Nevada Republican Senate Candidate Keeps Changing Stance on Abortion – Mother Jones

Mother Jones; Leon Neal/Getty; Ty O’Neil/SOPA/ZUMA

In June, Sam BrownSam Brown, a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Nevada and a longtime opponent of abortion, published an op-ed claiming that if elected and a national abortion ban came before the Senate, he would oppose the measure. This was an apparent move to defuse efforts by incumbent Democratic Sen. Jacky Rosen to use the abortion issue against him. Brown’s campaign issued an accompanying press release lamenting that “Jacky Rosen and Nevada Democrats have spent nearly a year lying about Sam Brown’s personal position on abortion.” With the op-ed—in which Brown declared, “It is our duty as a society to let women know they have options”—Brown was trying to muddy the waters and make himself less of a target on this front. This was nothing new. A review of his campaign website reveals that over the past year, Brown, an Afghanistan war veteran, has regularly changed how he presents his position.

In July 2023, Brown’s website offered a brief and clear message on abortion: “Every life is precious, and it is in our American interest to protect the lives of unborn babies as we would the lives of any other American. As Senator, I will oppose all federal funding for abortion and will only support those justices on the United States Supreme Court who understand the importance of protecting life.” This was standard, if somewhat vague, rhetoric for a politician who calls himself “pro-life.” No mention of exceptions. No mention of respect for those who support women’s freedom on this issue.

The following month, Brown’s website expanded his statement on abortion, adding that he opposed late-term abortions and abortions without parental notice. Brown said, “Every life is precious, I learned that firsthand when I nearly lost mine in Afghanistan.”

By late February, the “Life” section of Brown’s website had changed again. It still stated his opposition. But Brown had added a nuance: “Nevada voters have made clear where they stand on this issue by enshrining abortion protections in our state law. As a United States senator, I will not vote to overturn the decision of Nevadans — I will not support a national abortion ban.” He added: “We must come together as a nation to engage in honest dialogue to personalize — not politicize — this important issue and ensure that all voices are heard.”

Brown, who has been an outspoken opponent of abortion, has said he will not challenge Nevada’s state law that protects reproductive freedom and will oppose a national ban. (In Nevada, thanks to a 1990 referendum, abortion is legal during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy and beyond to protect the mother’s health.) He has also called for a productive national debate about abortion, not just advocating for its restrictions or bans.

It was a giant step for Brown. Last September, he declined to say whether he supported a national abortion ban. He also declined to comment on his support for a ban on abortion at 20 weeks during his unsuccessful bid for the Texas House of Representatives in 2014. In touting the measure, Brown said at the time, “On life issues, it’s non-negotiable for me.” Texas law then had an exception for preserving the life of the mother, but not for rape or incest. And during that losing campaign, Brown even called for tighter abortion restrictions: “I think it’s a shame that here in Texas, which is hailed as a very conservative state on life issues, half of Europe has stricter laws than we do.”

Brown’s statement last February, opposing a national ban, coincided with his wife Amy Brown’s revelation that she had an abortion in 2008, when she was 24 and unmarried. She said it caused her years of anguish but made her more sensitive to women who face unwanted pregnancies. Both Browns said in an emotional joint interview that they would follow the will of the people of Nevada on abortion, a major departure from his days as a vocal advocate in Texas.

The current version of Brown’s website contains another change to the “Life” section. It reads: “I am pro-life, with the tragic exceptions of rape, incest, and the life of the mother.” Brown added the usual exceptions (although he said pro-life, not the “health” of the mother) that he once seemed to oppose.

Brown has never been a model of consistency on the abortion issue. In fact, he has followed a somewhat clumsy path on the issue, which can be seen as motivated by political calculations. In Texas, he was a staunch advocate of abortion. Four years after his failed campaign there, he ran the campaign of a Texas congressional candidate who called for an outright ban on abortion. Brown also served as chairman of the board of the Nevada Freedom and Faith Coalition, whose national chapter championed extremely restrictive anti-abortion measures.

Now, with a referendum scheduled in Nevada this November to enshrine reproductive rights in the state constitution and Brown being bombarded on the issue by Rosen, he has abandoned his past, non-negotiable support for a highly restrictive ban, embraced exceptions and said he would not vote for a national ban.

Yet Brown has struggled to navigate this tortuous path. Since the Nevada initiative came to a vote in late June, he has refused to say publicly who he would vote for in favor of it — a dodge that looks like another step designed to protect him from being labeled a bitter opponent of abortion in a state where abortion rights are popular during an election season where the Republican war on reproductive rights is a major issue.

Yet this week, the Nevada Independent On August 28, Brown released an audio recording of a campaign rally in which he privately suggested, unsurprisingly, that he would not vote for the measure: “I am not in favor of changing our current law. Our current law has been in place for over 34 years. The referendum measure would change the law and would create essentially no limits on access to abortion.”

Politicians have long changed their minds on abortion. But Brown did not say he had changed his mind. In this case, he does not appear to be evolving, but moving away from the issue.