On most political issues during her presidential campaign, Vice President Kamala Harris ran on “vibes” of centrism rather than concrete policies. But on abortion, there was no mistaking where Harris stood. Here, she was energized and unequivocal. She was on a one-woman mission to give all women easy access to abortion at all stages of pregnancy. The clarity with which Harris laid out her platform on abortion — unlike her ambiguity on other issues — accentuated the extent to which abortion was the central issue of her campaign. Giving women the ability to abort their children was the purpose of her candidacy. Harris’ resounding loss throws into question the wisdom of such a focus. Voters, exit polls tell us, cared much more about the economy than abortion, suggesting that Democrats would do well to emphasize pocketbook issues to a greater extent. But the rejection also raises the possibility that the promotion of unchecked abortion is, at some level, distasteful to a majority of Americans. After all, Kamala staked her entire campaign on abortion — creating the dichotomy that a vote for her was a vote for abortion “freedom” while a vote for Trump was a vote for abortion bans — and she was soundly rejected. The Harris campaign had believed that the issue of abortion would incite Republicans and independent voters, particularly women, in purple and red states to vote for her. The campaign framed abortion as an issue of freedom, and portrayed laws that banned abortions or limited them as authoritarian. The use of “freedom” to refer to the unrestricted ability to kill one’s unborn child was omnipresent in the campaign. On her campaign website, for instance, Harris said: “In this election, many fundamental freedoms are at stake: the freedom to make your own decisions about your own body without government interference.” Harris was so all-in on abortion that she held several rallies that were wholly dedicated to it, including her rally with Beyoncé, who said she was endorsing Harris in order to ensure that her children would be able to abort her grandchildren. (“I’m here as a mother. A mother who cares deeply about the world my children and all of our children live in. A world where we have the freedom to control our bodies.”) Harris drove around in a bus emblazoned with the phrase “Fighting for Reproductive Freedom” and repeatedly warned women that Trump would undermine their ability to abort their children. At the rally with Beyoncé, for instance, she said, “If you think you are protected from Trump abortion bans because you live in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada, New York, California, or any state where voters or legislators have protected reproductive freedom, please know: No one is protected.” It was for abortion that Harris was willing to abandon her “pivot to the center,” as she voiced support for ending the filibuster in the Senate in order to pass a federal law requiring abortions to be performed nationwide. This all-encompassing focus on abortion led Harris surrogates and supporters to frame the election as a moral choice: Either you were freeing women to live exactly how they wanted, unburdened by the children they unintentionally conceived — or you were forcing women to give birth to children they didn’t love. It was Michelle Obama who brought this into the starkest focus. At an October rally in Kalamazoo, Michigan, she said: “To anyone out there thinking about sitting out this election or voting for Donald Trump or a third-party candidate in protest because you’re fed up, let me warn you: Your rage does not exist in a vacuum. If we don’t get this election right … we as women will become collateral damage to your rage.” She even begged the men in the audience to view women as more than “baby-making vessels.” There were certainly many who responded to this framing by happily stating that they were supporting Harris because they wanted themselves and their family members to be free to kill their unborn children. One such voter was Jason Faasse, a Michigan father of three girls. Faasee explained to CNN that he voted for Harris because he wanted his daughters to be able to abort any of his grandchildren that they didn’t want. “I have three daughters — four children overall. And women’s rights are pretty important to them,” he said. “But just their bodies, their choice, that type of mentality.” A similar explanation for voting for Harris was also provided by Virginians Andrea and Steve Chottiner in an interview with CNN. Andrea said, while holding one of the couple’s two daughters, that she voted for Harris so that her children would be free to abort her grandchildren: “The top issue for me was the right to choose, abortion rights, women’s healthcare. We have two little girls, and we want to make sure they have rights and freedoms and safety.” Her husband, holding their other daughter, echoed his wife, saying, “Well we’ve got two girls here and I want to make sure their rights are taken care of and, you know, they don’t have to worry about anything.” A Wisconsin voter, Maddie Stoelinga, also told CNN that the abortion message at a recent Kamala Harris rally had left her “feeling inspired to protect women’s rights and my own body.” And yet, a majority of Americans rejected this grotesque perspective. Even if they had voted for Trump based on his promise to not limit abortion access, they still had not embraced Harris’ message that the freedom to kill their unborn children should be the top priority. That is a sign that there is at least some recognition by a broad swath of the country of the ugliness and evil of abortion. It also gives Republicans an opportunity: to call out those who would refound America on the freedom to kill their children, and to work against them under the banner of combatting their ugly hatred. The post Did Kamala’s Abortion Obsession Alienate Americans? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.