Object Lessons | Securing reproductive rights begins with grassroots activism

Carolyn Bradley Columnist

Nothing passes for political sophistication on the left quite like the view that reversing Roe v. Wade would actually help the pro-choice position. Here’s how this counterintuitive theory goes: If the abortion issue were removed from the courts to the political arena, Republicans would be robbed of an abortion politics that amounts to little more than fiery rhetoric and token gestures. Republican politicians would be forced to either endorse real bans on abortion (thus sacrificing the support of the moderate business class) or shelve the issue (thus sacrificing the support of pro-life evangelicals). Meanwhile, moderate politicians would easily sweep pro-choice laws through state legislatures, and reproductive rights would finally be accepted as a democratic provision.

It’s a great story. For everyone, really. Pundits like it, because it allows them to look contrarian and wise and above the everyday, trivial discourse that consumes mainstream Americans. Pro-lifers like it, because it fastens a no-big-deal appeal to that which they want so deeply: the reversal of Roe. And pro-choicers like it most of all, because it gratifies their complacency to the right-wing backlash against women’s rights and supports their secretly-held conviction that, by this point, abortion rights are in the bag.

So, OK then. We don’t need to worry about that little referendum out in South Dakota taking place on election day, Nov. 7, in which voters will be asked to vote on an abortion ban passed last February by the South Dakota legislature. And it doesn’t matter that the measure provides no exceptions for rape, incest, or a woman’s health, making it the most draconian anti-abortion law in the country. Because even if South Dakotans fail to vote against it, the law will inevitably land on the docket of the U.S. Supreme Court, and it could prove to be the miracle that reverses Roe v. Wade, thereby triggering the post-Roe feminist wonderland we’ve been hearing so much about.

What a relief.

Might I suggest an alternate scenario, however?

Because in another kind of world, where facts dictate political narratives, it’s indisputable that the pro-choice position does not hold the mainstream currency it once did. While liberals have buried their heads in complacent fantasies, the right wing has nurtured and strengthened pro-life sentiment at the grassroots for 30 years. In fact, polls consistently show that slim majorities of Americans, even slim majorities of women, want greater restrictions on abortion. And maybe that explains why 13 other state legislatures were emboldened this year, in the wake of South Dakota, to consider their own restrictive bills against the practice.

Here’s the alternate scenario I mentioned: If South Dakota passes the abortion ban, and if Roe is overturned, we will see plenty of small states take utterly hard-line positions, at least at first. In some states, abortions will be criminalized completely—including the transportation of women across state lines to receive them (Ohio has already attempted this). Other states will take more “moderate” approaches, permitting women in dire circumstances to receive abortions. Meanwhile, unrestricted access will become seen as more and more of an eccentric idea, and plenty of blue-state pro-choicers will be shaken in their convictions.

Presumably, once people start to see the consequences of criminalizing abortion, the pro-life fervency will fade. In general, people don’t like to see their sisters, their daughters, and their girlfriends unhappy or desperate, and an unwanted pregnancy will have that effect. But transforming moral standards can take years, even generations, and until that time, the post-Roe period will probably not be a pretty picture.

So how should liberals proceed from here? Well, first we could stop sending out those notices among ourselves about abortion being just a frivolous, hot-button issue. It’s not: Women’s health and safety are at stake, and trivializing it only compounds the problem.

With that in mind, we could start talking about what it would take to really challenge the pro-life perceptions that thrive in rural, red-state America. Because if the South Dakota ban proves anything, it’s that liberals can’t afford to ignore those conservative states any longer in favor of competitive national elections. Top-down, D.C.-based strategies aren’t working. We’re one country; and if we want reproductive rights, we’re going to have to start at the grassroots.

Sounds like hard work, right? And there’s none of that sexy, counterintuitive appeal. But you know, that’s the thing about political narratives: usually the ones that are the most obvious are the most obvious because they’re true.