In Iowa politics, there’s a phrase that gets used to kill righteous bills before they ever see the light of day: “We don’t have the votes.”
You’ll hear it from well-meaning conservatives and especially from professional pro-life strategists. It sounds wise—measured, even humble. But it’s not. It’s the most cowardly phrase in politics. It’s the language of surrender disguised as strategy.
Let me show you why.
If you’ve spent any time around the Capitol, you know something:
Most bills don’t pass because legislators are deeply convicted.
They pass because leadership applies pressure—especially if the issue is seen as a party priority.
Let’s take a look at ethanol subsidies.
Most voters have never gone to the polls thinking about biofuel credits. And most representatives have never given a campaign speech on their passionate belief in corn-based energy reform. Yet when it’s time to vote, ethanol subsidies glide through with strong support.
Why?
Because legislators know what happens when you cross party leadership or powerful lobbies: you lose your committee seat. You lose donor access. You get squeezed out.
But notice this: the fear of political consequence moves votes.
So why are we told that abolishing abortion is impossible unless we already have the votes?
Why is the moral clarity to protect human life treated with less urgency than subsidizing fuel?
When Republican leaders or de facto pro-life leaders say, “We don’t have the votes, so we must adopt an incremental approach,” they’re not making a strategic calculation. They’re sacrificing strategy altogether. They’re admitting defeat before the first shot is fired.
This is not how politics works.
Movements win when they create political cost for inaction. They win when the people demand that their elected officials either represent them—or lose their seats. That’s how ethanol gets its billions. That’s how any bill moves from fringe to floor.
If we apply the same principle to abortion, the question isn’t, “Do we have the votes?”
The real question is: Do we have the resolve to make ‘no’ votes politically painful?
Let’s be blunt: the “we don’t have the votes” excuse reveals something deeper.
It reveals that those stewarding the fight for life do not have the stomach for true political strategy—nor the commitment to ideological purity. They fear being considered “divisive” more than they desire to establish justice and equal protection for the preborn.
That’s why we’re offered compromise after compromise: 6-week bans, 15-week bills, heartbeat laws with no teeth.
These are not strategic half-measures.
They are scraps from the table of political cowardice, handed to the people while the slaughter continues unabated.
Votes don’t appear by magic. Votes come through pressure.
Pressure comes through people.
And the righteous remnant in Iowa must rise to apply it—which requires rejecting the excuse of “we don’t have the votes.”
So next time someone says, “We don’t have the votes,” remind them:
They didn’t have the votes for ethanol until the lobby showed up.
And they won’t have the votes for abolition until courage shows up.
It’s time to stop asking what we’re allowed to do.
It’s time to make the political cost of inaction greater than the comfort of delay.
Abolish abortion in Iowa. No compromise. No retreat.
