Is it possible that welfare reform and my small contribution toward that effort in 1996 as the Republican chairman of the Welfare Reform Task Force may have inadvertently contributed to the election of a Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate in 2022, a Kentucky governor and a Virginia state legislature in 2023? Sounds strange.

After the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade — which returned the abortion question back to the states — the GOP has had to fend off well-organized campaigns in states across the country.

Is there a lesson to be learned?

At the very least, Democratic women, especially young women, have been super motivated to vote and vote Democrat. There is no wonder and no secret why Vice President Kamala Harris is leading the charge for the Biden-Harris campaign on the abortion rights issue. She has made frequent college campus stops to discuss the issue. It is paying political dividends.

One of the primary goals of the welfare reform bill (the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996) was to break the cycle of government dependency. All too often, for the indigent, to qualify for welfare benefits you simply had to have a baby.

I cried constantly that the government makes it easier and more beneficial to be on welfare than to get a job. I said forcefully that welfare discouraged the formation of two-parent households, as the presence of a male in a household could reduce or eliminate welfare benefits. We questioned how a young lady living in a crowded small apartment could escape her conditions by merely having a baby of her own. This would mean she would qualify for independent housing, food stamps and other benefits all paid for by the federal government, Uncle Sam.

Well, Congress, then-President Bill Clinton and America built a consensus in 1996 on the need to change that system. And we did.

But little did I realize that nearly 30 years later, it could play a role in the fate of elections. Why? Or better yet, how?

It helped create “passionate” young women voters. I recently witnessed the “passion.”

In 1996, we wanted a system that would not give a mother an increase in benefits simply for her having more and more children. That was the wrong incentive.

Prior to the 1996 welfare reform legislation, there were more babies being born and fewer abortions, as the monetary pressures were less than they are today. In fact, having more babies earned you more money and benefits from the federal government.

Ironically, today, due at least partially to welfare reform, the economic incentives are gone. More women are opting to have an abortion due to the economic pressures. They will fight to protect that right, as it would improve their economic fortunes.

Today, the driving force behind the recent elections is the adroit organizational skills of pro-abortion groups. Their messages of “freedom” and a woman’s right to have total control over her body have resonated with many voters. But it cannot be denied that Black women are a major part of the effort. The urban vote against Republicans has been extremely high for non-presidential year elections.

With all the problems we have in the nation and the world, it is possible that for many the ability to end a pregnancy that would lead to the further procreation of man could be the determining factor in their voting for or against you.

Knowing this reality, the ball is truly in the Republican Party’s court. Will they be adamant on principle (and lose in 2024)? Or will they be practical on what is realistic when it comes to abortions and then have a chance to compete against Democrats?

Copyright ©2025— Trib Total Media, LLC (TribLIVE.com)