more vocally "evangelistic" about not being religious (anymore), than anyone who *is* religious, here, is about "evangelizing" you into any religion! :-)

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          PJ

          “maybe I missed something”

          Bingo! Do not feel bad, what I am doing with my comments is an attempt at educating on a general lack of understanding of religious freedom in our country. Also venting frustration in the healthiest way I know. I feel "evangelistic" to you because you are viewing my comments through an Abrahamic faith filter that is highly embedded in our culture. Christians have been super-trained in how to evangelize (especially Catholics) without knocking on doors like JWs, and therefore tend to think others are doing the same. May I ask you to read my comments with the question in mind “is PJ directly telling me I need to be atheist?”. If I am not, I am simply expressing my faith, including decades as a very serious Christian. Hint: I could not care less about someone else’s faith as long as they do not drag it into our government for everyone or wave it in my face inappropriately.

          Not sure if you have noticed, but I only comment on my faith when someone or the news invokes religion. The Nones are growing to a significant part of our population, and much of our population do not understand how their faith resonates in the context of freedom of religion. Christians are used to being entitled in our society, and it is hard to lose the entitlement (or even see the entitlement). I find when I explain this to liberal Christian friends they get it. When I explain to conservative Christians I have yet to have one get it.

          Thank you for the questions and your perspectives expressed in a matter-of-fact way. We need more dialog like this. May the Lord’s Noodly Goodness Bless you and America!

          Collapse
          1. Christopher Lake

            Thanks for your reply, PJ! It genuinely helps me to understand your perspective better. I am surprised, though, that you understood my comment to be coming "through an Abrahamic faith filter," because I've never really written about what I do, or *do not* , believe, regarding any particular religion, here at "The Dispatch." It's a long story, but I keep my beliefs regarding religion, or lack thereof, out of the comments here, as much as possible. That is my own choice, and I respect that others make different choices.

            The main reason that I made the observation on your numerous comments, about not being religious (anymore), seeming "evangelistic" to me is that you are quite vocal (similarly to a religious evangelist, in some ways), in many comments at "The Dispatch," about your no longer being "a believer." There is certainly nothing wrong, to me, about being vocal in one's religious beliefs, *or* lack thereof, but when one mentions the subject in many comments for different articles at one site, it can give observers the impression that it is very important, to you, to let others know that you either decidedly are, or decidedly are not, "a believer." (Kind of like how some vegans regularly, pointedly, bring up their veganism in discussions, in a seemingly "evangelistic" way.)

            As far as Christianity, or any religion, losing its "privileged place," whether in the U.S. or any other country, I view that as a good thing-- in the sense that, from what I have seen, religions, and religious people, can, sometimes, actually, improve themselves (at least to me, in various ways) by *not being* (or no longer being) in a privileged place, in societies and in nations.

            Collapse
  8. S581122

    Abortion could ultimately be the death knell of the republican party. The pro lifers may go down fighting, but what will they end up with, a overtly progressive ruling class that will get elected not on their policies but due to many just putting the check mark on the individuals who are not draconian on abortion. Abortion may be instinctively abhorrent to a lot of folks, but it is not the daily fact of life in most households, but pregnancy is enough of a fear that in its absence folks will feel powerless about running their own lives. Having kids is a great pleasure, but fo some either at particular times in thier lives, financial issues, not married etc. being told that there is nothing you can do about a pregnancy started unwanted is seen as devastating. Then having a group of folks who feel so morally superior to them dictating the rest of their lives is not attractive and they will then vote for that simple personal interest and not in the interests of all the other policy issues swirling around them. So wish abortion could be moved to another venue and out of politics.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Stephanie

      I've always found it hard to talk to anti-abortion folks in these comments sections about abortion and why it cannot ever just be banned.

      There will always be abortions. If not done legally, then they'll be done illegally.

      What people say is: it's murder/killing a baby, etc. This is their non-negotiable position.

      Asked what is the solution to unwanted or dangerous pregnancies, rape or incest?

      The answer: no more rapes (Greg Abbott's solution) or incest, and better families. (Or, exception for rape or incest--but it's not murder, then?). "Assume a can opener" logic.

      Abortion is just not a political issue, and never should have been.

      Collapse
      1. Slowdave1

        Not a political issue? I mean it's a legal issue so... how do you propose that legal decision be resolved?

        I am a pro life Christian, so somewhat in the center of your cross hairs. However, though I believe abortion is wrong, I do not believe that an absolute ban is the best way to go. As you noted, a ban won't end abortions, so why spend all this political capital and maybe even lose influence towards limiting abortions in the quest for an ineffective ban? Seems ridiculous and short-sighted to me.

        I think reasonable restrictions on abortion are a good thing to put in place. But the REAL leverage to reduce the numbers is to give women with unwanted pregnancies better options, in terms of pre-natal care, care through the delivery, financial assistance as needed, and adoption alternatives.

        Although I'm sure many would rather hack the non-compromising absolutist pro-life strawman, I think there are many who share my position.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Stephanie

          Abortion is a medical issue, to me, as a medical professional, and we’d all be much better off without ANY regulation of abortion engineered by politicians. No other obstetrical or medical procedures are legislated, that I can think of, although there are many medically risky surgeries and procedures that exist.

          With no laws regulating abortion, and a general laissez-faire attitude (matching the approach to all other medical procedures—because of the basic right of privacy for personal medical decisions that was what Roe was all about).

          In other words, each person follows their conscience.

          People with religious convictions are free to have them. However, those who don’t have those convictions should be able to make their own personal medical decisions without outside interference. Decisions about the relative safety and health of the mother and fetus can be handled by medical organizations’ guidelines—as other types of medical care are.

          I respect your sincerely-held opinion even though I don’t agree. Most of the things you consider desirable or improvements all are based on forced childbirth, though.

          If a couple has decided they cannot afford another child or that they’re not able to deal with an enlarged family, that should be their decision to make. Getting a little money or a year of free diapers isn’t going to mitigate a 18+ years’ commitment.

          And making a woman go through a full term pregnancy then turn around and give away the baby (or drop it off at the firehouse, as Amy Coney Barrett callously suggested), is authoritarian and abnormal.

          There is no just way to have the state controlling peoples’ private lives in this way.

          Collapse
          1. Slowdave1

            Yes, it is easier if everyone would just agree with you. So, you are of the "this is a piece of tissue in the Mom's body" so it makes sense that she would have complete control of that and that is completely rationale, coming from your starting point.

            Can you honestly though not see that people that view that "piece of tissue" as an individual human being do not feel that it is acceptable to stand by while you kill another person? And the most innocent and the least able to speak for themselves human in the world?

            You call it forced childbirth, I call it "you're not allowed to kill your child before it's born, no more than you're allowed to kill it after it's born." If you don't want to give birth, it can be easily avoided by not getting pregnant. For the rape/incest cases, I am open to exceptions for that though my preference would be adoption.

            Your strawman of a year's worth of diapers to mitigate 18 years of cost of raising a kid is disingenuous. I said support during pregnancy and delivery and then adoption options, or additional support IF the Mom (& Dad potentially) WANT to keep the child. There is no need for someone who doesn't want a child to raise that kid to adulthood. It seems like killing the child is a bit of an extreme way to avoid the hassle of delivery and adoption.

            I'm not *making* any woman go through a full term pregnancy and then give the baby away through adoption to a loving family. Every woman (other than the relatively rare rape/incest cases) has the other option which is to not get pregnant. I am offering an option to the woman or couple who through any of a number of reasons, ends up with an unwanted pregnancy. And yes, I am open to rape/incest exceptions.

            In summary, I understand that you feel this is just a piece of tissue and that the Mom should then have complete autonomy over how it is handled. I would hope that you could understand my position of not being able to stand by and passively approve of the murder of innocent children, no more than you would be okay with standing by and watching 2 year olds get gassed. So... how do we come to some kind of compromise?

            My proposal: we limit abortions to some majority-acceptable requirements, be that 12 weeks or 1st trimester or whatever. Secondly, my pro-life side needs to (in the private sector) create MUCH better options for pregnant women, especially those with unwanted pregnancies. I give some (allowing what is from my standpoint, legal murder of children under 12 wks old in the womb) and you give some (illegality of later term abortions and the convenience and freedom of ridding the body of that lump of tissue if the person waits until later in the pregnancy). And we move forward. The alternative seems to be to take the traditional positions and just sit here yelling at each other while neither actually listens. What say you?

            And if this is callous to have women give their unwanted child up for adoption, would you be up for allowing murder of that child for a few weeks after birth? Why or why not?

            Collapse
  9. Trichwages

    My take on this is that Trump won’t commit to any policies so that he can position himself based on whatever anyone else says between now and the first debate. He can simply stay quiet and lob grenades on any public statement that is made.

    As for all of the other candidates — on abortion and so many other policies — it seems like the party is so fractured it would be a perfect time to drop the usual pandering and just play it straight — tell the voters what your leadership vision is.

    Trump is so far ahead in the polls and the gymnastics that other candidates are performing isn’t going to help them in the long run. If you’re going to lose, might as well keep your integrity and dignity intact. All of this positioning trying to play nine-step chess to outmaneuver Trump makes them look pathetic.

    I think the majority of the party is dying for real leadership and statesmanship, not pandering.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Javier Seravalli

    It is quite compelling that not even 50% of Republicans support the ban of medication abortion. Even only 47% of pro-life conservatives support such a ban. As Sarah Ishgur points out, this is the result of the elimination of the filibuster for judges, which are not only extremists but altogether bad judges that can write convincing opinions.

    Collapse
    1. Samuel Mpona

      In any normal country a bad Judge wouldn’t get a simple majority. If you need a filibuster to keep them out of office you have serious problem.
      The issue is the unholy alliance of the Federalist Society, the Republican Party, and the obscene amount of money that is allowed to flood politics. Not the filibuster

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Javier Seravalli

        Well that was her argument. Some republicans would privately admit they didn't review the docket for this judge, but they voted based on recommendation of the Federalist Society.

        Collapse
Load More