The 2024 election presented a curious case: the abortion issue, expected to be a major factor, remained surprisingly quiet. Unlike the aftermath of Dobbs, where abortion-related concerns significantly impacted election results, 2024 saw a different outcome. Why did this happen? Did the issue fade into the background, overshadowed by economic concerns and immigration? Or was there a more nuanced explanation, like the silent dog in the Sherlock Holmes story?

Early in 2024, Suasion Insights conducted research, both nationally and specifically in Pennsylvania, to determine if pro-life Republicans could neutralize the abortion issue without compromising their core beliefs. The research revealed five key insights:

1. For nearly half of the nation, general agreement with a candidate's abortion stance is a prerequisite for considering other policy positions.

2. A significant portion of voters distrust the GOP on abortion and perceive a lack of empathy from the party.

3. The term "pro-life" carries negative connotations outside of its core supporters, often interpreted as opposition to all abortions, without exceptions, even for the mother's life. This perception is reinforced by the left's framing of even moderate abortion restrictions as outright bans.

4. Conversely, "pro-choice" is perceived as more centrist, encompassing a wider range of views. Many pro-choice voters assume Democrats don't actually want abortions and that late-term procedures are rare and medically necessary, making GOP arguments seem less credible.

5. Voters are generally open to candidates with less restrictive abortion policies than their own, but not more restrictive. The failure of post-Dobbs ballot initiatives aimed at stricter abortion laws underscores this point.

The research also indicated that a successful approach required depoliticizing abortion. Republicans needed to demonstrate empathy and concern for women's needs. This was reflected in changes to the GOP platform language, President-elect Trump's emphasis on exceptions, and most candidates' clear opposition to a national ban. The shift was further solidified by then Vice President-elect JD Vance's debate performance, where he effectively reassured women that Republicans weren't aiming for extreme restrictions. Vance focused on empathy, acknowledging diverse opinions and emphasizing the need to rebuild trust. He highlighted the importance of giving women control through affordability, family planning, and fertility treatments, rather than solely focusing on abortion. He avoided inflammatory language and emphasized letting voters decide, acknowledging the diversity of opinions across the country.

The success of this approach was evident in the diminished focus on abortion as a campaign issue. Looking ahead, the key question is whether the pro-life movement and GOP will continue this strategy, prioritizing empathy and understanding, or revert to tactics that alienate potential supporters.