Op-Ed: Parties should find common ground on mental, maternal health care

As Election Day looms and the race remains tight, both parties are struggling to win over the small but significant group of undecided voters. While candidates make their case on familiar topics like border security, the economy, abortion, and foreign affairs, two critical issues – mental health care and maternal health – are hiding in plain sight, waiting for a campaign to give them the attention they deserve. These issues offer a rare chance for campaigns to break through the static of predictable partisan conflict, potentially giving them a small but decisive edge needed to win.

Regardless of where one stands on the political spectrum, the data is clear. Recent polling conducted by my firm for Centerline Liberties – a non-profit dedicated to promoting common sense policies to defend our constitutional freedoms – found that both issues not only resonate with the electorate but also provide a rare opportunity for cross-partisan consensus in an increasingly polarized political landscape.

Let’s unpack each. Experiencing a surge of interest following the coronavirus pandemic and ensuing lockdowns, concerns around mental health care cut through partisan divisions with striking clarity. A full 59% of voters believe that the government should do more to expand access to mental health services, with nearly half of Republicans in agreement. Additionally, 90% of voters, spanning all demographics, support requiring insurers to cover mental health treatments prescribed by doctors. This near-universal consensus underscores a tremendous gap between what voters want and what candidates are prioritizing.

Americans are clearly fed up with insurance companies interfering in the doctor-patient relationship when it comes to mental health. This is driven by a sad statistic: nearly 4 out of 10 registered voters personally know someone who has been affected by an insurer making it difficult to access mental health care, with about 1 in 10 saying it was “extremely difficult.” The overwhelming sentiment – 67% of voters strongly agree – is that if a doctor prescribes mental health services, insurance companies should not be allowed to deny coverage.

This issue is one of the few with support spanning nearly every group we surveyed – whether older or younger voters, urban or rural, and including swing voters in key battleground states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. The opportunity here is undeniable: the party that stakes out a leadership position on mental health will gain ground where few other issues can bridge the divide.

Similarly, maternal health care offers a potent and underutilized avenue for voter engagement. Nearly 80% of voters believe the government should invest more in improving the well-being of mothers, infants, and toddlers. Even when presented with the potential trade-off of higher taxes or service cuts, 71% of voters affirm that expanding maternal health services is a crucial government investment that will save lives and reduce healthcare costs in the long run. In this era of inflation, shrinkflation, and tightening budgets, the fact that government investments in maternal health still maintain a super-majority speaks to the potency of the issue.

This near-universal appeal provides a rare moment in politics – one where the noise of polarization can be muted, and candidates can genuinely connect with the priorities of the American public. The question remains: who will be the first to seize this opportunity?

The clock is ticking: as many as 15 million votes have already been cast, and Election Day is less than two weeks away.

In a race where small margins can make all the difference, mental and maternal health are issues that offer widespread, bipartisan appeal. The party that speaks to these concerns, and does so first, can step outside the partisan echo chamber and bring new voters into their coalition, both on Election Day and in a governing coalition beyond.