It is clear that the majority of the electorate is in favor of women’s right to abortion. The results of referendums held across the country on Election Day attest to the fact that the majority are pro-choice. But not pro-choice enough to vote for Vice President Kamala Harris.

How come Harris lost a (not so close) election to Donald Trump? Because the right to abortion was (and is) by no means the only issue that concerns the electorate. Indeed, throughout the campaign, polls showed that a majority of voters identified the economy as the top priority and believed that Trump was better positioned than Harris to address that priority.

That Trump has more confidence in the economy than Harris is somewhat ironic. The numbers show the economy under President Joe Biden is in good shape. Another irony is that Harris has a degree in economics from Howard University. And her claim that Trump’s tariff policy would be inflationary (costing households $4,000 a year) proved effective… when she made that claim.

Unfortunately for Democrats, Harris was unable to carry the pro-choice argument all the way to the White House. Indeed, when considering abortion, Democrats appeared to be a single-issue party. Furthermore, the argument used by pro-choice forces is flawed to the point of being disingenuous.

We have heard a lot about sinister pro-life forces who would deny abortion even in cases of rape, incest and/or the woman’s health. But what happens if one (like me) is opposed to abortion except in cases of rape, incest and.or the woman’s health? Truth be told, these scenarios are the exception in abortion cases, as the procedure is far more often a simple act of birth control used to abort a troublesome pregnancy.

This is not to minimize pregnancies involving rape, incest or the health of the woman. These scenarios are by no means marginal. But when pro-choice forces emphasize rape, incest and/or the mother’s health, they rarely admit that they support the right to abortion, even in the majority of cases that do not involve abortion. pregnancies of this nature.

Coming back to politics, the majority of the electorate also supports abortion on demand. But as noted, it’s simply not the only issue voters care about and by no means a compelling enough issue to get Kamala Harris elected. The electorate chose statewide referendums as a tool to secure abortion rights.

The assertion that there is a difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion is common in this never-ending debate. It’s true. But when abortion rights are emphasized at the expense of other issues, as pro-Harris organizations like Planned Parenthood and the ACLU have done, the argument crosses the line between pro-choice and pro- abortion.

My argument could be criticized in hindsight. But this is not hindsight. Polls showing the economy as the main issue were available and visible for all to see. It’s unfortunate that the Harris campaign didn’t make the economy an even bigger issue.

Don’t get me wrong. In many ways, Harris ran a good campaign and she was the right candidate. It also wouldn’t surprise me if Democrats turn to it in 2028. But if the experts (like me) are right that Trump’s tariffs are going to be disastrous, it would be nice if Democrats could cite the campaign of 2024 for having warned the government. the electorate of the consequences of the tariffs (and the consequences of leaving NATO, leaving Ukraine defenseless and trying to arrest 11 million people slated for deportation).

Instead, Democrats have opted for a virtually single-issue campaign in 2024. And it cost them dearly.

John O’Neill is a freelance writer in Allen Park and graduate of Wayne State University.