GOP Doesn't become the Pro-Life Party

I think it’s as simples has: if the Republicans hadn’t, the Democrats would have. Assuming some people still generally care about abortion in this scenario, it’s prime political real estate, so if one hadn’t snapped it up, I think the other would.

In order for the Democrats to snap-up that piece of political real estate, they'd have to divest themselves of some other prominent holdings, most notably their near-monopoly on the feminist vote. And that's just not gonna happen.

Basically, pro-life jibes with the conservative worldview, pro-choice with the liberal one, at least insofar as we are talking about the post-1960s understanding of these terms in American politics.
 
I wouldn't be so sure that Humphrey would be end up regarded as an enemy of the anti-abortion movement.

Humphrey+MCCL+New+cover+9-74+lo-res.jpg

First of all, that was before Roe v. Wade. A lot of people had previously had fairly good relations with the right-to-life movement before Roe but it became harder to do so when it required repudiating a Supreme Court decision (and in this case it would mean a decision in which Humphrey appointees would almost certainly have joined). Once Roe was the law of the land, being "personally opposed" to abortion was no longer enough. And "leave it to the states"--a popular position among Democrats and Republicans alike before Roe--was now impossible (at least without a drastic change in the Court) without a constitutional amendment. Humphrey opposed such an amendment in OTL:
https://www.nytimes.com/1976/04/25/archives/humphrey-offers-views-on-abortion.html

Second, even before Roe, Nixon was proving to be friendlier to the movement than Humphrey was:

"Some of Nixon's advisers—particularly Pat Buchanan and Charles Colson—told the president that a conservative stance on abortion might help him increase his share of the vote among conservative Catholics. Nixon seemed eager to follow their advice, not only for political reasons, but also because much of the support for abortion law repeal came from a culturally liberal, feminist left that he personally despised. In April 1972, he told White House aide H. R. Haldeman in a private White House conversation that abortion, along with marijuana use, was an issue that he wanted to "hit ... hard" in the upcoming presidential campaign. The next month, when Rockefeller's commission recommended the legalization of elective abortion as a way to reduce population growth, Nixon immediately repudiated the suggestion.. He was quickly becoming a president that the pro-life movement could support.

"Not content to rest their hopes on a single party, pro-lifers then turned their attention to the Democrats. After Muskie dropped out of the race. pro-lifers were left without a reliably pro-life candidate. The two remaining frontrunners for the nomination—Senators George McGovern and Hubert Humphrey—had hinted that they were in favor of legalizing elective abortion. Pro-lifers knew that both candidates were facing strong pressure from abortion rights supporters within their party, but they hoped to counteract that pressure with a show of strength from their own side. Humphrey seemed like the better target. In June 1971, the Minnesota senator told the NRLC that he was opposed to abortion, but in October, he backtracked, telling the press that abortion should be a matter "between the woman and her doctor." Pro-lifers responded to Humphrey's shift with a barrage of letters. Humphrey again vacillated and promised to release a statement clarifying his position. But he never did... " https://books.google.com/books?id=FKfTCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA185

BTW, Nixon's conduct should put to rest the notion some people here have that the GOP didn't try to make an issue of abortion until 1980. Have such people forgotten "acid, amnesty, and abortion"?
 
Last edited:
"Friendlier to the movement" isn't the same level of emphasis as OTL's making it a litmus test to be a republican rep/senator, nevermind the presidency after the 80s and especially the post-94 Gingrich revolution GOP.
 
If a political party(you mean the GOP?) is anti-abortion, AND led by WASPs, I think the most pro-contraception they're likely to get is supporting its use by married couples(unlike what the Catholics believe), but still opposing its distribution to minors(especially in schools), or government campaigns promoting condoms for STD prevention etc.

I know there are quite a number of examples of individual Christian activists who are pro-life on abortion but liberal on other social and economic issues(Dorothy Day comes to mind here), but for the most part, I think the mainstream pro-life movement is always going to be socially conservative.

I think I must have phrased that in a confusing way. I didn't mean to suggest religious activists taking on the issue, I meant politicians. I used WASP as a short-hand for the pre-realignment stalwarts of the Republican Party, who were more than just WASPs, I realize. They certainly could be moved on contraception.
 
Being pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia seems like something rich people might like, to control the masses they hate. I'm honestly surprised Republicans aren't in favor of things like these.
By your logic then democrats or liberals must hate the masses since they tend to be pro choice and pro euthanasia. People hate people for all kind of reasons or any reason at all, liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat. I know plenty of poor people and a few rich ones who are horrible human beings and many poor people and a few rich ones who are wonderful human beings. Wealth has nothing to do with it, it’s how your raised and who you are.
 
I would say the the republicans have never been "pro-life" at all. More like anti-woman and pro-hypocrisy. After all, no one is more for abortion than the "family values" republican with a pregnant mistress.
Liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, devout and atheist all have hypocritical moments. One could argue that democrats are for killing babies and old people but not convicted murderers. An awful lot of guessing people motivations and making assumptions about why they are for or against something. They could just really believe that it’s the right thing. Doesnt mean they are right or shouldn’t be challenged but all this is based on disbelieving they just could disagree and come to a different conclusion on what right or proper. You can be pro life and it’s not about being anti woman but thinking or believeing that it’s wrong based on your values and life expoerence. You can be pro choice and it’s didn’t mean you want to kill babies. My wife had an abortion some 20 years ago and she at times will say it was the worse thing she ever did. She is staunchly against abortion. She is not religious at all, and is a democrat. Can the stereotypes, it’s never that simple
 
Last edited:
I think I must have phrased that in a confusing way. I didn't mean to suggest religious activists taking on the issue, I meant politicians. I used WASP as a short-hand for the pre-realignment stalwarts of the Republican Party, who were more than just WASPs, I realize. They certainly could be moved on contraception.

Well, for the record, I didn't think you neccessarily meant evangelicals. I thought that you were specifying the GOP, minus strong Catholic infliuence.

In any case, the point still stands: the modern GOP is not going to become a big supporter of contraception(and even less so, if there are a lot of Catholics on-board).
 
Well, for the record, I didn't think you neccessarily meant evangelicals. I thought that you were specifying the GOP, minus strong Catholic infliuence.

In any case, the point still stands: the modern GOP is not going to become a big supporter of contraception(and even less so, if there are a lot of Catholics on-board).

No, not the modern GOP. It would have to be before the Evangelical fusion with the GOP. Stake out a coherent position on opposing abortion but promoting contraception before the right to life movement gets a chance to monopolize the narrative on what being anti-abortion has to look like. The 1960s wouldn't be too late. Late 1940s would be better.
 


Maybe if the public discussion on date rape and acquaintance rape had started in the mid-60s instead of the mid-80s.

Including the social norming approach that most guys do not engage in jerkish, abusive behavior. And in fact, most guys don't believe in bullshit rape myths, which makes it easier for other guys to speak up with matter-of-fact confidence.

---------------------



This kind of approach could have taken place a long time ago. And might help bring about a situation in which Christian reformers are more allies with secular reformers, at least on some issues.
 
Last edited:
And maybe with the recession in 1974-75, the hypothetical Toys R Us cashier becomes a case discussed in (?) Christianity Today and/or other evangelical publications. Basically, she got stuck with a crummy boyfriend. She's pregnant. And she knows she doesn't want to raise a child with this guy, probably for good reason.

And because the job doesn't pay that much, maybe not even if she's in the beginning stages of the management ladder, and the health coverage is sketchy or non-existent, she doesn't really have workable choices about raising the child on her own.

----------------------------

This is basically the approach of trying to reduce the incidence of abortion. And just it would touch on things like payments to single moms which evangelicals might find challenging because it looks like we're "rewarding" single moms. Well, the discussion in Christian publications or radio shows could come out in different ways.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Being pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia seems like something rich people might like, to control the masses they hate. I'm honestly surprised Republicans aren't in favor of things like these.
The core of the Republican coalition are religious working class white people: they hate abortion and you can't win elections with just rich suburbans
 

RousseauX

Donor
In order for the Democrats to snap-up that piece of political real estate, they'd have to divest themselves of some other prominent holdings, most notably their near-monopoly on the feminist vote. And that's just not gonna happen.

Basically, pro-life jibes with the conservative worldview, pro-choice with the liberal one, at least insofar as we are talking about the post-1960s understanding of these terms in American politics.
The feminist vote isn't that big, if the democrats are opposed to abortion they could hold onto a lot of the traditionally democratic catholic working class vote to make up for it
 
https://stmichaelchurch.net/gabriel-project

‘ . . The Gabriel Project is a pro-life parish-based apostate of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston offering assistance to women experiencing difficult circumstances during pregnancy. Gabriel Project volunteers act to provide practical advice and help as well as spiritual support and Christian witness to mothers in need. . ’
And I’ve seen some Catholic Churches even more upfront about offering practical help to pregnant girls and women in difficult circumstances.

And maybe this could have become competition with evangelical Protestants?

And maybe pro-life Christians of all stripes could have been the first, not merely to provide journalistic coverage of the slow erosion of middle-class jobs, but to get this national conversation going in a politically effective way.
 
Last edited:
Fun fact: "Remarkably, until 2008 there was never a presidential race between two major party nominees who had taken consistent positions on abortion throughout their careers."
https://books.google.com/books?id=bUQgAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA70 And 2008 has so far been unique in that respect!

McCain's voting record deviated from GOP orthodoxy on some issues, but not on abortion. OTOH, in 2012 and 2016 the GOP went back to its practice of nominating people (Romney and Trump) who had been all over the map on abortion but who were by the time of their nomination sufficiently "sound."

I had thought that GW Bush, unlike his father, had been consistent on the issue, but that appears not to be the case, if you go back to his 1978 congressional candidacy. https://www.thenation.com/article/bushs-abortion-flip-flop/

So 2008 remains the only presidential election where the GOP nominated someone who had never supported abortion rights and the Democrats nominated someone who never opposed them.
 
Top