I am generally of the opinion that men (in other words, fathers and potential fathers) have good and substantive reasons to take part in crafting abortion policy and should be included in any vigorous discussion on the matter. But there was something awkward and even cringey about Gov. Greg Abbott’s and Beto O’Rourke’s exchange on the subject during Friday’s gubernatorial debate.
The two men represent polar opposite positions; O’Rourke strongly favors few if any restrictions on abortion, and Abbott supports policies that substantially limit its practice.
Each has been a passionate advocate for his respective side.
And during the debate, neither had much novel to say on the matter, Instead, both dodged questions that deserved clear and honest answers.
O’Rourke was by far the worst offender.
When asked what limits on abortion he supports, he resorted to the meaningless trope that he will fight to ensure “every woman in Texas can make her own decisions about her own body.”
ROE MEANT FEW LIMITS
OK. Does that mean that a woman in her third trimester of pregnancy should be allowed to abort a perfectly healthy and fully-formed baby?
According to O’Rourke’s response, apparently it does.
State limits on abortion, O’Rourke continued, were decided in 1973.
“Roe v. Wade, that’s the standard that answers your question,” he responded.
And there you have it. Passionate advocates of abortion like O’Rourke know well and good that the “standard” set by Roe was, in fact, no restrictions whatsoever.
Roe left open the possibility that states could protect unborn children after the first trimester, but in practice, the decision enshrined the “right” of states to allow women to end the life of a fully formed human being up until birth. (Just ask New York or Virginia.)
To his credit, O’Rourke seems to instinctively know that conceding as much is in poor taste.
Saying “I support women,” plays a lot better with independent voters than saying “I support dismembering unborn babies if that’s what works for you.”
He at lest gets points for consistency.
ABBOTT MISSES OPPORTUNITY
Abbott missed a real opportunity to clearly articulate how the pro-life position is the one truly supportive of women and children.
He stumbled over his response to a question about emergency contraception being a viable alternative to abortion in cases of rape or incest.
“The state of Texas pays for that,” he insisted, when confronted with concerns over access and cost being an impediment to rape victims seeking to obtain Plan B. It remains unclear exactly which state agency, if any, handles this issue. Abbott didn’t specify.
In many ways he fell into the trap that has hampered some in the pro-life movement since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision returning abortion regulation to the states was handed down in June.
Instead of articulating clear principles — that a person in any stage of development has infinite value and individual rights regardless of the circumstances of his or her conception — he got caught in the murky waters of emergency contraception policies.
Instead of highlighting the incredible success of programs and nonprofits that offer women holistic support throughout their pregnancies and beyond, or focusing on the need to expand adoption services, he was caught defending the state’s lack of rape and incest exceptions. Such abortions barely amount to 1% and 0.5% of procedures annually, according to the pro-abortion-rights Guttmacher Institute.
Even with Abbott’s missteps, though, O’Rourke’s attempt to paint the governor as extreme on abortion fell short.
While public opinion polling indicates an uptick in support for abortion access in the first trimester, the vast majority of Americans support some restrictions, particularly during the second and third trimesters.
If Abbott is extreme, O’Rourke is just as outrageous.
Perhaps the most poignant moment of the debate — the the one that gave Abbott the edge on the abortion discussion — was when he was asked to respond to charges that he has become too right-wing.
“I’ve always been pro-life,” he explained. His fervor for protecting human life only increased, he said, after he and his wife adopted their daughter.
It was a rare moment of emotion from a man whose political discipline and cowboy stoicism make him unrelatable at times.
And it was a perfect example of the important role men have in the abortion debate.
Note to Abbott: Next time, lead with your personal story.
Cynthia Allen joined the Star-Telegram Editorial Board in 2014 after a decade of working in government and public affairs in Washington, D.C. She is a member of the Editorial Board and writes a weekly opinion column on a wide array of topics, including politics, faith and motherhood.
George is Digismak’s reported cum editor with 13 years of experience in Journalism