Like It or Not, Dobbs Is Empowering Voters

Last June, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization instantly became one of the most polarizing and consequential Supreme Court decisions not only of this century, but arguably of all time, seemingly doing away with nearly fifty years of established legal precedent and restoring the Constitution to a place of legal neutrality with respect to the abortion debate in America. In his majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote, “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have inflamed debate and deepened division.” According to a study conducted by the Pew Research Center, 62% of Americans favor legalizing abortion in all or most cases, so it makes sense that Dobbs was received extremely poorly and remains a widely unpopular decision, especially given that the decision has resulted in several states enacting laws which have either severely restricted or outrightly banned abortion. For instance, a trigger law passed by the Missouri legislature that would ban abortion in the event Roe was overturned immediately took effect once the Dobbs ruling was issued.

There has been speculation that the primary reason why the ideologically conservative Supreme Court decided to hear Dobbs was because of an underlying political motivation to overturn both Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a 1992 Supreme Court decision that upheld the broad right to abortion established in Roe. There has also been renewed scrutiny about statements Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett made during their confirmation hearings about the importance of “settled law” and the need to respect legal precedent, which may have swayed some pro-choice Republican senators into voting to confirm them. But this kind of speculation is futile in a post-Roe America. When all is said and done, Dobbs has now been the law of the land for nearly a year and a half. Although legal debates about substantive due process, when it is appropriate for the Supreme Court to overrule precedent, and the proper way to interpret the Constitution persist and remain important in our society, it is integral that the American public focuses on moving forward from this decision and that time and energy is invested into adjusting to life post-Roe rather than looking back and scrutinizing a decision that isn’t going anywhere.

In the aftermath of Dobbs, many Americans have found themselves morally outraged by the onslaught of anti-abortion legislation that has either been proposed or enacted in states across this country, and they are also outraged by the idea that states would pass laws restrict-

There have been positive political implications from Dobbs that are gravely important to acknowledge but have nonetheless been overlooked.

ing interstate travel with the intent to obtain an abortion and even ban the use and importation of contraceptive pills. But despite what many Americans perceive to be the regression in American social policy in the aftermath of Dobbs, the notion that Dobbs has only brought about negative change to our country is decidedly narrow. Indeed, there have been positive political implications from Dobbs that are important to acknowledge but have nonetheless been overlooked.

For the first time since 1973, Americans are now in the position to take their opinions about abortion and act on them at the ballot box. When Roe was on the books, this was not possible. When a political minority is successful in its effort to overturn a Supreme Court decision whose

legal impact had been widely popular among the American people, the majority gets fed up and empowered to act. While it was unsurprising that Americans living in liberal states voted to uphold or expand abortion rights, what was somewhat unexpected was that Americans living in swing states or conservative states turned out in such large numbers to oppose measures propagated by conservative politicians to either restrict or ban abortion. During the 2022 midterms, voters in two conservative states governed by Democrats, Kentucky and Kansas, rejected referendums that would have removed abortion rights from their state constitutions. Roughly 57% of voters in the swing state of Michigan voted to amend their state constitution to codify abortion rights, while nearly 80% of voters in Vermont, a state that typically votes liberal but is governed by a Republican, did the same thing. My home state of California ratified a similar amendment, as well.

Voters in other states are also taking measures to combat future anti-abortion legislation. In August, roughly 60% of voters in Ohio, another conservative state, voted against Issue 1, a ballot measure that would have raised the threshold to amend the state constitution from a simple majority to a supermajority. Ohio Republicans endorsed Issue 1 on the grounds that changes to the state constitution should have the broadest support possible. However, most Ohioans saw right through this argument as a veiled attempt to prevent a pro-choice constitutional amendment from being ratified. The results from Ohio’s referendum may come as a surprise; after all, the state voted overwhelmingly for President Trump in both 2016 and 2020, and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) could lose reelection next year. But Ohio’s firm rejection of Issue 1 is aligned with the national trend of abortion being popular, and Ohioans could not have been less reluctant to show that a disconnect existed between their views and the views of their anti-choice representatives. For liberal states and conservative states alike, the abortion issue is popular enough to motivate voters to show up at the polls and show that their forward-thinking views on reproductive rights are simply out of touch with the decidedly antiquated views of their representatives.

This disconnect begs the question: if conservative politicians don’t represent what most of their constituents believe about abortion, then why are they elected in the first place? Prior to Dobbs, when voters elected politicians to office, they often voted based on how well those politicians represented their views rather than on whether they represented all their views. A voter may have agreed with a conservative candidate’s stance on decreasing government spending, cutting taxes, border security, and the role of government in education, but may have disagreed with them on social issues like abortion. However, voters would still have chosen to elect these politicians because they generally represented their views well despite disagreement over one issue, such as abortion. In other words, when Roe was on the books, voters were willing to elect conservative politicians into office despite conflicting opinions on

The abortion issue is popular enough nationwide to motivate voters to show up at the polls and show that their forward-thinking views on reproductive rights are simply out of touch with the decidedly antiquated views of their representatives.

abortion policy. Dobbs, however, has redefined abortion as an issue on which voters care too much to compromise. The decision has turned pro-choice independent and Republican voters against Republican legislators who aim to enact abortion restrictions and bans.

The political empowerment Dobbs has inspired within American voters with respect to the abortion issue will continue to cause a dramatic shift in the political tides as the 2024 election season approaches. While Republicans were able to get away with campaigning on a message of “pro-life” in the past, they must come to terms with the reality that abortion is now a losing issue for them, and if they continue endorsing anti-abortion legislation, it will ultimately cost them elections and alienate voters, especially if they want to succeed in swing states like Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. It is frankly unbelievable, and nonsensical, that Republicans continue to take this radical approach to abortion despite how unpopular it is among the American public. On the opposite end, the backlash from Dobbs has already scored Democrats a crucial victory in

Empowering voters is a good thing, even if many disagree with the impetus of such empowerment.

the ever-intensifying American culture war, and it could not be more integral for Democratic candidates to make abortion a defining issue of their campaigns. Democrats and the public are, for the most part, aligned on the abortion issue; if voters continue to show the level of turnout for abortion-related ballot measures as they have been showing, Democrats will score both

legislative and electoral victories.

While Republicans may praise the constitutionalist sentiment underlying the Dobbs decision and celebrate it as an achievement of their long-term political goals, they will inevitably face the music and realize that the decision will continue to stab them in the back politically and cause a decline in support. Some Republican presidential candidates have begun to come to terms with this, like former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, who is taking a more moderate, consensus-building approach to abortion policy, while most candidates, such as former Indiana Governor Mike Pence, are doubling down on their anti-abortion stances and are even proposing a federal abortion ban. Democrats, however, have a golden opportunity to keep using the abortion issue to appeal to voters from all regions of the country, regardless of their political leanings, which is a strategy that has already paid off in competitive Senate races in Arizona and Nevada as well as in a competitive Wisconsin Supreme Court race.

Voters in several states, including conservative and swing states, will make their determinations regarding abortion-related ballot measures next year. Some pro-choice advocates may continue to long for Roe and lament the absence of constitutional finality with respect to the abortion issue. While it is easy to scrutinize Dobbs for inspiring a wealth of anti-abortion legislation, much of which has become law, Americans must also learn to appreciate the good Dobbs has done in empowering voters to not only raise their voices on an issue of great importance, but to also take their voices to the ballot box and demand an end to anti-abortion extremism. Empowering voters is a good thing, even if many disagree with the impetus of such empowerment.

Jack Samet ’27 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at jack.samet@wustl. edu.