The New Post-Dobbs Normal
Three years after the fall of Roe, American politics is remarkably unchanged
Three years ago, the Supreme Court delivered the Dobbs (2022) decision, which eliminated the federal right to an abortion, instead leaving states to establish their own abortion laws. The decision overturned the presumed-to-be constitutionally entrenched Roe v. Wade (1973) ruling, which had guaranteed the right to an abortion through the second trimester of pregnancy.
The verdict produced a tectonic political shift, sending masses of women stampeding to the polls to vent their fury, their numbers growing with each campaign. The electoral onslaught produced blue wave after blue wave, creating a permanent political realignment….
Except that didn’t really happen. That was what conventional wisdom said was going to happen, but, so far, it hasn’t.
In the pre-Dobbs era, the unspoken presumption among Democrats and the press was that if Roe ever fell, it would be a pyrrhic victory for the anti-abortion side. Outraged women, it was believed, would storm the ballot boxes in one election after another, ensuring decades of Democratic dominance.
Yet, in the next midterm elections, which were only a few months after the verdict, Republicans retook the House of Representatives, albeit only gaining 13 seats for an overall nine-member majority, which was smaller than some analysts had forecast. Also, Republicans weren’t able to reclaim the Senate and actually lost a seat in the chamber, giving Democrats a two-member majority. But, Republicans did manage to retain a slight 26 - 24 edge in U.S. governorships, losing only two gubernatorial seats, fewer than some had predicted.
Midterm elections are usually rough for the party in power, which, at that time was the Democrats, as they controlled the trifecta of the White House and both houses of Congress. The party that lost the previous presidential race is usually still motivated by that defeat, while the side that won the race tends to get more complacent. Adding to the headwinds facing Democrats, President Biden was highly unpopular at the time and, relatedly, the country was contending with chronic and stubborn inflation.
This was the electoral landscape heading into 2022 that led to initial forecasts of a red wave. Republicans were anticipating decisive wins in both the House and Senate, as well as in state level elections.
Dobbs probably blunted the impact of the advantages that the GOP had going into the campaign, which prevented the expected wave from reaching the shore. But, post-verdict predictions of a 180-degree swing in the vote also fell short, as a blue counterwave failed to form, even though citizens in all five states that had abortion-related initiatives on the ballot—including Montana and Kentucky, two solidly red states—voted to support abortion rights.
Overall, the 2022 midterms were basically a wash. Exit polls showed that abortion was the second most important issue to voters. However, the polls also showed that the most important issue to voters was inflation.
But, the 2024 campaign would reveal a clearer picture of Dobbs’ effect on near-term electoral politics. Donald Trump, who appointed three of the Supreme Court justices who formed the majority in the case, was back on the ballot. Surely America’s awakened pro-choice majority would seize the occasion to deliver a stinging repudiation to the individual who was most responsible for the loss of Roe, while simultaneously putting Democrats in position to codify abortion rights into federal law, which would make Dobbs moot.
It didn’t happen. Not only did Americans return Trump to the White House with a decisive electoral college victory, as in 2016, this time they also gave him a clear popular vote win. Further, Republicans gained four Senate seats, giving them a strong six-seat majority, along with picking up two governorships.
Republicans did unexpectedly lose a House seat, though. Also, 10 more states voted on abortion rights initiatives, with abortion protection measures winning in seven. Florida and South Dakota voted down new laws, opting to maintain their status quos on abortion, while Nebraska went the opposite route and adopted new restrictions.
But, after two national elections, we have enough data to make a projection on the early returns of Dobbs’ effect on electoral politics. And, so far, it doesn’t appear to be a gamechanger.
In general, it seems as if America has settled into a new, post-Dobbs normal. Demonstrations are planned for today’s anniversary, but you probably haven’t heard much about them.
On the other hand, there was non-stop publicity for last week’s No Kings Day rallies. Those demonstrations seemed to suck up the majority of protest energy this season. And media focus is obviously consumed with the Iran crisis at the moment, sucking up resources that might have been devoted to additional coverage of Dobbs protests.
The contrast of today with the first and second anniversaries of the verdict is striking. On Dobbs’ first anniversary, women marched on the Supreme Court, and rallies were held across the nation. And, in 2024, the second anniversary protests were energized by abortion supporters’ hopes of electing a Democratic president and Congress, who could then enshrine abortion protections in law.
Of course, if Democrats brought a no-restrictions abortion bill to the floor of Congress, it would provoke an immediate filibuster from Senate Republicans. Without the 60 votes necessary to break a filibuster and bring the bill to a vote, Democrats’ only way to get around this obstacle would be to eliminate the filibuster, which could be done with a simple majority vote.
A large portion of the Democratic base has long desired to get rid of the filibuster because of the capability it gives Republicans to obstruct Democrats’ agenda when Democrats hold power. However, Democrats’ calculus on the subject may have changed after Trump won the presidency again.
In fact, a lot of Democrats are probably thankful that the party resisted pressure from hardliners who wanted to kill the filibuster during Biden’s term. The prospect of Trump being able to pass laws with as small as a one vote majority in each house likely convinced them that the filibuster is worth keeping around.
For their part, Republicans have said that they intend to preserve the filibuster. For the moment, both parties seem to be acutely aware that, without it, all their opponents would need to radically change the country would be the White House and a bare congressional majority.
Yet, based on some abortion-related polls, Democrats have a case to sacrifice the filibuster for the precise purpose of cementing abortion rights into law. According to Pew Research Center, as of 2024, 63% of Americans would support that outcome, as they believe that abortion “should be legal in all or most cases.”
Public opinion should not be confused with public passion, however. A large majority of Americans may feel that abortion should be permitted in all or most instances, but they don’t feel it that strongly.
Last fall, Gallup conducted a pre-election survey, which measured the importance of issues to voters. Abortion was the ninth most important criteria on which Americans based their vote. It seems that abortion rights sentiment isn’t nearly as deep as it is wide.
This post is unrelated to my book, The Anti-Partisan Manifesto: How Parties and Partisanism Divide America and How to Shut Them Down. But, you can still buy the book here. For the time being, it is only available digitally. To read, download the Kindle app to your phone, your iPad or tablet, your Kindle device or your computer.
Follow me on X at @JeffGebeau or on Facebook