Election fallout from abortion ruling will depend on how each side responds

The Dobbs decision overturning nearly 50 years of Roe v. Wade has scrambled American politics. The traditional media and twitterverse are in panic mode. Conservatives are exultant, and unhappy liberals are looking toward using the decision to short-circuit a potential GOP wave in the mid-terms.

But the fallout is likely to be less than many in the hyperventilating, insular media think.

Electoral outcomes will more likely be driven by a combination of higher-priority issues, like the economy, and competence (or incompetence) of the two political parties in responding. Like most American politics, that response is looking like a race to the bottom, leaving voters to choose between the least palatable alternatives conservatives and liberals can conceive.

In order to get a good handle on public opinion, I reviewed polling from before the leak of the potential decision (March), from just before Dobbs was released and during the aftermath. Keep in mind the immediate post-Dobbs polling is likely influenced by the emotion of the moment.

Note on polling: I use YouGov polls, as all the crosstabs are publicly available. YouGov also asks consistent questions. Their polling does oversample women, giving the aggregate percentages likely a small bias toward the pro-choice position (women are more pro-choice than men). That bias, however, is small — about 2-3 points — and does not affect the overall conclusions. Sub-group polling numbers are not affected.

Majority for the middle

Most polling is not good for the most stringent pro-life positions, nor did the public want to see a change in Roe. Majorities do not exist for legalized abortion with zero restrictions, either. In fact, both the “never legal” and “always legal” positions are very much in the minority.

In March, 27 percent opposed any restrictions, while 14 percent favored a complete ban. Only 30 percent wanted to see Roe overturned, and respondents opposed prohibitions on traveling to get an abortion, 59 percent to 20 percent. The pre-DobbsJune poll had 26 percent opposing any restrictions while 13 percent favored a complete ban. In the immediate aftermath of the decision, those numbers moved to 31 percent for no restrictions and 12 percent for a ban.

The notable takeaway is that a solid majority favors some restrictions, with a low of 57 percent in the post-Dobbsheat of the moment, down from 61 percent — near the margin of error.

Opinions are sensitive to how questions are framed. Even listing a series of options for limits and exceptions changes responses. But the dividing line on restrictions is 15 weeks. When tested on its own, 46 percent favor a 15-week ban and 47 percent oppose. In the pre-Dobbs poll 38 percent favor a complete ban or a ban after the second trimester (26 weeks) and 50 percent favor a complete ban or ban after the first trimester (13 weeks). A 15-week ban holds the balance at 11 percent.

The public strongly favors the “three exceptions” of rape, incest and the woman’s health/life. In the post-Dobbspoll, all demographic and ideological groups had strong majorities. Even conservatives — the most pro-life — favored these exceptions. The narrowest margin was in the case of rape, where 55 percent of conservatives approve, 31 percent opposed. Exceptions for no life expectance for the child or mental and physical disabilities was also favored.

The public becomes much less accepting for non-health related reasons. Sex-selection was opposed 71 percent to 19 percent. Only liberals were under a majority opposition (48 percent to 39 percent net opposed). In the pre-Dobbs poll, reasons like “unmarried and does not want the child” (30 percent favor) and “cannot afford” (34 percent) performed poorly.

The most interesting feature of the polling on limits is that support for banning abortions in all circumstances falls precipitously after reading a list of options. In the pre-Dobbs poll, support for never allowing an abortion falls to 9 percent overall and just 19 percent with conservatives. In the post-Dobbs poll, only 5 percent agree with the statement “a pregnant woman should never” have an abortion (12 percent conservatives) after hearing a long list of contingencies.

The upshot is, if pro-choice advocates can keep the issue on the front-burner for the public and support a menu of popular restrictions, they can gain support. When faced with an absolutist “never permitted” position, the public is clearly opposed. But the converse is also true. The public does not consider abortion a private, elective procedure that should be permissible under any circumstances.

The challenge for pro-choice advocates is getting the public to care. And that’s a problem.

In March, abortion was cited by just 4 percent as their top issue; overall it was tied for 10^th out of 14 listed issues and far behind the economy (17 percent) and health care (15 percent). Separately, 42 percent called the issue “very important.” The post-Dobbs poll, likely the high-water, has abortion as the top issue for 7 percent, tied for sixth place and 48 percent calling the issue “very important.”

In addition, it is liberals and college-educated white women driving the pro-choice results. On all questions of issue importance, liberals and college-educated women are the largest group opposing any restrictions and who now put the highest priority on the issue.

The extremes will likely decide the effects

The effect of Dobbs for Congress will likely be on the margins and will probably benefit Democrats — but not if they overplay their hand. Misinterpreting opposition to banning abortion as support for the liberal position of no restrictions would be a severe overreach. Republicans like Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, who has proposed a ban at 15 weeks, are in the majority, provided they carry everyone on the pro-life side of that divide.

Fortunately for the left, there is Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R), who apparently is determined to chase women across state lines, cut back on the legality of some sexual practices, and perhaps wage a jihad on heavy petting. From all accounts, those moving to Texas are seeking lower taxes and less regulation, not Paxton’s morality police. Paxton and some other conservative Republicans are playing a risky game of “chicken” with Texas voters — and it would not be surprising if they pay a price in November, while candidates for Congress sail to victory. (However, conservatives do get to run against Gavin Newsom’s no-questions-asked California abortion vacation program.)

Since the fight is now in the states, the issue is more likely to affect governor and legislative races. Both sides would probably be wise to punt the issue to referenda for the voters. Given emotions, that will not satisfy the activists, but it would attenuate things.

Keith Naughton, Ph.D., is co-founder of Silent Majority Strategies, a public and regulatory affairs consulting firm. Naughton is a former Pennsylvania political campaign consultant. Follow him on Twitter @KNaughton711.