What Happened With Abortion Rights

New research from Reproductive Freedom for All illuminates what happened, and the path forward

Abortion and the midterms

In late June of 2022, the US Supreme Court changed the landscape of American politics when it released the Dobbs v. Jackson decision, effectively striking down the precedent of Roe v. Wade, immediately ending the Constitutional right to abortion in this country. At that time, the exact impact it would have on subsequent elections was unknown. The first test came in only a matter of weeks in Kansas, where a state constitutional amendment would appear on the primary election ballot. And while the limited public polling showed a very close race, the “no” vote, rejecting the effort to remove abortion rights from the state constitution, prevailed by over 18 points.

Our analysis of that election showed that the landslide result was driven by massive voter registration and turnout increases among women, and especially younger women, while at the same time attracting a substantial crossover vote from Independents and Republicans.

The November elections nationwide in 2022 demonstrated the power of abortion rights, but also offered a caveat - where abortion rights were literally on the ballot, or where candidates centered the issue in their campaign messaging, we saw something similar to what we observed in the Kansas amendment vote: higher turnout from women and younger voters, and more crossover voting for Democratic candidates. With this substantial boost, Democrats emerged from what was overwhelmingly projected to be a “red wave” Republican landslide in both chambers of Congress with an intact majority in the Senate, and a very narrow minority in the House, defying historic precedent.

What happened in 2024?

Given this experience in 2022, many are wondering what role abortion rights played in the 2024 elections, especially given Democrats’ loss in the presidential race.

Well, Reproductive Freedom for All fielded an extensive post-election survey (conducted by Impact Research) across the presidential battleground states, and have shared the results with me. I’ll cover some high-level takeaways before digging a little deeper into the details:

• Abortion was a top motivator for Harris voters

• Voters who reported hearing a lot about the candidates’ positions on abortion voted for Harris

• Trump won despite his position on abortion, not because of it, largely because voters did not believe that he would enact a national ban

Let’s start with that first bullet. One of the immediate post-election takeaways was that Harris lost due to lagging Democratic turnout. Memes emerged within the first 24 hours after polls closed asking “where did the 15 million votes go”, referring to the national gap between President Biden and Vice President Harris in total votes received. Well, as the votes were counted around the country (albeit slowly in some places) that gap narrowed substantially.

The gap currently stands at about 6.8 million votes, and will come down slightly more as the final remaining votes are counted. That’s a drop of about 8%. But, perhaps more relevant to this analysis, the drop-off within the battleground states was only 0.8%, meaning Vice President Harris very nearly matched President Biden’s vote total in the states that decided this election. In four of the battleground states (Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin) Harris actually won more votes than President Biden.

It will be some time before we have all of the turnout data from the 2024 election, but the early data has shown that, within the battlegrounds, the same voters who have been mobilized since the Dobbs decision were similarly motivated to vote in November. For example, in Georgia voters under 30 were the only age group to see an increase in turnout as a percent of registration, all other groups declined relative to 2020. Women and voters of color were also highly motivated, resulting in an electorate in Georgia that was younger, more female, and less white than it was in 2020.

What drove that surge in turnout in the battlegrounds? A growing body of evidence suggests that it was abortion rights. According to the Reproductive Freedom for All survey, 58% of battleground Harris voters cited abortion rights as a major reason for supporting her, as compared to 23% who cited inflation, and 15% who cited crime.

The second bullet point here is fascinating to me. According to the Reproductive Freedom for All battleground survey, voters who reported hearing a lot about either candidate’s position on abortion rights voted for Harris.

A whopping 76% of voters reported hearing a lot about Vice President Harris’ position on abortion, suggesting that the positive messaging from the campaign and allies broke through the noise quite effectively. And the survey showed that Harris emerged with a 7 point margin over Trump with these voters across the swing states. That’s not particularly surprising, even while it affirms the strategy of positive messaging on the issue. What did catch my attention in these poll results was the fact that Harris also won 51%-49% among those who reported hearing a lot about Trump’s position on the issue. But here’s the catch, only 59% of battleground voters reported hearing a lot about Donald Trump’s position on abortion. Had the share of battleground voters who heard a lot about Trump’s position on abortion matched the share who had heard of Harris’s position (76%) and Harris was able to hold her 2% margin among those voters, she likely would have prevailed in this election.

This brings me to the third bullet point: Donald Trump won the presidency despite his position on abortion, not because of it. As demonstrated by the survey finding that only 59% of battleground voters reported hearing a lot about Trump’s position on abortion, the stakes weren’t clear to enough voters. Only 41% of voters reported being “very concerned” that Donald Trump would enact a national abortion ban. 59% of Hispanic men, and 57% of white men reported not being very concerned as well. How important was this? Consider that those who were concerned about a potential Trump national abortion ban provided Harris almost unanimous support: 98%-2%.

These findings have been affirmed by various other post-election surveys. For example, the recent Navigator survey asked battleground voters, when thinking of the status of abortion rights in this country, if that issue was a better reason to vote for Harris or Trump. They found that Harris had an 18 point advantage on this question, and a 24 point margin among swing voters in the battleground states, a margin unsurpassed by any other issue.

Similarly, a survey from Hart Research found that only 16% of swing state voters cited abortion bans when asked “what specific negative points do you remember from ads about Donald Trump?”

So it appears that, while messaging centered on abortion rights was incredibly effective, not enough swing state voters were exposed to negative messaging on Donald Trump’s record on the issue, and were therefore able to hold onto their impression that Trump would not act to further restrict abortions in this country.

How did this happen? Well, it’s impossible to say with absolute certainty at this moment, but an analysis of ad spend data conducted by our team at TargetSmart suggested that, while the Trump campaign and allied independent expenditures bombarded Democrats with negative advertising, the Democratic ecosystem, especially the larger pro-Harris IEs, focused more on positive and contrast messaging.

Moving Forward

The Reproductive Freedom for All survey highlights two key points when considering the role that abortion rights will play, both in the politics of governance as Republicans take control of the White House and Congress, as well as future elections:

• Voters strongly support a national abortion protection law

• Voters will be less likely to support Republicans if they try to pass more bans on abortion care

By a striking 62% to 29% margin, voters support a law that would protect the right to access abortion care and doctors' right to provide abortion care nationwide. Even Hispanic men would support this law by a 24 point margin, while white men offered a 12 point margin of support for this potential legislation. This proactive issue affords Democrats the opportunity to mobilize their base (75 point approval margin among Black voters, 56 points among Hispanic women) and persuade swing voters (+40 with white women).

To the second bullet point, only 11% of battleground state voters said that they would be more likely to vote for Republicans who support additional bans on abortion care, while 49% said they will be less likely to support them, and 35% said it would have no impact.

Similar to the polling on a proactive national abortion protection law, voters of color are overwhelmingly motivated to vote against Republicans who support additional bans, while base Republican voters report no substantial motivation to vote for supporters of those bans.

Conclusion

Abortion rights remains one of the most, if not the most salient issue in American politics. But it’s also not a magic wand that will mobilize voters without effective communication. The 2024 results, as illuminated by the Reproductive Freedom for All survey, demonstrated that Vice President Harris’ strong support for abortion rights helped mobilize swing state voters, resulting in a much closer result in the battleground states than the national results would have predicted. Yet, at the same time, the failure to disqualify Donald Trump, especially with typically lower-information voters in the swing states, based on his abysmal record on abortion rights, was costly.

Going forward, Democrats and supporters of abortion rights must establish themselves as not only protectors of abortion rights, but also pro-actively working to restore rights. At the same time, they must ensure that swing voters are aware of Republican efforts to further diminish abortion rights around the country. When voters are aware of the stakes and the consequences, supporters of abortion rights will succeed.