Asa and abortion

Anyone naive enough to believe the nation’s abortion debate would end with the U.S. Supreme Court reversal of the Roe standard of a half-century has since been alerted to the realities of America’s culture wars. The conflict, naturally enough, divides both major political parties — but to no small extent separates the candidates of one of them. The implications for Arkansas’ Asa Hutchinson, his presidential campaign officially launched last week, are striking.

At issue is not whether the former governor is anti-abortion (or, pro-life, if one prefers) but to what extent Republican primary voters will tolerate the exceptions he supports to an almost blanket ban on abortion.

The controversy in all its facets took on new urgency with the election of Donald Trump in 2016. Would his presidency produce the Supreme Court majority needed to overturn Roe? Obviously, yes— but the court’s decision, returning the matter to the states for each to decide whether to permit abortion (and within what limits), left the most resolute opponents of abortion wanting. They would be satisfied with nothing less than a nationwide ban, with no exceptions other than saving the mother’s life. If the Supreme Court would not accommodate that view, then they would appeal to Congress. And, yes, the president.

It would have to be, plainly, a Republican president, the two dominant parties having long ago settled into their respective philosophies: Democrats, with very rare exceptions, pro-choice; and Republicans, with increasingly fewer exceptions, unapologetically prolife. But as the “party of life,” so asserted in not only the national GOP platform but in those of the state parties, how much room, if any, would be permitted? Say, in cases of rape or incest?

Donald Trump, once again the leading Republican presidential candidate, said he was fine with the Supreme Court’s Dobbs finding, that abortion policy was for the individual states to consider. Wrong answer, said the leader of the Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America organization, one of the most adamant abortion adversaries. Trump’s assertion that abortion policy belonged with the states was “a morally indefensible position for a self-proclaimed pro-life presidential candidate.” Moreover, her coalition would oppose any candidate who did not embrace a nation-wide prohibition on abortions after the 15th eek of pregnancy.

Hutchinson’s position has, shall we say, evolved.

Almost a year ago he told a network television audience that a national abortion ban not only was inconsistent with his concept of federalism, but would prevent conservative states such as Arkansas from banning abortion to the extent and with the dispatch they would choose.

By early April, Hutchinson, while again expressing a preference for state jurisdiction, seemed to be warming to a national ban though he was still “hesitant” absent language that would permit terminating pregnancies that resulted from rape or incest.

Last Sunday, three days after Trump took his scolding, Hutchinson allowed that, yes, as president he would sign a national ban — if it contained rape and incest exemptions: “reasonable restrictions” on abortion with “appropriate exceptions.”

Something of a straddle. But wrestling with abortion policy is treacherous for most every Republican candidate, given that opposition to a total or near-complete ban on abortion runs afoul of public opinion in essentially every state, including Hutchinson’s Arkansas. The latest Arkansas Poll from the UA’s survey unit found overwhelming opposition to an absolute prohibition (only 14 percent of those questioned supported such a statute) and strong support (almost two-thirds of the sample) for abortion as an option for a rape or incest victim. Fewer than one in three Arkansas registered voters expressed support for stricter limits on abortion. Similar sentiment is consistently recorded in national polls. (The failure of popular opinion to shape abortion policy at the state level can be striking, as in Arkansas: Legislation to ease restrictions in the most extreme cases failed to emerge from committee, or to even get a hearing, a political disconnect reflected in several other states where abortion statutes do not necessary mirror survey results.)

Hutchinson understands well the tightrope that Republican hopefuls must walk in dealing with abortion. The task is to nurture relationships with the religious conservatives who are crucial to securing the presidential nomination while simultaneously avoiding alienating moderate and conservative voters, including independents, with less stringent views. So, in his appearance several days ago before an audience of Iowa evangelicals, Hutchinson advocated both “compassion” and political pragmatism.

“It’s important that we recognize the vast number of Americans that support exceptions of life of the mother, rape and incest. I think we err when we reduce those exceptions because the public generally supports those.”

How pragmatic are the GOP primary voters of the 2024 cycle?