Party Alignments and Abortion after Roe v. Wade

[electionsguy259]

As it says above, was it inevitable that, after the Roe v. Wade decision, that the Democrats would become the pro-choice political party and that the GOP would become the anti-abortion party? Honestly don't know that much about the US anti-abortion movement prior to Roe v. Wade, but I know that at one point the parties' positions on abortion was much less clear-cut.

[Skill and Chance]

Not at all.  It's very easy to imagine it going the other way.  Midcentury liberals were all about extending human rights to new groups of people and I could reasonably see Republicans defending Roe for economic policy reasons in an only slightly different work.

[wnwnwn]

A world where the feminist movement ended in the first wave.

[electionsguy259]

Not at all.  It's very easy to imagine it going the other way.  Midcentury liberals were all about extending human rights to new groups of people and I could reasonably see Republicans defending Roe for economic policy reasons in an only slightly different work.

Possibly, but remember during the 1972 presidential election McGovern was tagged as the candidate the supposedly favored "acid, amnesty, and abortion." I guess this is a sign that the Democrats were friendlier to abortion rights than the GOP even before Roe was decided.

[RINO Tom]

Not at all.  It's very easy to imagine it going the other way.  Midcentury liberals were all about extending human rights to new groups of people and I could reasonably see Republicans defending Roe for economic policy reasons in an only slightly different work.

Possibly, but remember during the 1972 presidential election McGovern was tagged as the candidate the supposedly favored "acid, amnesty, and abortion." I guess this is a sign that the Democrats were friendlier to abortion rights than the GOP even before Roe was decided.

It would have depended heavily on the state and type of candidate.  The Kennedys were famously quite pro-life until they stepped into line.

[Skill and Chance]

Not at all.  It's very easy to imagine it going the other way.  Midcentury liberals were all about extending human rights to new groups of people and I could reasonably see Republicans defending Roe for economic policy reasons in an only slightly different work.

Possibly, but remember during the 1972 presidential election McGovern was tagged as the candidate the supposedly favored "acid, amnesty, and abortion." I guess this is a sign that the Democrats were friendlier to abortion rights than the GOP even before Roe was decided.

It would have depended heavily on the state and type of candidate.  The Kennedys were famously quite pro-life until they stepped into line.

You could imagine a mildly pro-life Southern Dem getting the nomination in 1992 when they were desperate after 3 terms out office and willing to make whatever deals they needed to get back in.  They went with an economic moderate IRL, but no reason it couldn't have gone the other way.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Most Catholics were Democrats at the time, many Protestants considered abortion to be a "Catholic issue". Various polls from the 60's and early 70's showed that more Republicans supported abortion rights than Democrats at the time.

[Skill and Chance]

Most Catholics were Democrats at the time, many Protestants considered abortion to be a "Catholic issue". Various polls from the 60's and early 70's showed that more Republicans supported abortion rights than Democrats at the time.

The SBC was notably wobbly at the time, which is startling.

[electionsguy259]

Hmmm, access to abortion has long been a core tenet of American feminism. Is there any way to keep at least a significant minority of feminists in the GOP? (I believe they supported the ERA before 1980).

Here's another article I found really interesting that is related to this topic:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/03/how-feminists-became-democrats-216926/

[RINO Tom]

Not at all.  It's very easy to imagine it going the other way.  Midcentury liberals were all about extending human rights to new groups of people and I could reasonably see Republicans defending Roe for economic policy reasons in an only slightly different work.

Possibly, but remember during the 1972 presidential election McGovern was tagged as the candidate the supposedly favored "acid, amnesty, and abortion." I guess this is a sign that the Democrats were friendlier to abortion rights than the GOP even before Roe was decided.

It would have depended heavily on the state and type of candidate.  The Kennedys were famously quite pro-life until they stepped into line.

You could imagine a mildly pro-life Southern Dem getting the nomination in 1992 when they were desperate after 3 terms out office and willing to make whatever deals they needed to get back in.  They went with an economic moderate IRL, but no reason it couldn't have gone the other way.

Yeah, I think the closest we could imagine to a "flip" is simply having both parties divided.  The GOP has had a "Puritanical" streak in it since the beginning that it inherited from the Federalists, and I think there was always going to be a fiercely pro-life component once the issue gained prominence.  So for me, how much either party favored one side or the other in their official platforms was always going to come down to how strong/organized the following groups were:

1. The "Puritanical" pro-life movement among conservatives in the GOP.
2. The "pro-life-by-coincidence" socially moderate Democrats like Southern Yellow Dogs and Northern Catholics.

Not only did #2 prove to be far weaker in our timeline, but the GOP successfully courted many of them, cementing themselves as even more pro-life.  Another component is how much the pro-choice components of either party really cared about it.  The more secular, feminist pro-choice component of the Democrats very clearly would never have been as compromising on the issue as tacitly pro-choice (but really more indifferent than anything) Country Club Republicans.

[electionsguy259]

Not at all.  It's very easy to imagine it going the other way.  Midcentury liberals were all about extending human rights to new groups of people and I could reasonably see Republicans defending Roe for economic policy reasons in an only slightly different work.

Possibly, but remember during the 1972 presidential election McGovern was tagged as the candidate the supposedly favored "acid, amnesty, and abortion." I guess this is a sign that the Democrats were friendlier to abortion rights than the GOP even before Roe was decided.

It would have depended heavily on the state and type of candidate.  The Kennedys were famously quite pro-life until they stepped into line.

You could imagine a mildly pro-life Southern Dem getting the nomination in 1992 when they were desperate after 3 terms out office and willing to make whatever deals they needed to get back in.  They went with an economic moderate IRL, but no reason it couldn't have gone the other way.

Yeah, I think the closest we could imagine to a "flip" is simply having both parties divided.  The GOP has had a "Puritanical" streak in it since the beginning that it inherited from the Federalists, and I think there was always going to be a fiercely pro-life component once the issue gained prominence.  So for me, how much either party favored one side or the other in their official platforms was always going to come down to how strong/organized the following groups were:

1. The "Puritanical" pro-life movement among conservatives in the GOP.
2. The "pro-life-by-coincidence" socially moderate Democrats like Southern Yellow Dogs and Northern Catholics.

Not only did #2 prove to be far weaker in our timeline, but the GOP successfully courted many of them, cementing themselves as even more pro-life.  Another component is how much the pro-choice components of either party really cared about it.  The more secular, feminist pro-choice component of the Democrats very clearly would never have been as compromising on the issue as tacitly pro-choice (but really more indifferent than anything) Country Club Republicans.

I agree regarding the "puritanical" streak, IIRC in the North Republicans were more supportive of Prohibition than the Democrats during the temperance movement and prohibition.

[RINO Tom]

Not at all.  It's very easy to imagine it going the other way.  Midcentury liberals were all about extending human rights to new groups of people and I could reasonably see Republicans defending Roe for economic policy reasons in an only slightly different work.

Possibly, but remember during the 1972 presidential election McGovern was tagged as the candidate the supposedly favored "acid, amnesty, and abortion." I guess this is a sign that the Democrats were friendlier to abortion rights than the GOP even before Roe was decided.

It would have depended heavily on the state and type of candidate.  The Kennedys were famously quite pro-life until they stepped into line.

You could imagine a mildly pro-life Southern Dem getting the nomination in 1992 when they were desperate after 3 terms out office and willing to make whatever deals they needed to get back in.  They went with an economic moderate IRL, but no reason it couldn't have gone the other way.

Yeah, I think the closest we could imagine to a "flip" is simply having both parties divided.  The GOP has had a "Puritanical" streak in it since the beginning that it inherited from the Federalists, and I think there was always going to be a fiercely pro-life component once the issue gained prominence.  So for me, how much either party favored one side or the other in their official platforms was always going to come down to how strong/organized the following groups were:

1. The "Puritanical" pro-life movement among conservatives in the GOP.
2. The "pro-life-by-coincidence" socially moderate Democrats like Southern Yellow Dogs and Northern Catholics.

Not only did #2 prove to be far weaker in our timeline, but the GOP successfully courted many of them, cementing themselves as even more pro-life.  Another component is how much the pro-choice components of either party really cared about it.  The more secular, feminist pro-choice component of the Democrats very clearly would never have been as compromising on the issue as tacitly pro-choice (but really more indifferent than anything) Country Club Republicans.

I agree regarding the "puritanical" streak, IIRC in the North Republicans were more supportive of Prohibition than the Democrats during the temperance movement and prohibition.

Yeah, I do not have information on how different denominations voted back then, but it seems highly likely that the denominations in the North most likely to support prohibition (Methodists and Congregationalists) likely voted for the GOP at much higher rates than those most likely to oppose it (Lutherans and Catholics).

[electionsguy259]

Just found this tidbit about the 1976 election, suggesting that Ford was more anti-abortion than Jimmy Carter:

"During his campaign, Ford focused chiefly on the Catholic working-class electorate in South Milwaukee, whose hierarchy had been disappointed Carter was not committed – following Roe v. Wade – to a constitutional amendment banning abortion."

[Republican Party Stalwart]

Not at all.  It's very easy to imagine it going the other way.  Midcentury liberals were all about extending human rights to new groups of people and I could reasonably see Republicans defending Roe for economic policy reasons in an only slightly different work.

Possibly, but remember during the 1972 presidential election McGovern was tagged as the candidate the supposedly favored "acid, amnesty, and abortion." I guess this is a sign that the Democrats were friendlier to abortion rights than the GOP even before Roe was decided.

It would have depended heavily on the state and type of candidate.  The Kennedys were famously quite pro-life until they stepped into line.

You could imagine a mildly pro-life Southern Dem getting the nomination in 1992 when they were desperate after 3 terms out office and willing to make whatever deals they needed to get back in.  They went with an economic moderate IRL, but no reason it couldn't have gone the other way.

Yeah, I think the closest we could imagine to a "flip" is simply having both parties divided.  The GOP has had a "Puritanical" streak in it since the beginning that it inherited from the Federalists, and I think there was always going to be a fiercely pro-life component once the issue gained prominence.  So for me, how much either party favored one side or the other in their official platforms was always going to come down to how strong/organized the following groups were:

1. The "Puritanical" pro-life movement among conservatives in the GOP.
2. The "pro-life-by-coincidence" socially moderate Democrats like Southern Yellow Dogs and Northern Catholics.

Not only did #2 prove to be far weaker in our timeline, but the GOP successfully courted many of them, cementing themselves as even more pro-life.  Another component is how much the pro-choice components of either party really cared about it.  The more secular, feminist pro-choice component of the Democrats very clearly would never have been as compromising on the issue as tacitly pro-choice (but really more indifferent than anything) Country Club Republicans.

I agree regarding the "puritanical" streak, IIRC in the North Republicans were more supportive of Prohibition than the Democrats during the temperance movement and prohibition.

Yeah, I do not have information on how different denominations voted back then, but it seems highly likely that the denominations in the North most likely to support prohibition (Methodists and Congregationalists) likely voted for the GOP at much higher rates than those most likely to oppose it (Lutherans and Catholics).

From the Wikipedia article on the Third Party System:

[Agonized-Statism]

So long as there's two sizable voting blocs for which it's seen as an existential issue- fetal lives or women's lives, depending on who you ask- it's going to become a polarizing issue in a two-party system. Definitely not an issue I like to touch. It seems ridiculous to pick birth as an arbitrary magic line for when human rights begin, but then also, why should the fetus have any more value than the mother, especially before it's recognizably developed (which itself could open up its own can of worms about anthropocentrism)? Trouble is, there's really no middle ground you could take- in fact, that makes you a murderer to both sides. The pro-choicers certainly have a point that it's a proxy for the religious right to control society, and that also muddies the waters a lot. There's also pro-choice rhetoric which undeniably, unhelpfully, alienates the other parent. That's a valid concern. On top of all that, you have the sustainability angle- do we need this for the environment, or is this a slippery slope into some insidious population control scheme and we actually need more kids for the demographic deficit?- and the debate over the ethics of giving birth to disabled kids- is not having them mercy or genocide? It's an absolutely radioactive issue, nothing that can just be swept under the rug.

I guess the reason it didn't used to be such an issue is that a federal government powerful enough to enforce one position or the other is a fairly new development- still a pipe dream to think no abortions are going on in red states now, of course- and human rights and lives really weren't valued as much either way until disturbingly recently, both mothers and infants had much higher mortality rates anyway. And then there was that mid-century mentality of not rocking the boat by talking about social issues that persisted among the older crop of voters and politicians well after the 1960s. But by the time Roe v. Wade happened, the parties' positions were baked in by conservative discontent with liberal intellectual dominance in the Democratic Party, and the writing was on the wall about where the conservative Southerners were going back in 1948 at the latest. You'd have to make an alternate history where the Dixiecrats dominated the party in time for the Democrats to capture the conservative backlash to the counterculture, and that would involve preventing the New Deal Coalition.

[darklordoftech]

If evangelicals held the view that abortion restrictions are Catholic theocracy, there could have been a bipartisan pro-choice consensus.

[ReaganLimbaugh]

Most Catholics were Democrats at the time, many Protestants considered abortion to be a "Catholic issue". Various polls from the 60's and early 70's showed that more Republicans supported abortion rights than Democrats at the time.

The SBC was notably wobbly at the time, which is startling.

I dont dispute what you are saying but would be interested in knowing what your source is.  Please advise.

[Skill and Chance]

So long as there's two sizable voting blocs for which it's seen as an existential issue- fetal lives or women's lives, depending on who you ask- it's going to become a polarizing issue in a two-party system. Definitely not an issue I like to touch. It seems ridiculous to pick birth as an arbitrary magic line for when human rights begin, but then also, why should the fetus have any more value than the mother, especially before it's recognizably developed (which itself could open up its own can of worms about anthropocentrism)? Trouble is, there's really no middle ground you could take- in fact, that makes you a murderer to both sides. The pro-choicers certainly have a point that it's a proxy for the religious right to control society, and that also muddies the waters a lot. There's also pro-choice rhetoric which undeniably, unhelpfully, alienates the other parent. That's a valid concern. On top of all that, you have the sustainability angle- do we need this for the environment, or is this a slippery slope into some insidious population control scheme and we actually need more kids for the demographic deficit?- and the debate over the ethics of giving birth to disabled kids- is not having them mercy or genocide? It's an absolutely radioactive issue, nothing that can just be swept under the rug.

I guess the reason it didn't used to be such an issue is that a federal government powerful enough to enforce one position or the other is a fairly new development- still a pipe dream to think no abortions are going on in red states now, of course- and human rights and lives really weren't valued as much either way until disturbingly recently, both mothers and infants had much higher mortality rates anyway. And then there was that mid-century mentality of not rocking the boat by talking about social issues that persisted among the older crop of voters and politicians well after the 1960s. But by the time Roe v. Wade happened, the parties' positions were baked in by conservative discontent with liberal intellectual dominance in the Democratic Party, and the writing was on the wall about where the conservative Southerners were going back in 1948 at the latest. You'd have to make an alternate history where the Dixiecrats dominated the party in time for the Democrats to capture the conservative backlash to the counterculture, and that would involve preventing the New Deal Coalition.

If you zoom out, it's gone back and forth a few times over US history.  In the beginning, a regime that was somewhat more pro-life than Roe but not absolutist was inherited from English common law.  It was based on the ancient concept of "quickening" (when the mother and/or a 3rd party observer can feel the baby move) as when legally protected life begins.  This generally would not be detectable until the end of the 1st trimester, especially with ancient levels of medical knowledge.  There are also writings by Dr. Benjamin Rush, a medical doctor who was one of the founding fathers and a devout Christian suggesting that a 1st trimester miscarriage had no more significance than a patient coughing up blood.

Then, with early advances in embryology, we ended up seeing nearly every state outlaw abortion outside of medical emergencies after the civil war, with this regime persisting from the late 19th century until the 1960's until around 1970, with just a few states legalizing elective abortion by legislative action pre-Roe. 

Then of course we had the most pro-choice regime in US history from 1973-2003, with gradually more restrictions being tolerated thereafter until states were again allowed to ban in 2022.  However, less than half the states have done this thus far and many that tried have since been repealed.

Also, I don't agree that an abortion ban would be inherently easier to enforce today.  In the past, nearly all abortions were surgery, something that is complex, centralized, and requires advanced training.  Therefore, it is reasonable for a government even of limited means to regulate surgery.  Today, most abortions are done by taking pills, which under certain circumstances can now be delivered through telemedicine.  Even with modern technology, this is much more challenging to regulate and feels like a much closer parallel to the failed attempt to shut down alcohol sales during Prohibition.  However, all abortions after a certain point in the pregnancy generally are still surgical.


If I had to guess, I think things will stabilize close to the ancient "quickening"/1st trimester standard in the long run.
 

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Is there any democracy in the world where the more left/progressive/liberal parties are more anti-abortion than the right/conservative parties?

[Del Tachi]

Not at all.  It's very easy to imagine it going the other way.  Midcentury liberals were all about extending human rights to new groups of people and I could reasonably see Republicans defending Roe for economic policy reasons in an only slightly different work.

Possibly, but remember during the 1972 presidential election McGovern was tagged as the candidate the supposedly favored "acid, amnesty, and abortion." I guess this is a sign that the Democrats were friendlier to abortion rights than the GOP even before Roe was decided.

It would have depended heavily on the state and type of candidate.  The Kennedys were famously quite pro-life until they stepped into line.

You could imagine a mildly pro-life Southern Dem getting the nomination in 1992 when they were desperate after 3 terms out office and willing to make whatever deals they needed to get back in.  They went with an economic moderate IRL, but no reason it couldn't have gone the other way.

Bill Clinton was a mildly pro-life Southern Dem.  "Safe, legal, and rare" was a step to the right of where Mondale/Dukakis had been.

[MarkD]

No, it wasn't necessarily inevitable that it would turn out that way. For a few decades after Roe, there continued to be many pro-life Democrats as well as many pro-choice Republicans.