Following last week’s Alabama Supreme Court decision banning in vitro fertilization (IVF), Republicans have been scrambling to figure out just what their posture is on the procedure. Millions of Americans have used IVF in both red and blue states, and opposition to IVF is seen as particularly extreme. A number of Republicans came out in opposition to IVF at first. They emphasized the necessary destruction of embryos associated with the practice and their belief that life begins at conception.
But this approach is unpopular. The vast majority of Americans disagree with the anti-abortion perspective on IVF. As a recent poll by Republican Kellyanne Conway noted, “85% of all respondents and 86% of women support increasing access to fertility-related procedures and services for individuals facing challenges in conceiving, including 78% of people who consider themselves anti-abortion and 83% of evangelicals.”
Republicans deflect from IVF
As a result, Republican candidates have taken pains to differentiate themselves from their activist coalition members. Nikki Haley fully flip-flopped on the issue of IVF in the span of a week. Other candidates have come out quickly to distance themselves from the ruling or to say that it is incompatible with Dobbs. Donald Trump has joined the fray as well, criticizing the ruling and pledging his support for IVF.
An opposition to IVF should be expected from anti-abortion advocates. It is entirely consistent with their principles. Pro-choice activists have argued for years that abortion opponents would move on to IVF and birth control the moment Roe was overturned. But the Alabama Supreme Court ruling has forced this previously theoretical viewpoint into the open. Now, the practice threatens to become a wedge issue that could give further support to pro-choice candidates in 2024.
The risk of moderation
It is normal for politicians to moderate their stances prior to an election. Many candidates know that the primary and general electorates are vastly different. Positions that made sense against the most partisan activists and voters in a primary campaign may be inherently unpopular among the nation’s swing voters. There is a general pivot to the middle from both parties, one that inevitably creates awkward headlines when the contrasting positions on issues are particularly stark.
This moderating desire is amplified substantially if a particular candidate believes they will win an election. They may act like a basketball or football team with a substantial lead in the fourth quarter. These teams often begin to play conservatively, satisfied with allowing their opponent to progress but weary of giving up big plays and substantial runs. Candidates have the same impulse. They grow careful and try to steer clear of controversy whenever policy. But like football and basketball teams, there is always the chance of growing so complacent that they allow their opponent to claw back into contention.
Dewey v Truman
The most famous example of a miscalculation about a political lead occurred in 1948. Thomas Dewey, the Republican candidate for president that year, believed that he was assured of victory. His opponent, Harry Truman, was trailing badly in the rudimentary polls of that era. He had dealt for years with stubborn postwar inflation and an intransigent Republican Congress. His party was split three ways. There were also bubbling scandals surrounding communist infiltration. Many observers believed he did not have a chance of victory.
Thomas Dewey agreed with these prognostications, and ran one of the most milquetoast political campaigns in American history. Dewey tried as hard as he could to be as bland and inoffensive to the American people as possible. At one point, he was ridiculed for telling the American people, “you know that your future is still ahead of you.” David Halberstam, noting Dewey’s aloofness and the way he acted like an incumbent in the race, labeled him a “cold piece of work.” At the same time, Harry Truman ran with a zeal and vigor many did not believe he possessed. He assailed the “do-nothing Congress” and took bold action in favor of civil rights and public housing. While Truman definitely won the election with his fierce campaign strategy, Dewey lost it with his fervent desire not to offend any needed constituency.
Donald Trump has never been known for his moderation or his attempts at winning over skeptical voters. His IVF position may be a one-time blip on an otherwise pugnacious and offensive campaign. But Trump may also begin to believe the polls showing that he has a sizable lead in November. He may begin to play the prevent defense, taking on more of these seemingly moderate positions which will not distract the American people from his deep-seated authoritarian beliefs. Trump may try to pull a Thomas Dewey at some point. If he does, he should suffer the same fate as Dewey did nearly eighty years ago.