On Tuesday, Aug. 8, the people of Ohio voted no on a constitutional amendment that would have raised the bar to change their state constitution from 50-percent-plus-one to 60 percent. The “no” vote means the current law will stay in place. The vote is being seen as a defeat for pro-life forces who are now facing a November constitutional amendment that, if adopted, will wipe out every Ohio pro-life law and enshrine a woman’s right to an abortion at any point in her pregnancy. The vote wasn’t close, with 43 percent voting for the change and 57 percent voting against. Most observers who are following the pro-life debate in Ohio believe the November amendment will pass by a similar margin.
How can this be? Ohio, once considered a swing state in national politics, has been trending red for the last several elections. Like South Carolina, the Ohio Legislature is dominated by Republicans who have a veto-proof majority in both the Senate (26-7) and the House (67-32). Of course, neither chamber needs to worry much about overcoming a veto because, also like South Carolina, the governor, lieutenant governor, and every other partisan office holder in the state is a Republican.
How did pro-life amendments fail in Kansas, Kentucky, and several other states since the demise of Roe?
Before we try to answer that, we need to acknowledge that the Ohio amendment was a gamble. Republicans in the Ohio Legislature, paying attention to how other states have voted since the overturning of Roe, wanted to make any effort to protect abortion in the constitution an uphill fight. But many Republican voters were not comfortable changing the state’s constitution when the reason was obviously linked to the November referendum. Many more failed to connect the dots between the two amendments.
Pro-abortion forces in the state were able to frame the issue as the Legislature attempting to limit the power of the people. The question was the only issue on the ballot and yet turnout was high (38 percent). More than 700,000 votes were cast in early voting. Those votes were mostly no — and the number of Democrat women who voted early far outnumbered Republican women and men, and Democrat men.
I believe there are three reasons pro-life advocates are losing these votes in states where pro-life elected officials dominate. First, pro-choice advocates have a huge advantage in fundraising. Grassroots non-profit organizations, many who exist from donation to donation, can’t match the funding Planned Parenthood and other national pro-choice groups can pour into an election. The “no” proponents in Ohio were up and running with saturation advertising a full three weeks before the “pro yes” side began to answer. That kind of advantage in messaging takes stacks of cash to pull off, and it leads to the second reason pro-life advocates are losing these initiatives — organization.
Pro-choice forces tend to be better organized and more sophisticated in their messaging. They also see abortion as a fundamental political and cultural issue at the heart of a progressive march to a cosmic shift in worldview thinking. For many progressives, abortion is close to a religious ritual that must be protected at all costs. They are more likely to take time off from work to knock on doors, make calls, and show up for get-out-the-vote rallies. Pro-life advocates are harder to mobilize. They may be passionate for the protection of life, but they are also busy living their own lives. When they get rolling, they are a formidable force, but building momentum is difficult.
Finally, I believe pro-life advocates have been so busy focusing on winning the political argument that we have neglected to win the theological and philosophical argument. The high-water mark of the pro-life movement may have been the widespread use of the ultrasound machine. For decades, all pro-choice advocates had to do was tell women not to worry — abortion is just the discarding of a clump of cells. The ultrasound machine made that lie untenable.
So, pro-choice forces have shifted their argument to “abortion is healthcare” and the all-important personal autonomy argument. Many women now value their ability to maintain their autonomy more than they value the life that stirs in their womb. Unfortunately, in a culture where self is supreme, personal autonomy arguments accompanied by slick marketing seems to be winning the day.
Pro-life advocates need to make a compelling argument for life based on the truth that all human life bears the image of God and is therefore endowed with intrinsic value. Followers of Jesus possess the truth about life. We must passionately re-engage from every pulpit and in every personal conversation making the case that life is precious.
Winning hearts and minds is actually harder than winning elections, but the results are life-changing, permanent (rather than being subject to change at the next election), and ultimately more reflective of the power of God. We need to cry out to God, interceding for the unborn, asking Him to roll back the darkness and reveal the lies of the enemy. We must continue the fight for life politically while recognizing our dependence on God’s provision and bearing witness to the presence of His image and the power of His love.