In the leadup to this week’s Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the Republican National Committee met behind closed doors with unusually strict security to finalize the wording of their party platform. For the first time in decades, the platform approved at the secret meeting omitted any specific reference to a national abortion ban.
Corporate media outlets have reported on the change as an indication of a “softening” on abortion access and have also covered what they frame as significant pushback from more extreme anti-abortion advocates. However, the rhetoric used in the platform, which Republican National Convention delegates voted to adopt on July 15, indicates that any portrayal of the GOP as having adopted a seemingly moderate stance on abortion rights should be met with skepticism by reproductive justice advocates.
Legal experts have argued that in reality, the platform clearly indicates a preparedness to move forward with national abortion restrictions that go far beyond the states’ rights approach that Republicans pushed during the decades when Roe v. Wade prevented states from enacting outright abortion bans.
The new platform language, which Republican nominee Donald Trump was directly involved in editing, has been reported as a reflection of his public stance that abortion should be legislated at the state level. However, the platform states that “the 14th Amendment … guarantees that no person can be denied Life or Liberty without Due Process, and that the States are, therefore, free to pass Laws protecting those Rights.” The reference to the 14th Amendment reflects legal reasoning that lays the groundwork for a nationwide total abortion ban.
The implications of this strategy are significant: by using a constitutional rights-based framework arguing that the protections guaranteed by the 14th Amendment apply before birth, this legal reasoning could result in a complete abortion ban across all states and could simultaneously invalidate pro-abortion legal arguments that similarly make claims about the constitutional rights of pregnant people to decide to end pregnancies. Although the platform appears to argue that states should be allowed to self-determine their own abortion laws, in reality, this legal reasoning would support a federal abortion ban starting at conception across the United States.
It is important to consider the platform within the context of the Republican Party’s history of strategically (and often misleadingly) drafting its rhetoric about abortion. Over the last 50 years, the Republican Party has often downplayed the extreme nature of the abortion policies its members use to rouse their base.
Conservative political strategists in the U.S. have long utilized abortion as a tool to galvanize support among white voters as a cornerstone of their appeal to social conservatism, especially in the 1970s, when politicians could no longer openly support racial segregation to maintain their economic and political power.
Today, conservative organizations and advocates are aware that abortion restrictions are generally unpopular across the political spectrum and across religious groups. Recent polling by AP/NORC indicates abortion rights are more popular now than they were before Roe v. Wade was overturned, with 6 in 10 adults saying abortion should be legal for any reason. Another recent poll found four out of five people believe abortion “should be managed between a woman and her doctor, not the government.”
By removing specific language from the party platform referring to specific gestational limit, and instead leaning into vague anti-abortion statements like “We proudly stand for families and Life,” the Republican Party is attempting to cater to a wider range of positions.
Voters with more extreme anti-abortion views can feel confident that the lavishly funded politicians and organizations that share their views will continue to successfully influence the Trump administration should Trump be elected in November. Those forces played a role in Trump’s first term, when he nominated three Supreme Court justices crucial to the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson decision that upended legal access to abortion for millions of people across the United States.
Mike Pence, Trump’s former vice president, released a statement that was widely reported by media outlets as an example of criticism of the new Republican platform from the party’s own leaders. Pence called the platform a “profound disappointment,” describing it as an example of the party “trying to remain vague for political expedience.” However, the politically expedient and strategic vagueness on abortion that Pence is complaining about is the Republicans’ key to opening the door to increasingly severe abortion restrictions.
Framing such statements from prominent anti-abortion advocates as tension within the party overlooks the Republican Party’s pattern of enacting carefully coordinated strategies focused on increasing their power and influence in the long term. What may appear to be pushback from anti-abortion hardliners can instead be understood as efforts to covertly push the public, politicians and policies continually further to the right on abortion while the Republican Party itself can ostensibly hold a more moderate stance to appeal to swing voters. Some anti-abortion advocates openly celebrated the changes as an opportunity to introduce a national ban into the party’s portfolio that is even more restrictive than the 15-week ban many were expecting to be included in the final platform, while others applauded the strategic nature of the platform changes.
The ambiguity that defines the new Republican Party platform’s stance on abortion is what Mary Ziegler, law professor and abortion historian, argues is the main strategy that Trump employs pertaining to abortion: “Confuse everyone, at all times, as much as possible,” including via “a platform that can convince the most committed anti-abortion activist and a swing voter alike that you actually agree with them.”
His choice of Sen. J.D. Vance as a running mate supports this narrative, as Vance has been similarly inconsistent in his statements about abortion. Within one day of Trump’s announcement that Vance would be his pick for vice president, the Vance campaign website removed a page detailing his hardline anti-abortion views, indicating attempts to shift perceptions of Vance’s positions on abortion to align with the language in the party platform. By keeping their abortion discourse as vague as possible, Trump and his allies can create the illusion that no matter what, they always believe whatever is most politically convenient.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.