Abortion, the 2022 Midterms and the Battle for America’s Future

November 1, 2022

This text concerns the 2022 midterm elections and the issues facing the nation’s voters. It opens revealing the economic and social challenges left behind by the COVID pandemic before detailing how these issues may affect voters’ decisions in choosing between the Democratic Party or the Republican Party at the polls this November. The article then narrows in on the topic of abortion, first detailing its political history and how party opinions have shifted over the years, before analyzing how the recent decision in Dobbs v. Women’s Health Organization has reinvigorated the debate over the issue and bolstered Democrats’ fading chances in the midterm by offering them an inroad with otherwise dissatisfied moderates.

On Tuesday, November 8th, millions of Americans will head to the polls to cast ballots in House, Senate, gubernatorial, and local elections. The 2022 midterms are, as with most midterms, widely seen as a referendum on the state of the country and a choice on the course the nation will chart over the next two years. However, unlike most midterms, the 2022 midterms are taking place after a generation-defining event: the COVID-19 pandemic.

With the initial shock of the pandemic at last beginning to fade away, our nation has begun to earnestly grapple with the extent of its aftermath for the first time. The desolation left behind in its wake stretches far beyond the physical death toll. Millions of Americans have been left struggling to deal with mental health challenges brought about by the strain of isolation. These effects are especially exacerbated in children and adolescents, who have seen their social lives and schooling undergo a complete upheaval.

On a more macroscopic scale, the country faces severe economic headwinds. Supply chain issues brought about by workplace disruptions triggered by pandemic lockdowns, soaring government deficit spending, and incredible amounts of monetary stimulus conducted by the Federal Reserve have coupled to send inflation soaring to levels not seen in 40 years^[1].

This inflation has seemingly impacted every aspect of private life, creating an all-consuming cost-of-living crisis. In many areas, gas prices have more than doubled over the past two years, making transportation increasingly difficult for lower income families. The cost of food has also skyrocketed, with some goods now costing more than 30% higher than they were before the pandemic. This cost-of-living crisis has instigated feelings of overwhelming anxiety and dread in Americans. “It’s tough, It’s just really really tough. I’m working so hard, but I never know if I’ll have enough money to get us through the next month, or if prices will have gone up again,” Annabeth, a single mother working to support her young son, stated when interviewed by the Review. Annabeth is far from alone in facing such circumstances. Thousands of Americans have been left struggling to make ends meet for their families in post-COVID America.

More recently, the Federal Reserve has at last attempted to change their course in an effort to address this inflationary challenge. Pivoting to a hawkish stance, the Fed has raised interest rates 0.75% over three consecutive meetings, taking interest rates to their highest level since early 2008. These interest rate hikes have contributed to a rise in unemployment and a stagnating economic outlook by leaving businesses more hesitant to borrow the money needed to fund and expand their operations. Nonetheless, inflation has remained stubbornly high, leading Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell to signal that more interest rate hikes may be necessary to address the problem. “We have got to get inflation behind us,” Powell said. “I wish there were a painless way to do that. There isn’t ^[2].”

All of these issues are certain to play a pivotal role in voters’ decisions come this November. Given that the Democratic Party currently wields a trifecta in controlling both houses of legislature, as well as the presidency, the elections will serve as a referendum as to how they have exercised power under their unified control of government over the past two years. It would be understandable for one to be pessimistic about their chances of retaining control of power. The party of the incumbent president typically suffers losses in the midterm, with the only exceptions coming under extraordinary circumstances such as the Republican Party in 2002 when President George W. Bush enjoyed stratospheric approval ratings as the country rallied together in the aftermath of the September 11^th Terrorist Attacks. With the current vortex of problems, both economic and personal, plaguing the nation, the Democratic Party faces, if anything, extraordinarily challenging circumstances certain to make their fight to retain power even more difficult than they would ordinarily be in a midterm year.

The nationwide redistricting undergone in the wake of the 2020 census has only exacerbated the difficulties that are facing Democrats this fall. Republicans control trifectas in 23 state governments, whereas Democratic trifectas account for just 13. States where Republicans govern redistricting have gained 2 net seats, while states where Democrats oversee redistricting have lost 1 net seat. This has given Republicans a significant edge in gerrymandering congressional maps to secure and expand their seats in the House of Representatives. Though this is not necessarily an overwhelming advantage in and of itself, it is a noteworthy advantage in a race in which Republicans need to gain only 6 seats to secure a House majority ^[3].

Nonetheless, not everything appears to be doom and gloom for the Democratic Party. Recently, a key ray of hope appears to have emerged to buoy the Democratic Party’s faltering prospects in this midterm. It comes in the form of a perennial topic only recently thrust to the forefront of national attention: abortion.

Abortion is oftentimes discussed during the election season. Republicans play up efforts at outlawing it, while Democrats vow to preserve the status quo and protect abortion rights as established in the Supreme Court’s rulings in the cases of Roe v. Wade (1973) and Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992).

Traditionally, Republican campaigning on abortion has been widely viewed as little more than theater to court support from the more conservative and religious elements of their base, with the issue being relegated largely to the background after the end of the primary season. The crucial moderate voting block is generally understood to break more liberal on abortion rights, thus providing little incentive for Republicans to continue drawing attention to the issue and risk alienating their support. The voters they courted during the primary that do care strongly about abortion will vote for them at that point regardless, as they have already secured the Republican nomination and they understand the liberal viewpoint of the Democratic opposition.

Abortion first came to national attention in 1973 when the Supreme Court guaranteed the right to an abortion in the landmark case of Roe v. Wade. Before this point, both parties harbored a significant number of candidates on both sides of the issue. The ruling in and of itself is indicative of this situation. Democrat Byron White would vote against the right to an abortion, while Republicans Potter Stewart, Lewis Powell, and Harry Blackmun would vote for it, with Blackmun writing the majority opinion of the court.

In 1976 the Republican Party Platform refused to take a concrete stance on the issue, writing that, “the question of abortion is one of the most difficult and controversial of our time” with there being “those who favor complete support for the Supreme Court decision” and those who would prefer that decision “changed by a Constitutional Amendment^[4].” Democrats, meanwhile, broke more strongly in favor of abortion rights, but were still largely split on the issue themselves.

For a while it seemed abortion would remain a more subjective, individual issue, not necessarily affiliated with party. However, this would come to dramatically change in 1980 with the ascent of Ronald Reagan to the vanguard of the Republican Party. After capturing the California governorship in 1967 and narrowly losing a close-fought primary campaign to unseat incumbent President Gerald Ford, Reagan had rocketed to the national Republican spotlight. Though Reagan had long had ambiguous views on abortion, having signed a bill into law in 1976 as governor of California going so far as to give any doctor the power to approve an abortion if it would threaten the mental health of the mother, Reagan pivoted to a strictly conservative stance during his Presidential campaigns. This embrace of opposition to abortion sought to reaffirm Nixon’s Southern Strategy among religious southern conservatives, and in particular strengthen Reagan’s appeal to these voters, as many had long viewed him as a notorious Hollywood womanizer who was never attended church^[5].

After this point, the two parties would largely crystalize into their current abortion stance, with Republicans ardently vowing to overturn Roe v. Wade. and Democrats pledging to defend it. Despite Republican efforts to restrict abortion at the state level, the status quo of abortion rights would largely remain in place over the successive decades. 1n 1993, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its prior ruling during the case of Casey v. Planned Parenthood, despite an ostensible conservative majority of justices. This would remain the case for much of the 2000s despite the conservative nature of the Roberts Court and its predecessor the Rehnquist Court.

Despite the fiercely charged language surrounding the debate, not much actually appeared to be happening. Republicans would appoint conservative judges, but this would be expected of them irrespective of their stances on abortion. Furthermore, many of these judges, despite their personal leanings, would expressly promise to uphold the law in the interest of preserving the sanctity of precedent. In fact, two Reagan judges, Sandra Day O’Conner and Anthony Kennedy, along with a Bush judge, David Souter, would be key in the court voting to uphold abortion rights in Casey v. Planned Parenthood. It had begun to seem as if the world that was established by Roe v. Wade would hold forever, and abortion faded from all but the most ardent partisans’ minds.

All this would change on June 24, 2022, when the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that the constitution of the United States does not grant a right to an abortion and that states have a right to regulate any aspect of abortion not explicitly enshrined in federal law^[6]. Overnight, the post Roe paradigm that had reigned supreme for so long was shattered and a right that many had taken for granted was suddenly thrown into jeopardy.

In an early sign of the extraordinarily controversial nature of the case, on May 2, 2022, an early draft of the Justices’ ruling leaked to the public. This marked the first time that a Supreme Court case’s outcome had leaked in the 233-year history of the court^[7]. The leak was presumably done by a disgruntled staffer in an effort to mobilize public opinion to incentivize the Justices to change their preliminary ruling. However, though many would protest the leaked draft, sources close to the court suggest that it may have, in fact, cemented the court’s decision.

Chief Justice John Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee, supported upholding the constitutionality of the 2018 Mississippi law restricting abortions which had prompted the case. Critically, though, he did not support overturning Roe because he believed the decision would be perceived as too radical and would go against a longstanding established precedent. For months, Roberts engaged in intense negotiations with his colleagues, begging them to join his halfway stance, upholding both the Mississippi law and Roe as a whole^[8]. Chief Justice Roberts, though right wing, has some moderate leanings and is said to be greatly concerned over growing public perceptions of the court as a partisan instrument.

In that vein, Roberts engaged in a similar effort, in the case of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012), to save the Affordable Care Act. Roberts had initially intended to vote to rule Obamacare unconstitutional and to vote to uphold a separate mandate attached to the case which would seek to expand Medicaid coverage for people near the poverty line. The initial votes on the two issues were set to be 5-4 ruling the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional and 5-4 ruling the Medicaid expansion constitutional, with Roberts in the majority in both cases. However, Roberts soon changed his mind on both issues. Roberts would ultimately negotiate a compromise, joining the vote to uphold Obamacare at 5-4 in favor of if Justices Breyer and Kagan, two of his liberal colleagues would take a soft stance against the Medicaid expansion, ruling that states could not be forced to join the government’s program, though the program in and of itself was to be considered constitutional^[9].

This time Roberts’s efforts reportedly focused on Justice Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh is a more staunchly conservative justice than Roberts but is similarly viewed as hesitant to overturn previously established precedent. To a lesser extent, Roberts is also believed to have made overtures to Justice Barrett. The leak reportedly shattered all attempts at getting either of the Justices from deviating from their initial stances. To change course after that point would, in the Justices’ viewpoint, would seemingly show that the court was subject to public pressure and could be successfully intimidated into changing their votes. This outcome was viewed as utterly unacceptable to all of the Justices, including Chief Justice Roberts.

Despite the prior leak, the eventual ruling on June 24th still came as a shock to much of the nation. When questioned on what she thought about the ruling, Jessica, a self-described moderate and lifelong swing voter, said, “I just couldn’t believe it. I read the leak, but somehow none of it really felt real to me. When the ruling came it hit home that this is actually really happening. I just can’t believe this is the America we are living in now.”

Protests would break out across the nation, as tens of thousands would rally in support of abortion rights. These protests would range from marches signaling opposition to the ruling, gatherings outside the Supreme Court, and pressure campaigns targeted at lawmakers both for and against the right to an abortion. The campaigns at pro-choice lawmakers aimed to pressure them to codify new abortion protections into law while the campaigns at pro-life lawmakers sought to express their displeasure with their representation and to get them to change course.

The Republican Party hailed the ruling as a victory for Constitutionality, marking an end to their 49-year-old campaign to overturn what they believed to be a case of judicial overreach in Roe v. Wade, and vowed to continue efforts to restrict abortion rights at the state level^[10]. The Democratic Party, meanwhile, condemned the decision as a miscarriage of justice and reaffirmed their pledge to fight for abortion rights.

However, many are wondering if privately the mood among Republican leadership is much less celebratory. Like the dog that finally caught the squirrel it was chasing, they must be wondering just what to do with their victory. Religious conservatives strongly focused on the issue are no longer as motivated to vote, while moderates and liberals are incensed at the ruling. One pro-life man expressed a similar sentiment while interviewed, “I mean we won, and that’s great and all. I just think it might have come at the wrong time, ‘cause we were whippin’ them and now this comes along and everyone suddenly forgets all about Biden’s economy.”

Over recent years, support for abortions as a whole was becoming more and more favorable. A recent Gallup poll found that 67% of Americans now support the right to an abortion in the first three months of pregnancy. However, the extent to which abortion rights should extend remained controversial. The same Gallup poll found that 36% of Americans supported access to abortions in the second trimester and that only 20% of Americans supported access to abortions in the third trimester. A Pew Research Center poll had similar findings, with two-to-one support for legal abortions when the fetus is six weeks old, two-to-one opposition when the fetus is 24 weeks old, and a fiercely divided opinion when the fetus is 14 weeks old. Another poll conducted by Economist/YouGov found that a plurality of Americans at 47% to 36% supported outlawing abortions after 15 weeks, the time the controversial Mississippi law that prompted the Supreme Court case implemented^[11].

Nonetheless, despite disagreements as to the extent to which abortion rights should ultimately extend to, polling taken after the ruling finds that a consistent majority of Americans between 55% and 60% would have preferred doing nothing in alternative to completely striking down Roe v. Wade in the manner that occurs. Another CBS/YouGov poll found that 58% of Americans would support a federal law enshrining abortion rights nationwide, while only 33% would support a federal law banning abortion nationwide. The poll found that even the majority of Republicans would oppose such a ban, with most preferring to leave such choices to the states.

Nonetheless, despite backlash to the ruling on Dobbs and any potential misgiving, in the initial wake of the ruling, Republicans plunged forward in an effort to restrict abortion rights. Across the country, dozens of trigger laws came into effect, instantly outlawing abortion the moment Roe v. Wade was overturned. Other states acted immediately to sign new, restrictive abortion bills into law. As it stands, Arizona, Idaho, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Alabama all saw total, or near total abortion bans come into place. In Georgia, a similar measure banned abortions after 6 weeks.

There is mounting evidence that such measures are broadly unpopular. A plethora of polls have emerged showing that only 20-30% of Americans support the sort of total abortion bans that have come down within these states. Furthermore, in the state of Kentucky, a reliably conservative state with a similar political climate as most of the state that implemented abortion bans, a referendum to remove all state constitutional rights to abortion failed with 59% voting against it. The failed Kentucky referendum was widely understood to be a precursor for the state legislature to pass a total abortion ban. This underscores just how unpopular continued Republican efforts to curtail abortion are with the American public^[12].

All this focus on abortion has consequences stretching well into the broader political maelstrom this November. As aforementioned, federal Republicans tend to leave abortion to the side as their campaign transitions from the primary stage to the general election stage. This is because moderates typically have much more liberal viewpoints on the issue than the party base, and this block of centrist voters is crucial to any party’s efforts to win in November. Polling shows that roughly 35% of voters self-identify as moderates^[13], and suggests that 41% of Americans are not registered as members of either party^[14].

For the most part, this strategy appears to have been quite successful. In 2016, abortion ranked as the 13th most important issue to voters^[15], while in 2020 abortion ranked as the only 16th most important issue to voters in deciding their choice for president^[16]. This occurred in two years when abortion should have been at least somewhat prevalent in voters’ minds. In 2016, following the death of Justice Scalia, Senate Republicans prevented President Obama from nominating a new Justice to the Supreme Court, arguing that the winner of the election should do so. While Scalia was a conservative himself, the controversy still could have brought judicial appointments to the forefront of voters’ minds. Similarly in 2020, President Trump would go on to defy that same precedent, appointing Amy Coney Barrett to fill the seat of the liberal Justice Ginsberg only a month before the election. Justice Barrett would ultimately prove the pivotal vote in overturning Roe. Yet, even in these circumstances, abortion remained well out of most voters’ minds.

This is not to say that abortion is an issue that voters do not care about. It is just an issue that has typically gone overlooked as a result of a belief in the sanctity of the status quo. Even with Congressional majorities, Democrats never made much effort to codify Roe, and they never received great pressure to prioritize such an action either because no one truly ever believed it would be a necessary step to preserve abortion. With the overturning of Roe v. Wade, abortion has at last been given a reason to take center stage in voter’s minds. Abortion now consistently ranks among the top five issues for voters when they are polled about the factors influencing their decisions this fall.

This heightened attention on abortion rights is having a real impact on the dynamics of the 2022 midterms. Their stance on abortion has alienated moderates from the Republican Party, allowing the Democratic Party to pull into a lead on generic ballot polls. This marks a remarkable turnaround in a midterm cycle where many political commentators initially feared Democrats to be heading towards a historic blowout due to significant headwinds including: the weight of incumbency, rampant inflation, and stagnating economic growth^[17].

Some Republicans have noticed the shifting political winds and have taken active steps to moderate their stance on abortion, at least for the public eye. The Republican candidate for the Arizona Senate seat, Blake Masters, has scrubbed and altered significant sections of his campaign website outlining his views on abortion. Masters’s website previously stated that he was “100% pro-life” and trumpeted his support for a constitutional amendment that “recognizes unborn babies are human being that may not be killed.” Now, Masters takes a much more moderate stance, writing only that he supports an amendment that “bans late term (third trimester) abortion and partial-birth abortion at the federal level^[18].”

Other Republican candidates have taken active efforts to sidestep the issue by framing it as one up to local governments to decide, effectively removing any responsibility for action from themselves while still allowing them to retain a pro-life stance for their base. The Republican candidate for the Pennsylvania Senate seat, Dr. Mehmet Oz took one such stance. When interviewed he stated that while he’s personally a pro-life man who believes in only “three exceptions – life of the mother, rape and incest,” he also believes that “the federal government should not be involved in dictating to states what their local health care systems, their local values and their local politics should be addressing, which is this very complex issue^[19].” Countless other Republican candidates do their best to dodge questions on the matter altogether.

Yet not all Republicans appear to be backpedaling in the face of the apparent backlash. Republican Lindsey Graham, from the State of South Carolina, who is not up for reelection this year, has taken the curious step of introducing legislation into the Senate which would ban abortion after 15 weeks. Senator Graham knows this bill has no chance of becoming law due to Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate, as well as a Democratic president, yet chose to introduce it anyway as a signal of his party’s intent to voters. Other Republicans such as Senator Marco Rubio, up for reelection in the State of Florida this year, and Hershel Walker, the Republican candidate running for the Senate seat for Georgia announced their support for Senator Graham’s proposal.

The Republican leadership, however, was anything but vocal in support of Senator Graham. When questioned, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky would state, “Most of the members of my conference prefer that this be dealt with at the state level.” Another Republican Senator, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, would say “I’m not sure what he’s thinking here. But I don’t think there will be a rallying around that concept.” Many Republicans are reported to be privately angered that Senator Graham brought the issue further into the public spotlight when it does not appear to be playing well among voters for them. Republican strategist Chris Mollota is quoted on Senator Graham’s proposal as saying, “It rips open a political sore. The political environment was moving back to economic issues. It further nationalizes an issue that works against Republicans generically^[20].”

Democratic candidates predictably seized on Senator Graham’s statement in order to draw further attention to the abortion battle and strengthen their own prospects this November. Despite his opponent not having stated support for Senator Graham’s bill, the Democratic candidate for the Pennsylvania Senate seat, Lieutenant Governor John Fetterman, still took advantage of the opportunity to go on the attack. Fetterman tweeted, “With the GOP introducing a national abortion ban, it’s now more important than ever that we stop [Oz] in November^[21].” Representative Tim Ryan, the Democratic candidate for the Senate seat from Ohio, took a similar stance. Representative Ryan said, “This latest attack on women’s freedom is exactly what J.D. Vance wanted, and exactly why Ohioans won’t let him anywhere near the Senate^[22].”

As the midterm elections draw ever closer, it is clear that the fight over abortion will remain at the front of voters’ minds. Nonetheless, other issues such as concerns over a rapidly rising cost of living and a gloomy economic outlook remain prominent. Polls suggest that the Republican Party retains a strong advantage over Democratic Party in trust to handle these challenges. The winner of the election, and the party that will be given the mandate of the people for the next two years, will be determined by which issue the critical independent voting block decides is more important. Democrats hope that it is the right to personal autonomy, while Republicans hope voters will care more about their financial security. In the end, only time will tell.

Thank you to Professor Andrew Lotz of the Pitt Political Science Department for providing feedback and commentary on this article.

Edited by Ethan Rubenstein, Thomas Riley, and Aashrit Cunchala.

^[1] What is inflation and what is the current rate? – The Sun | The Sun

^[2] Powell’s stark message: Inflation fight may cause recession (msn.com)

^[3] Which States Won — And Lost — Seats In The 2020 Census? | FiveThirtyEight

^[4] Republicans and Abortion: A Brief History | Washington Monthly

^[5] How the Republicans Became the Anti-Abortion Party, and What it Means for the GOP Today | History News Network

^[6] https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/24/politics/dobbs-mississippi-supreme-court-abortion-roe-wade/index.html

^[7] Roe v. Wade: Supreme Court draft opinion that would overturn abortion rights published by Politico – CNNPolitics (archive.org)

^[8] The inside story of how John Roberts failed to save abortion rights – CNNPolitics (archive.org)

^[9] https://web.archive.org/web/20220726065143/https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/21/politics/john-roberts-obamacare-the-chief/index.html

^[10] Pence calls for national abortion ban, as Trump, McConnell, GOP celebrate SCOTUS ending Roe v. Wade – The Washington Post