Republicans conquered abortion in 2024. Will they do so in 2026?
One of the most famous Sherlock Holmes stories pivots on what Sherlock notes: the curious incident of the dog in the night. When the Scotland Yard inspector says the dog did nothing in the night, Sherlock explains that was what was curious. Understanding why the dog didn’t bark was essential to solving the mystery.
In our case, many political professionals, in the best Scotland Yard fashion, have noted that in the 2024 election, abortion "did nothing." That’s a starkly different outcome than what Democrats expected, based on the post-Dobbs 0-for-12 loss record (with the results in Virginia in 2023 being counted as a draw), on abortion-related ballot initiatives and special elections, and crushing expected red waves.
Why was 2024 different? Did abortion just disappear as a concern, overwhelmed by the economy and illegal immigration? Or was there something that kept that dog from barking? The answer matters to future elections.
In early 2024, my firm, Suasion Insights, began research both nationally and with a deep dive in Pennsylvania, tasked with seeing if there was any way pro-life Republicans could at least neutralize the abortion issue without abandoning their principles.
We shared our findings with federal GOP campaigns and organizations, starting with five foundational insights on what was driving, and triggering, those otherwise getable voters they were losing over this issue.
First, for 48% nationally, rough agreement with — i.e., not fearing — a candidate on abortion is a gateway requirement to then considering other issues.
Second, 50% think the GOP can’t be trusted on abortion, and two-thirds of Americans think Republicans lack empathy.
Third, the term "pro-life" has a toxic brand/perception outside of the pro-life community, meaning opposition to all abortions — maybe also opposition to exceptions (which are very important to voters), including possibly for the life of the mother. (The Left understands this, which is why even bills that only restrict abortion for late in a pregnancy are described as a ban, stoking the fears that a total ban is the real intent.)
Moreover, the label "pro-life" means support for only the fetus, not the woman (a problem when only 8% nationally think the baby is more important throughout the pregnancy) and a hypocritical support for "life" given likely simultaneous approval of the death penalty, support for guns, and opposition to funding for pre- and post-natal care, rare disease testing and social support through people’s lives.
Fourth, and in contrast, "pro-choice" has a centrist brand perception, seen as a catchall, including anything from a six-week limit to unrestricted abortion. Moreover, pro-choice voters assume that, of course, Democrats don’t want abortions, and that late-term abortions are not only few but medically necessary, making GOP rhetoric not credible.
Fifth, voters across all groups are open to supporting candidates who support less restrictive policies than their personal preferences, but not more restrictive. The post-Dobbs abortion ballot initiative track record illustrates this point: no state ballot initiative that would make that state’s law more restrictive has passed.
But our research also showed a winning message would stop politicizing abortion — a trap Democrats fell into with, for example, their overwrought ad of the woman on the floor dying while a GOP senator prevents her from getting treatment for a miscarriage.
We showed there were better ways for Republicans to express their empathy and concerns for women and their needs at this difficult time, both individually and necessarily as a party.
We were gratified to see the GOP change their platform language as the old language would have been used as a club against every GOP candidate. President-elect Donald Trump talked about exceptions whenever he spoke about abortion. He explicitly ruled out a federal law. And most GOP candidates were very clear that, like the top of the ticket, they opposed any national ban.
You could hear the air come out of the abortion issue for the left, something that only accelerated after Vice President-elect JD Vance’s debate with Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, which was a masterclass in reassuring women that this wasn’t a game to make every state look like Alabama.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
Vance never pivoted from the issue. He never used the term "pro-life." He began with empathy, not politics or policy, telling the story of a woman he loves who had an abortion that she felt saved her life. He acknowledged there were different opinions on the issue. He talked about the need for Republicans to rebuild trust.
He used the high-ground, pro-woman argument: we need to give women control (affordability, family planning/contraception/fertility treatments) to solve the real problem (unwanted pregnancies), not just focus on the symptoms of the problem (abortion). He did not talk about adoption and foster care, which are seen more as anti-abortion than pro-woman, but did reclaim freedom and talked about childcare and fertility, two big issues for women.
Even when he went on offense, he did not talk in the usual activist way about "killing babies" or use other emotional language that backfires but stuck with facts and the idea that the left goes "too far" — the way most people talk. He was clear in his opposition to a ban and never used the word "ban" outside of the context of partial-birth abortions.
He reminded us we are a diverse country and underlined the importance of letting voters decide. In recognizing that different states will have different policies, Vance showed that he is listening to women and voters and recognizes the need to win back trust, hearts and minds.
Changing how the GOP was perceived on the issue of abortion, minimizing fear and being empathetic and reassuring was the dog that didn’t bark and made it possible for voters to focus on the other issues.
As we look forward to future elections, the question will be: will the pro-life movement and GOP politicians learn how to neutralize the issue, so they don’t lose more ground? Will they in fact choose to win (because there is a way they could get nearly 70% support for their less extreme positions)? Or will they revert to barking in the way that satisfies their most hardcore supporters while creating collateral losses elsewhere? Only time will tell.