Abortion has been particularly relevant in the US over the past few months. A specific example of this is the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. One of ACB’s main views, earning her support or condemnation, is her pro-abortion perspective, and there is possibility of a new ruling regarding abortion procedures as healthcare or a criminal act. It is believed now, in retrospect, that Trump used her nomination as a form of reeling in evangelist and traditionalist voters. This is not the first time that a candidate has used abortion as a pivotal point of their campaign. In fact, this hyper-involvement of abortion in policy started a few decades before the Trumpian era.
In the States, Nixon was the first politician to massively leverage voters’ opinions on abortion in order to win the presidency. During his 1972 campaign, Nixon developed prominent anti-abortion policies and began to realise that he could appeal to social conservatives in swing states. His success after winning the election signalled to other Republican strategists that using so-called ‘pro-life’ tactics are a very simple, emotion-led way to gain people’s votes. The Republican Party used this shift as a part of a broader theme of ‘the pro-family party’ that they wanted to illustrate. The next election where their stance on abortion became a focus was for Ronald Reagan in 1981. He was quoted saying that “If there is a question as to whether there is life or death, it should be resolved in favour of life”. This became the basis of his campaign and almost all of his speeches comprised of talking about the danger of abortion. Not only did this assist him in winning in 1981, but also his re-election four years later.
If we skip to more current examples, the former-president Trump made abortion a central part of his defeat against Hillary Clinton in 2016. He used Clinton’s approval of late-term abortions to portray the Democrats as the party that wants to “rip up babies’ limbs”. This quickly played into his base that relies on partisanship and maintenance, if not reversal, of the status quo. The fact that strategists have been able to pick up on the use of this tactic reflects the ingenuity of political candidates when they speak on the policy of abortion. Trump has been a perfect manifestation of this ingenuity and opportunism. Recently, a video from 1999 resurfaced recently of Trump saying “I am very, very pro-choice… I hate abortion but I still believe in choice”. His abrupt shift in policy is not a sudden conservative awakening but more of a realisation that a policy switch could win him a majority from Americans that feel the nation has strayed from conservative values.
So, why is it so easy for abortion to be politicised? We can see that the procedure is still a source of concern when voters elect a politician to represent them — even in the 2020 election the candidates had to clarify their outlook. However, other healthcare policy issues have not been so politicised: take euthanasia, for example. One reason abortion is such a vulnerable topic for voters to be taken advantage of is due to pathos; the volumes of misinformation spread about the abortion procedure and the brutal language surrounding it triggers an instinctual defence from voters. Particularly if they have been raised to have that view, it is very difficult to be independent from that school of thought and detach the emotions from the policy. This makes it more difficult for them to reason with the effectiveness of abortion and a ban’s inherent restriction on women’s liberty. It is also very easy for leaders to speak on behalf of unborn children and characterise the foetuses as victims. This factor of pathos is rendered even stronger by people’s religious affiliation. Though there are many liberal denominations or variations of religions who are pro-choice, many communities such as Evangelicals have a historical stigma around abortion. As a result, people who do not agree with the separation of church and state strongly believe that following their church’s former/current values is a crucial part of their political identity. We also cannot discount the elements of deeply rooted misogyny that re-surface in the form of restriction on women’s rights. Now that sexism is generally regarded as wrong and is criticised, it is harder to be blatantly discriminatory. Therefore an issue like the abortion ban is the perfect way to re-establish misogyny in legislation with the disguise of ‘pro-lifeism’. Not only is this misogyny translated to control of women’s bodies, but also to a characterisation of women who advocate for the right to choose as murderers and a threat to livelihood. Finally, conservatives in the Midwest and Deep South of America are considered far more easily manipulated given their strong hatred for progressives and liberals. This makes it easier for leaders such as Trump to divide voters on yet another issue, and label it as ‘left’ versus ‘right’, even though it should be a conversation of human rights and liberty.
The only way we can collectively reject this narrative of misogyny, religious polarisation, and party division is if we educate ourselves on the process of abortion as a medical procedure, and detach ourselves from the emotional conditioning from politicians in government. The more political the issue becomes in the US, the more important in becomes to remind everyone that abortion is not just a cause for debate, but a concern that deals with real women’s livelihoods and wellbeing.
