Exclusive: Congressman-elect Pat Ryan on Abortion Ban: 'This Is Unacceptable'

In a special election on August 23 widely seen as a bellwether for the national political mood, Democrat Pat Ryan defeated Republican Marcus Molinaro in a race to fill the vacated seat in the 19th Congressional District in New York state. Both men are county executives, Ryan in Ulster, Molinaro in Dutchess, counties located some 100 miles north of New York City with the Hudson River as a shared boundary line, connected only by bridges.

In an odd twist resulting from redistricting, both Ryan and Molinaro will be on the ballot again in November, but not facing each other. Ryan will be facing Republican Colin Schmitt in the newly created 18th District, while Molinaro will be running once again for the 19th District seat, this time facing Democrat Josh Riley.

The "old 19th" has earned its bellwether status as a swing district with an uncanny history of picking presidents — it has gone for the winner in the presidential election in the last seven elections, dating back to 1996. Since that year, it has elected four Republicans and two Democrats, with Ryan becoming the third.

Ryan, a West Point graduate, served two tours of duty as an intelligence officer in Iraq.
In this wide-ranging exclusive interview with Newsweek, he explains his vocal support for women's reproductive rights and how his military experience helped shape those views. He discusses what he sees as the greatest threats to democracy, both in America and abroad, the use and effectiveness of "dark money" in political campaigns, and how he sees the "ground shifting" from the Republicans in the upcoming midterms.

This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity.

Newsweek: How did your service in Iraq influence your decision to get involved in politics? And in what way does that public service background shape your approach to governance?

Ryan: I think there are two elements to my answer to that question. The first is on a personal level. Seeing and getting to work with young American men and women willing to risk their life for our country because they believe so deeply in our country and our democracy is such an honor, and really, to me, reinforces the gravity and importance of the decision that the Congress makes to send Americans to war.

And so I think it's critical that people making those decisions understand the weight and the responsibility of what's at stake in making those decisions. And that sort of relates to part two, which is that being on the receiving end of bad foreign policy in Iraq, both in the decision to go and then many of the decisions of how we conducted it, really motivate me to be a voice for more thoughtful foreign policy as we look ahead in a really turbulent time in the global order.

Is foreign policy an area you'd be interested in focusing on in Congress?

Very much. My hope would be to serve on either Armed Services or the Intelligence Committee, assuming that there's openings there for a lowly freshman. Even after I left active duty service, I chose to go to grad school at Georgetown focused on security studies — national security — because I really wanted to wrestle with, 'how can we do this better?' We got some things right in a few dimensions, but mostly, how did we get it so wrong in Iraq, and trying to have some sort of theoretical grounding and scholarly grounding in how to do it better.

Foreign policy is a big issue right now. Is that something that came up in the campaign that you were able to message about and get feedback on from constituents?

It wasn't one of the biggest issues I'd say that proactively came up. I think people right now really are focused on fundamental threats to choice, to freedom, to democracy, and that's what I heard over and over and over on the campaign trail — ripping away a freedom that I fought to protect and friends of mine gave their lives to protect, the right to make a decision about reproductive health care. That has struck such a nerve clearly across the country, and has led to, I think, patriots from all parties standing up and saying, 'this is not who we are as a country.' That is a powerful thing. I think it's a hopeful thing, actually, that when these rights are taken away, Americans stand up for each other and say, 'this is unacceptable.'

This issue of freedom being abridged is something that is playing out on the national stage. Do you see this issue of freedom as something that you could be working on in the Armed Services or Intelligence Committee when you get get to Capitol Hill?

I think if you looked at the 20- to 30-year horizon, there's going to be a real, hopefully nonconfrontational, but a real competition on the global stage for whether democracies can continue to hold their ground in the face of growing authoritarian power. And we're certainly seeing that in Russia, we're seeing more and more of that in China. And I think it's our responsibility to both recognize that's happening and be clear-eyed about it, but also craft a more nuanced national security strategy that doesn't always start with the use of military force as our first, and only often, tool.

We have to be thinking about trade policy and economic levers, we have to be thinking about diplomatic levers, we have to really reinvest in our alliances even more now than ever. The NATO Alliance, the alliance in the Pacific, which is growing as we speak in the face of a rising China, those are long-term investments that we need leadership in Washington continually calling for and championing.

I've got a 3-year-old and now 8-month-old, two boys, and if we don't get this right, I fear that they could be fighting in a major war. And that's just not something that I'm willing to let happen.

On this subject of freedom and defending freedom, and how you spoke about it, in terms of the GOP infringing on abortion rights, can you tell me about how the subject of government overreach can effectively be used as a part of the Democratic Party's messaging platform, moving forward and seeing the success it had in your campaign?

When the government tries to tell women what to do with their bodies, when the government tries to tell people and families how to make these personal decisions with lifelong consequences in every dimension, that's not who we are as a country.

When the government allows more deadly weapons, the same weapons I carried in combat, to flood our streets, when the vast preponderance of parents and teachers and people I talked to are even more afraid about gun violence and dropping their kids off at school and daycare.

We're just seeing an extreme, extreme ideology on the right that's increasingly disconnected from the vast preponderance of the American people. And I think what we're basically seeing is when those sort of guardrails get hit, like in the Dobbs decision, Americans stand up and say, regardless of party, frankly, 'this is not who we are as a country.'

One more question on the issue of abortion. You just mentioned Americans standing up regardless of party to say, 'this isn't who we are as a country.' The turnout of women voters in early voting was historically high, but can you tell me a bit about how it played with male voters?

I think people understand. Men and women, all people, understand that when a fundamental freedom is taken away from one of us, it affects all of us. And that when the right to have access to abortions is taken away, it's the beginning, as telegraphed by Justice Thomas, of potential grabs and taking away of other rights, LGBTQ rights, for example, in marriage equality.

I mean, the fact that the vast preponderance of Republicans in Congress wouldn't support a measure making contraception legal in the country — talk about extreme, talk about disconnected from reality. I think with men in particular, one of the most compelling pieces of data I've seen is the movement of dads. I don't know if you saw this poll, the movement of dads specifically after the Dobbs decision, and as a dad myself, I get it.

Clearly there was there was a either a willful ignorance or a complete miscalculation, or both, by Republicans. It's like they didn't actually talk to people about this. They just foisted this extreme idea on folks, and once people understood the consequences, it was like, 'well, no way. That is not what we want.'

You said on MSNBC's Morning Joe last Thursday that you felt the ground shifting away from the GOP in the recent weeks. Was there one particular catalyst for that, and can you talk about what that realization meant for you?

Certainly, the catalyst was the Dobbs decision — there's no doubt about it. It was a seismic event. And what I think has really happened is people who believe in that right, not just Democrats, a wide coalition of people who agree with the concept of reproductive freedom are on the offensive and able to say, 'look, look at this blatant power grab of a fundamental freedom from tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of Americans.' And the threat became very real, not theoretical.

And so I am very actually optimistic and hopeful to see how overwhelming and how broad the response has been. And it really is a moment of, I believe patriotism, of people coming out and saying, 'these are not American values when you take rights away.' The Supreme Court, throughout its history, has been about granting more rights, addressing long-standing injustice, not taking away rights. And I just think it really crossed a bright red line.

You spent years defending freedoms as a soldier, and then you made freedom and this issue of abortion restrictions central to your campaign. Yet [Marcus] Molinaro (Ryan's Republican opponent] ran a tough campaign with a lot of negative messaging, including mailers specifically that portrayed you as radical and dangerous. How do you think that messaging came off to your district's constituents, especially when juxtaposing it with your background and your own messaging?

I think these pathetic attacks and really tired attacks didn't land because they just are not grounded in reality, and people clearly saw through that. We saw hugely energized Democratic turnout because we gave people something to come out for, to stand up for freedom and actually take a constructive positive vote. The Republican Party, and certainly my opponent, are so negative and dark and cynical, and you see it results in depressed turnout. Because I still believe if you don't give people something to vote for, and the other side does, it's quite predictable what's going to happen, and the Republicans are in real trouble.

They have no actual plan to address economic pain and relief. And while we're delivering at every level, local, state and federal, they're literally afraid to even talk about choice. I mean, talk about uncomfortable conversations and twisting yourself in knots. My opponent went out of his way for months to avoid the conversation and then gave up sort of a pablum of nonsense talking points that said nothing about it. So they're in real trouble.

The Republicans just received a $1.6 billion donation to boost advertising with the midterms, which can be done now after the SCOTUS' Citizens United decision. With the national attention on your race for the 19th District being considered a bellwether victory for the midterms, it seems likely that 'dark money' is going to get poured into future races down the line. How do you feel about this phenomenon, and what do you think can be done to counter it moving forward?

I think our campaign finance system is rotten to the core. There's a reason I've refused to take any corporate PAC money to be part of that broken system, and it is rotting our democracy right now. We need fundamental campaign finance reform. One of my proudest endorsements was from a group called End Citizens United that has a real clear and strong legislative agenda to address, not just the bad decision handed down by the Supreme Court, but other measures that we can take to restore trust and transparency in our campaign finance system.

And this is actually one of the most resonant points throughout my campaign, is people understand what's happening here as well. And it increasingly is a threat to democracy, when the wealthy elites can essentially come in and try to buy these elections. The encouraging thing to me, again, in our race, is that it didn't work. Over the last, I think it was either two or three weeks, the Republicans collectively spent over $2 million in dark money super-PAC attack ads from the NRCC and the CLS. I'm sure they had some impact, but certainly not enough. And so, I think as long as we retain the offensive, and we're clear about what we stand for, those attacks do not work. But certainly one of my priorities in Congress will be to be part of the coalition that's pushing for real campaign finance reform at a systemic level.