Republican strategists are exploring a shift away from “pro-life” messaging on abortion after consistent Election Day losses for the GOP when reproductive rights were on the ballot.

At a closed-door meeting of Senate Republicans this week, the head of a super PAC closely aligned with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., presented poll results that suggested voters are reacting differently to commonly used terms like “pro-life” and “pro-choice” in the wake of last year’s Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, said several senators who were in the room.

The polling, which NBC News has not independently reviewed, was made available to senators Wednesday by former McConnell aide Steven Law and showed that “pro-life” no longer resonated with voters.

“What intrigued me the most about the results was that ‘pro-choice’ and ‘pro-life’ means something different now, that people see being pro-life as being against all abortions … at all levels,” Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., said in an interview Thursday.

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said the polling made it clear to him that more specificity is needed in talking about abortion.

“Many voters think [‘pro-life’] means you’re for no exceptions in favor of abortion ever, ever, and ‘pro-choice’ now can mean any number of things. So the conversation was mostly oriented around how voters think of those labels, that they’ve shifted. So if you’re going to talk about the issue, you need to be specific,” Hawley said Thursday.

  • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    87
    ·
    1 year ago

    The first rule of pursuing abhorrent policies for performative reasons is, they need to stay performative. The GOP used to understand this, and carefully pursue anti-abortion policies while carefully not achieving them. But now there’s too high a proportion of people who are such nutcases that they genuinely don’t understand or don’t care that this will lose them elections, and the strategic Republicans are struggling more and more to keep control of their party.

    It used to be the same with “anti-immigration” policies that were surgically careful to preserve the vulnerable workforce while making the right type of performative gestures, until DeSantis came in being enough of a true believer that he’s willing to damage Florida’s economy pretty significantly as long as it lets him be cruel to spanish people.

    The safeties are getting disabled, basically.

    “Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know, I’ve tried to deal with them.” -Barry Goldwater

      • PostmodernPythia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s also an older American colloquialism to describe people from the Spanish-speaking world. They’re not wrong, just a little behind on linguistic changes. Just imagine “Hispanophone” when they say “Spanish”; that’s what is meant in most cases.

        (To be clear, I’m not telling you not to be offended if you’re from the Spanish-speaking world. I’m simply explaining that it’s a colloquialism, not a mistake or an attempt at offense.)

      • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Is this like the “female” thing?

        So this is honestly the first time I’ve heard that using “spanish” for Hispanic people (as opposed to “Spanish” i.e. people from Spain) is in any way offensive. I can’t remember hearing Hispanic people use it themselves, so maybe you’re right on this and I am the wrong one.

        By way of comparison, what’s your stance on the offensiveness level of “Latinx”?

          • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well, but you do know that there’s a slang term “spanish” with the little s, which means Hispanic, right? It’s the same as “black” people aren’t colored #000000, “you up?” doesn’t mean anything about your verticality, etc. The decision that certain slang terms are incorrect because you’ve frozen what the language means at a certain point and no one’s permitted to apply something in a way that’s different than that to accomplish the purpose of communication, is not to me a sensible endeavor.

            Urban Dictionary seems to take issue with using “spanish” in this way, and like I say in my experience people of this ethnicity tend to identify with their particular country of origin, so maybe I am the wrong one. It honestly just never crossed my mind. I don’t agree in general with “you’re not allowed to use word X because we’ve decided that it’s not allowed,” and I definitely don’t agree with avoiding slang simply because it’s slang and slang’s not allowed.

            Last thoughts on the offensiveness front; I think “Latinx” is a perfect example of people coming up with weird rules and trying to get other people to follow them even though there’s no productive purpose to it and all it does is irritate people (including the ethnic grouping that’s supposedly being protected). I do think this happens, hence why I also bring up “female.” I honestly don’t know whether “spanish” falls into that category, or is not at all offensive and I’m just creating this whole issue from nothing, or is genuinely mildly offensive.

        • jennwiththesea@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Spanish-speaking is better. Just “Spanish” is weird. Many folks from Mexico and South America don’t have any Spanish ancestry, and some people or entire countries don’t even speak Spanish as their main language. To reduce everyone who lives on one giant continent to the name of a conquering nation that tried to take them over is, yeah, a little offensive.

          • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            To reduce everyone who lives on one giant continent to the name of a conquering nation that tried to take them over is, yeah, a little offensive.

            Yeah, I get that. Point taken.

    • Snipe_AT@lemmy.atay.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’m a Republican and Ill be voting against anyone that is pro-life, and pro-religion in politics. Neither has a place in governing.

      • Zorque@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        1 year ago

        So you’re a Republican who refuses to vote Republican?

        Are you one of them fancy “centrists”?

        • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          27
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          He’s just an idiot. He voted for this and now he doesn’t like it. Probably just wanted lower taxes without all the “policies”.

      • Riskable@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        So you’re a Republican like Jews for Hitler were Nazis?

        I hate to break this to you but if you believe those things you’re playing for the wrong team. You’re like a player that’s perpetually benched, cheering on the opposing team. They’re never going to let you play or give you the ball.