It is a remarkable discovery. Among the numerous publications, the New York Times is not the first one that comes to mind when one thinks of a story explaining how Democrats utilized the abortion issue to their advantage. However, this is precisely what appeared yesterday in a piece written by Lisa Lerer and Elizabeth Dias.
It is clear that there were numerous accounts celebrating the victories in five different abortion referenda. However, while “How Democrats Used the Abortion Debate to Hold Off a Red Wave” was no less triumphant, it contained an admission from Celinda Lake, a prominent Democratic pollster, that pro-lifers should consider.
Prior to this, it is necessary to provide an explanation of how the Democratic Party was able to exploit the President Biden’s low approval rating, rising inflation, and soaring gas prices, despite the apparent contradiction of using these factors to their advantage.
The Democrats “weaved the issue of abortion into broader Democratic messages that framed the election as a referendum on what they describe as Republicans’ ‘extreme’ views, and not on President Biden and Democratic control in Washington,” they wrote. “It was all tied together,” Representative Diana DeGette, the Colorado Democrat and longtime head of the Pro-Choice Caucus in the House, said on Wednesday morning. “It wasn’t as if the issue of abortion was presented as a standalone issue. Rather, it was presented in conjunction with other concerns, such as economic issues, the erosion of civil liberties, and the future of democracy.”
For the umpteenth time, the Democrats have successfully integrated the issue of abortion into a larger discourse encompassing a multitude of other issues. However, when it comes to the Republicans’ alleged “extreme” views on abortion, it is important to consider the context in which this issue is presented. It is evident that the Democratic Party has, over time, fully embraced abortion throughout the entire pregnancy. Furthermore, they have not only failed to defend the treatment of abortion survivors but have also been complicit in the denial of such care.
Firstly, they had a considerable amount of financial resources at their disposal, which they employed to saturate the airwaves with advertising. As Lerer and Dias observe, these victories were preceded by a deluge of advertising across the country. In total, Democrats spent approximately half a billion dollars on advertisements mentioning abortion, a sum that is more than twice that spent on the second-closest issue, crime. This information was provided by AdImpact, an ad-tracking firm.
It is evident that the overwhelming majority of the ads were devoid of factual content and were instead rife with falsehoods, omissions, and distortions. This is a hallmark of the Democratic Party and its supporters.
Lerer and Dias inform us that shortly after the June 24 Supreme Court Dobbs decision overturning Roe, Democratic Party committees initiated comprehensive polling in order to ascertain the most effective messaging. The results indicated that the most impactful approach for Democrats was to maintain a broad discourse, portraying Republicans as proponents of a national ban on abortion, and avoiding a detailed examination of gestational week limits. “Debating gestational weeks is not a fruitful avenue for our party,” stated Celinda Lake, a veteran Democratic pollster who conducted some of the surveys. “The general public is ill-equipped to grasp the intricacies of mathematics and biology.”
It is often observed that people are poor at mathematics and biology. This observation can be taken to mean that it is inadvisable to initiate a discussion about gestational week limits. Such a discussion might lead people to conclude that those who are pro-abortion and in favour of unlimited abortion are in favour of unlimited abortion paid for out of the taxpayer’s pocket.
In any election campaign, regardless of how radical the position of the Democrats on abortion may have been or is, the candidates will attempt to disguise their agenda by shifting the discussion to a playing field that favours them.
Here, we may consider the remarks of NRL President Carol Tobias, who offered a succinct summary of the situation:
“Pro-abortion groups and their allies in Congress know they cannot win with the truth. We saw unprecedented attacks using fabrications and misrepresentations against pro-life candidates. Pro-abortion Democratic leaders and their allies know that when people learn the truth about abortion, they lose, so they had to hide behind deception and spin.”
Daniel Miller is responsible for nearly all of National Right to Life News' political writing.
With the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency, Daniel Miller developed a deep obsession with U.S. politics that has never let go of the political scientist. Whether it's the election of Joe Biden, the midterm elections in Congress, the abortion rights debate in the Supreme Court or the mudslinging in the primaries - Daniel Miller is happy to stay up late for you.
Daniel was born and raised in New York. After living in China, working for a news agency and another stint at a major news network, he now lives in Arizona with his two daughters.
