Christine Drazan Gives a Masterclass on How to Run as Pro-Life Republican in a Deep-Blue State

Christine Drazan, the Republican nominee for the Oregon governor’s race, could be the Beaver State’s first Republican governor since 1987. As an Oregon native, I’m particularly invested in the race — I profiled Drazan back in May, and have covered the fact that she continues to poll neck-and-neck with her Democratic opponent, Tina Kotek, in spite of concerns about Republicans losing momentum in other parts of the country. Earlier this month, when the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics moved the Oregon governor’s race from “Leans Democratic” to “Toss-Up,” I wrote:

This isn’t an outlier: The Cook Political Report also moved the Oregon governor’s race from “Likely Democrat” to “Lean Democrat” at the end of last month. Drazan might have an actual shot at this thing. And it can’t come soon enough — as I wrote when I profiled the Republican back in May, “Decades of one-party rule haven’t treated the Beaver State well: The state boasts the fourth-worst homelessness problem in the country, and the eighth-worst education system. (With the fourth-worst graduation rate and teacher-to-student ratio.) According to a 2021 CNBC analysis, it’s the sixth-worst for business friendliness, and the third-worst for cost of living. As one former Democratic state representative put it in an unusually candid interview with Willamette Week in March: ‘S***’s not working.’”

A month ago, Oregon held its first gubernatorial debate of the 2022 election season. I’m just getting around to watching it now, and — while I’m admittedly biased — I think Drazan had a strong showing. But I wanted to flag one particular answer she gave, which was something of a brief masterclass in how to run for statewide office as a pro-life Republican in a deep-blue state. Amid concerns that the overturning of Roe v. Wade could hinder the GOP’s prospects in 2022 — and some efforts by pro-life Republican candidates to play down their pro-life commitments — Drazan is in the unenviable position of having to stick to her professed pro-life principles while also appealing to a very pro-choice electorate. And rather than lie or attempt to conceal her views on the issue, she took the opportunity in the debate to reaffirm her stance while simultaneously neutering the attack that she could pass unpopular abortion restrictions and pointing out the radicalism of her opponent’s position. Here’s her full answer:

I’ve never shied away from my pro-life values. I haven’t. But you can’t really have it both ways. So the folks on the stage with me today are saying two things: That a woman’s right to choose is protected in Oregon — that it’s in Oregon statute, and they’re the ones that put it there — and they’re also saying that a woman’s right to choose is potentially at risk in Oregon if you elect a pro-life governor. Both of those things cannot be true without legislative action. Can’t be. So as I have stated previously, I will be a governor that follows the law. I will not bypass Oregon’s laws — I will actually enforce them uniformly, whether people in Portland like it or not. And at the same time, I am not hiding from my own values.

Oregon’s approach to this issue is unique. We are one of just a small handful of states that allow elective abortion up to birth. That’s not what Roe v. Wade expected and anticipated, that’s not how most states have regulated this right, this point of access. That’s Oregon. Oregon has some of the most extreme laws on the books related to this issue, and I don’t think I’m at all out of line with Oregonians on this. Most Oregonians do not believe that taking a life in the third trimester — when if that baby were born otherwise it would be viewed as pre-term — that that is somehow a woman’s right. That’s just not…accurate for Oregonians’ views on this issue. And so I am a pro-life woman, [but] this issue is in Oregon statute, and I have been very clear that I will abide by the law.

Watch the full clip here: