Select Page

Dems will lose on abortion

Dems will lose on abortion

The prevailing wisdom among the left is that the leak of the potential decision by the Supreme Court to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision hands the Democrats a major benefit for the midterm elections.  They see it as a game changer – giving Democrats a chance of retaining the Senate and even holding on in the House.

Their strategy is based on the facts that show most Americans do not want Roe v. Wade overturned.  They cite polling numbers as high as 70 percent against ending the 1973 decision.  They further assume that such a Supreme Court decision will create a high level of motivation among that 70 percent – especially the women.  As long as Democrat strategist base their plans on those numbers and those assumptions, they will lose big time.

Currently, the pro-abortion advocates have been going bonkers over the leaked draft decision authored by Justice Samuel Alito. They are all over the media and in the streets ripping the document apart word-by-word – attacking Alito on his scholarship, his knowledge of history, and his harsh language.  Thanks to their friends in the press, the left has made the leaked draft one of the top three stories of the day.

No matter how much they churn the waters, they still are only dealing with a leaked draft.  They are shadow boxing.  If the final decision does not overturn Roe v. Wade – but only upholds the 15-week ban – the left will look like a bunch of Chicken Littles.  And even if they do overturn Roe, I am betting that the language of the final decision will be different in basic arguments and tone.

But there are bigger issues than a difference in language.  There are reasons why the Democrats will come up short if they think abortion is going to drive the vote in their favor.  Abortion has almost never been a factor in any major election.  Political professionals and strategists analyzing elections have shown it to have had no more than a two percent impact – and in most cases, no impact at all.

Of course, the pending decision can change that to some degree, but not as much as the pro-abortion advocates believe.  That is because if they actually think they have the support of 70 percent of the voters, they are deluding themselves.  The devil is in the details.

First of all, the 70 percent number may be – and probably is – wrong.  The highest number I have seen was around 62 percent.  And in recent polls, that number has been dropping.  In the latest Pew Research Poll, the number favoring maintaining Roe v. Wade is 59 percent.  Other polls, however, show different numbers.

According to Gallup, the nation is essentially evenly divided on the issue of abortion, with 49 percent favoring legalized abortion and 47 percent opposed – with 5 percent offering “no opinion.” (That comes up to 101 percent due to rounding.)  Considering the margin of error, it is a wash.  But what about that 5 percent who have “no opinion?”  Since they are not picking sides, they are not likely to be activists in the pro-abortion movement.  They are not likely to base their vote on that issue.  By default, that puts them on the side of the pro-life community – giving the pro-life position a 52 percent majority of the public in terms of voter interest.

And finally, the abortion supporters seem to be assuming that the women of America will be up in arms over overturning Roe.  The pro-abortion advocates and the media habitually ignore the very high percentage of women who are pro-life.  Gallup puts women for abortion at 52 percent and women against at 43.  Hardly the impression one gets from leftwing media analyses and narratives.

Gallup is not alone in producing real numbers that undermine abortion advocates’ strategic arguments.  According to MSNBC’s numbers-cruncher Steve Kornacki, 65 percent of Americans OPPOSE abortion in the second trimester – and a whopping 81 percent OPPOSE in the third trimester.  This would seem to make the restrictive laws in many states that are at the center of the Supreme Court decision in line with public sentiment.   If the pro-abortion community is counting on that 70 percent support figure they toss about, they will be sorely disappointed.

For sure, those numbers can change or be refuted by other polls.  But the fact remains that the pro-abortion lobby does NOT have the overwhelming support they claim – and that may explain why we see so many pro-life legislators and officeholders and so many laws limiting abortion.  They have public support.

Numbers in the polls may seem inconsistent, but that is usually due to how the questions are framed.  But one thing is clear, abortion-on-demand in all circumstances is NOT popular with the public.  That means that all the restrictive state laws that have the left’s hair on fire seem to be where the majority of Americans are.

Once it is understood that even overturning Roe v. Wade does not end abortions in America, the public will not find the Court’s decision to be quite as Draconian as the left would have us believe.  Perhaps the pro-abortion folks understand the weaknesses among the public – and that is why they are trying to pile on those unrelated issues.

The left is going into hyperspace with their creative fearmongering scenarios.  The decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, however, will have no meaning – nada – on other issues, such as gay marriage, interracial marriages, and contraception voting rights.  They are not even remotely at risk. The tactic will not work because the public is too smart to buy such nonsense.  

The weakness of the pro-abortion position was evident in the Senate vote on a bill that would have actually gone further than Roe v. Wade to allow virtually all abortion on demand.  Though it was a foregone conclusion that the legislation would fail, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer wanted every Senator to vote for the record – assuming that it would hurt the election prospects of those voting against the bill.  Pro-abortion folks claimed the bill would pass if they could end the filibuster.  In fact, the bill failed in a 51 to 49 vote.  Schumer could not even deliver all the democrats.   It was not killed by the filibuster but by a majority vote of the Senate. – a bipartisan vote.

To spread more fear based on disinformation, Democrat leaders also falsely claim that if Roe is overturned there will be no exceptions to the ban on abortions. Those states that have been LIMITING abortion generally allow exceptions for the life of the mother, rape, and incest – the exceptions most folks support.  Yes, some legislators may have proposed complete bans, but after the legislation is worked through the system, those exceptions are generally included.  

There could be a small number of state legislatures that would enact a total ban on the argument that they do not want abortions performed in their states.  They are generally states where abortion is almost non-existent already – such as Missouri, with its one clinic in the entire state.

What the pro-abortion advocates fail to appreciate is that all the legislatures that are passing stricter limitations on abortion are composed of members elected by the people.  If the left really had overwhelming support for abortion, there would not be so many governors and state legislators passing restrictive laws.  Duh.

Yes, the pro-abortion forces are impassioned and loud.  They can take to the streets by the hundreds and even the thousands.  They have a class of politicians who will pound the rostrums in outrage over the possibility of overturning Roe v. Wade.  And they have the support of the left-leaning news media to amplify their voices and spread their fearmongering propaganda.  But they are not the political force they believe – or at least want the rest of us to believe.  I doubt when the dust has settled on the 2022 midterm elections, we will not be looking at abortion as a determinant issue.

So, there ‘tis.

About The Author

Larry Horist

So,there‘tis… The opinions, perspectives and analyses of Larry Horist Larry Horist is a businessman, conservative writer and political strategist with an extensive background in economics and public policy. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman. He has served as a consultant to the Nixon White House and travelled the country as a spokesman for President Reagan’s economic reforms. He has testified as an expert witness before numerous legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress. Horist has lectured and taught courses at numerous colleges and universities, including Harvard, Northwestern, DePaul universities, Hope College and his alma mater, Knox College. He has been a guest on hundreds of public affairs talk shows, and hosted his own program, “Chicago In Sight,” on WIND radio. Horist was a one-time candidate for mayor of Chicago and served as Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, where he led a successful two-year campaign to save the historic Chicago Theatre from the wrecking ball. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He is praised by readers for his style, substance and sense of humor. According to one reader, Horist is the “new Charles Krauthammer.” He is actively semi-retired in Boca Raton, Florida where he devotes his time to writing. So, there ‘tis is Horist’s signature sign off.


  1. Rat Wrangler

    It’s not so much an issue with abortion not actually being banned completely if Roe v Wade is overturned, but that so many other social advances will cease to be legal. Same sex marriage, and even interracial marriage may end if the decision is overturned. Of course, no one has actually stated why this might happen, but many on the Left are claiming it will, and some People are gullible enough to believe that the Right is trying to take away all of their fairly new social rights.

    • larry Horist

      Rat Wrangler. As far as those “other” rights being in jeopardy, we will just have to wait for the lefts’ response when they fearmongering scenarios fail to come to pass. Remember who the Trump campaign was conspiring with the Russians. That was a big lie. Remember how trump was going to fire Special Counsel Mueller. Or start a war to get himself re-elected. The latest is claiming that if Republicans win in November, it will be the end of Democracy. In terms of Roe v. Wade, who elected all the state legislators and governors who are placing restrictions on the procedure? Oh yeah … the people did. And it appears that they will be re-electing them despite any Roe decision.

  2. frank Stetson

    With all due respect, screw yourself Larry. You keep branding us Pro-Abortion. I do not know one American that self-identifies as pro-abortion. How about we term you as Pro-Rape and Pro-Incest? Like it? Of course you will jump down my throat and say, “well, I don’t like all aspects of the law including that one” but really, how could we tell since Pro Choice, by law, means rape babies and incest babies are often in the offing. Your laws. I am Pro Choice.

    As to the rest, good luck. Keep baying at the moon but hard to change hearts and minds on this one. And if you had an abortion, you are probably locked. If you know someone that benefitted from an abortion, then you are locked. Those numbers increase by over 500,000 each year, year after year, as wells as their relatives, friends, etc.

    And you asshats have still not done a single thing to support the results on you overturning the decades old law of the land. Not one thing for potentially 500,000 unwanted babies including rape babies, incest babies, babies on drugs, whatever. Not one extra support mechanism put in place as support for what you have wrought.

    • Ben

      You’re either for or against. The democrats are baby killing nazis

      • Ben

        Cuz Trumplicants just like to rip the live ones from their Mommies and then deport them to different places at different times to send a message. Child traffickers all.

        • Darren

          That’s some heavy allegations. You’re a sick piece of shit. You’re mother should have aborted you. She probably never knew who fathered you.

          • Ben

            Wow, third person attacks allowed if liberal

    • larry Horist

      Frank Stetson … so abortion is so bad that you cringe at being in favor or pro-abortion. But you ARE in favor of women getting abortions … ergo pro-abortion. You can call me pro-life or even anti-abortion, if you like. I am willing to state my position. Like so many on the left, you want to be pro-abortion but not just described as pro-abortion. And you are wrong about no efforts to build support systems. Many churches are gearing up offering adoption options. There are legislative proposals to provide special funding to encourage and support of folks adopting. But what you miss is those 500,000 babies who are not aborted get to enjoy their constitutional right to life. You prefer killing off all those developing humans based on the irresponsibility adults. And in the cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother, there are exceptions. And no … people are not locked on the issue if they had an abortion or knew a woman who had one. Many have regretted their abortions, but the leftwing pro-abortion media never tells their stories.

      • frank Stetson

        Larry, I think you misinterpret my opinion.

        First, and I have said it here, on your posts, many times, something like: “Larry, I too believe life begins at conception, if not before, BUT I feel unwanted babies may be a worse sin than abortion which is also a sin. Yet I do not judge others on this sin, nor would I like them to judge me on my sins as well. That’s the province of God. I do not feel it is murder, unless late term, and that’s really a different discussion. I just don’t feel it’s my place to judge these decisions, sure as hell don’t plan to support unwanted babies, either personally or with my tax dollars, and I feel a better place is to affect positive change would make these folks change their minds about termination, voluntarily, not by force of law with either jack-booted thugs or local vigilante’s like in Texass. I do not support a punitive action to force delivery for an unwanted embryo, fetus, whatever. Ultimately an unwanted child as punishment for becoming pregnant. IMO, there are no rights for a fetus, fetus, fetus (just using the word for Larry) until the first breadth (except perhaps late term, again, a separate discussion).” Larry, I am clearly not pro-abortion. I am pro-choice though. Deal with it, but that’s the case. I am against abortion but can see reasons for choice and am glad my State allows choice. But quit branding me with your lie. I do not brand you “pro-racist” for every right-wing hate crime perpetrated on people of color and other minorities.

        Second, can you post your source for “Many churches are gearing up offering adoption options. There are legislative proposals to provide special funding to encourage and support of folks adopting.” I googled it seven ways to sundown and nothing came up. I am glad everyone is “gearing up,” but can not find anyone. Much less proposals from the States.

        Larry, again, as I have said to you, neither of us can prove when life begins. But I concede the point and believe an I even add that all-knowing God knows before that special wink of they eye. The law, in many places, picks a point and people, in many places, have a choice. I do not think the State should force deliveries. I do not think jack booted thugs should force delivery. And I am vehemently against vigilantism and turning citizen against citizen for pecuniary gain. That’s totally unAmerican.

        When I was young, I wrote a High School newspaper piece on my journey to an abortion clinic. I detailed the mandatory consultation process, the waiting period, and interviewed a number of people. There were rapes, young people feeling too young to be a parent, and an much older, well-to-do couple that just felt too old to go through it again. I did not see anyone who “prefer killing off,” irresponsible people, or regrets — just people who did not want to be forced to give birth by jack booted government thugs or crazed bounty hunters looking for a payday. I did not see any callous women making a frivolous choice for some sort of vanity. And I saw very little, beyond the older couple, male support present. Article made the Baltimore Sun and I made a time out as apparently a brief expulsion was called for.

        “But what you miss is those 500,000 babies who are not aborted get to enjoy their constitutional right to life.” Yet the Constitution does not define the origin of life. And it’s life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and you might be condemning kids to only achieving the first. Unwanted kids may not feel free or happy. On this one I pray I am wrong, have been before on the results of your cut-back’s harm, but I think the unintended outcomes might be serious.

        You prefer killing off all those developing humans based on the irresponsibility adults.” But you lie to yourself since none of your laws do anything to anyone except the female adult. Adults would be the wrong term, it should be “on the irresponsible woman.”
        “And in the cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother, there are exceptions.” that’s not true in a number of states, and growing.

        “And no … people are not locked on the issue if they had an abortion or knew a woman who had one. Many have regretted their abortions, but the leftwing pro-abortion media never tells their stories.” This is an assumption, a guess, you do not know. It could be 100% one way or the other, or in between. Feel free to source your “many with regrets” though.

        Bottom line: I am against abortion but for pro choice laws. I believe we should augment all services providing choice to the mother, federal, state, religious, and non-profit. But I think State-mandated deliveries is a step backwards for women and force is wrong here.
        Further rape baby and incest baby state-mandated forced delivery is cruel and unusual punishment for a crime the woman most certainly did not commit.

  3. Read my liPs

    Are you saying that more than 50% of the American population would like the government decide their medical decisions for them? What happened to the GOP chant of medical decisions should be between a patient and their doctor?
    So much for the small government conservative huh?

  4. Facist GOP

    Larry, you are saying that more than 50% of the population would prefer the GOP make medical decisions for women?

    What happened to the Republican chants of medical decisions should be between the patient and their doctor?

    So much for small government conservatism.

  5. Facist GOP

    Larry, it’s your stance that more than 50% of American voters prefer the GOP dictate what women do with their bodies? Roughly 60% of voters believe in safe, legal abortion. You guys have only won the popular vote once in the last 30 years, you think controlling half the population is going to help that ?

    What happened to the Republican chant of medical decisions should be between a patient and their Doctor?

    So much for small government conservatism.

    Quick question, whatcha gunna do with all the frozen embryos from IVF? Are those lives? Will potential parents be criminally charged if they stop paying the freezing fee?

    • larry Horist

      You win the award for creating the most screen names to repeatedly comment on various commentaries. Do you think it creates more support for your viewpoint. I think you have posted using more than half dozen screen names in just the past few days. The two above have the same screen name. Did you forget to change it. It is really rather childish.

      • GAy wedding cake down my throat

        Oh, no Larry, once you started allowing false accounts to post under established names and giggled at me pointing it out, I just just decided that I would continuously post under the names of stupid shit CONservtives and MAGAts have said. I didn’t change the post name because your shit site didn’t post my comment, so I reposted.

        Childish? I thought that’s what y’all liked about trump, I figured you’d love this!

        Soooo.. what about frozen embryos? With less than 50% of voters voting for the GOP ticket, how exactly does alienating 60% of the population help the GOP? What about a patient and their Doctor you guys claimed to care so much about? With GOPers already setting their sights on birth control, I’m sure that will endure you guys to even less.

    • Grooming Supremacy

      Shit ass website. Wouldn’t post, then posts 3x.

      Oh well, I guess it’s still better than trump’s Truth Social

  6. NeEd more guns

    Hey Larry,
    If selling a gay wedding cake makes you complicit in their marriage, does selling a gun to a murderer make you complicit in the death?

    • Frank stetson

      Larry wouldn’t sell a cake to gays. But a gun, sure.


      • Mark

        I damned sure would. Google the pink pistols group PS. I love guns. It’s the trash people who misuse them.

  7. Deregulate my wife’s reproductiVe Organs

    Maybe if Texas would rename their power grid “Uterus”, then it would be better regulated.

  8. A c.

    Larry, decisions made by Supreme Court justices are not supposed to be influenced either way by public opinion. In the this most contentious and division producing case as well cases before the lift the court demanding straight forward constitutional law interpretation, lacking a cultural tug of war. Issues decided in the court of opinion are won by the loudest voices and bullying tactics. These do not always represent the. to often silent majority. Polling the public proves nothing as true sentiment in the moment varies and will not always get a serious definite decision.
    One’s vote cast in secret on the ballot is the actual serious decision documented for a count. Totaling the count pro and con on issues put to a public vote are a referendum. This is the will of the people, at least at that time.
    The people have repeatedly voted pro-abortion in state after state in the past 50 years since Roe v Wade was decided. The court of public opinion does not rule, The vote of the people over rides public opinions every time
    In this case where pro-choice and pro-life are pitted against each other on a woman’s right to choose, abort pregnancy or carry pregnancy. State representatives are the few making decisions for the many women on the basis of the representatives’ own perception, an opinion.
    The people may have elected the persons to the legislature or senate in their state on the basis of other less polarizing of person issues. States run ahead of the people’s will by enacting into law a code of this most personally intimate situation. Especially in this instance, what right is enumerated in law that allows the people entrance into another person’s decision process at this most personally defining moment of choice. Who among us individually would step into a woman’s life in the hour of her choice for aborting. How would you our being there uninvited not be.Illegal trespassing, as the least of any charges made. So, it is when government intrudes on individuals for the purpose of stripping away the very liberty and pursuit of happiness everyone in this country is promised.
    Personally, I am opposed to the act of aborting a fetus. Preferred and wished for are fetuses who may be carried to term and born well and healthy. Then delivered into the mother’s loving arms. This successful delivery into a accepting environment just happens to be the usual, happily.
    My personal wish founded on my faith beliefs is for women in their pregnancy make the choice of life for their unborn child. However, I know and understand not everyone holds the faith beliefs that reinforce my value placed on life for the unborn healthy fetus. Those women who see abortion differently, believing abortion is the way out of an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy.
    My faith beliefs are not codified in our nation’s constitution and laws. In fact in law is a prohibition for an established state church and religion.
    I have no right or power of control over another’s choices even when those choices.violate personal beliefs I hold close and dear. But, as long as I have breath in me. I will advocate for others in their right to believe or not, believe as I chose to believe and conduct my life. Mainly I see rights being denied others will one day come around and at some future time be denied me in my faith belief practice. When certainty of personal freedoms in exercising rights granted earlier is taken away with some arbitrary rules and regulations. Then, it will be recalled that time denying others certain rights enjoyed by myself and others.
    As Christian’s are we presuming to much that our ways become law and others be compelled to comply with those tenants and doctrines believed good and just in our Lord’s sight?
    Look closely, don’t you recognize political party ambitions getting tangled within this controversy? Who stands to profit in this contention between continuing past practice and undoing decisions made by SCOTUS and justices in that time.?0



    to belie





    • Denny

      The fools who post on this site doesn’t realize that abortion will be illegal. But depending on the scotus would become a state issue. As it should be.

      • Denny

        Meant to say won’t be illegal

      • Dark MAGA

        Denny, the idea that you are ok with dictating what medical choices a woman can make with her doctor indicates you are the fool. A government that is strong enough to force you to give birth is also strong enough to force you to abort an undesirable pregnancy.

        Why stop at the state determining if you can make your own medical choices? Why not let each County decide? Or each City? Or each block? Or god forbid, each woman?

        • Denny

          I want women to have a choice. But let it become the state’s issue. Everything doesn’t have to be federalized

          • Jesus guns babies

            Denny, why stop at letting the state decide? Why not county wide? Or block wide? Or even each individual house?
            Or wait for it… what if we let women decide?

          • Joe Gilbertson

            Yes, let’s do that will all laws. Speed limits? probably not. Addictive drugs? Not so much. Robbery? Murder? Hmmmm

      • Ben

        I just wish Larry would take the abortion picture off his resume and byline. Enough.

        • Men regulating women

          Especially the dishonest picture of a 20 week old fetus.

  9. Laws dont work

    Joe, you say let’s do away with all laws… essentially the Texas AG is saying the same thing. Enacting gun laws wouldn’t stop people intent on using guns to kill people, so why bother?

    Laws obviously don’t keep people from using drugs, or speeding and they won’t stop people from having abortions, so why bother?

    The government should not be involved in women’s reproductive decisions.