In most democratic countries the issue of abortion rights is political but not partisan.

How can that be, you ask?

Simple. In sensible democratic countries, political parties that have the ability and support to form governments concentrate on issues such as the economy, foreign policy, taxes, transportation, health care policy and spending, labor laws, environmental policy and housing policy.

Issues like abortion, gay rights and euthanasia do come up, but in those cases legislators are allowed a “free vote,” meaning the issue isn’t subject to punishment by party leaders for voting the “wrong” way.

Not so here in the Excited States of America, where everyone is always up in arms about everything, all the time.

Abortion here is a litmus test issue for Republicans and Democrats alike.

So, if you’re a Democratic candidate who believes in unions, taxing the rich and empowering the working class, but are also a practicing Catholic who opposes unrestricted abortion rights up until the moment of birth, you will be ostracized by party leaders who will sic their militant faction on you and pronounce you guilty of being an anti-woman bigot and defender of the white, male patriarchy that must be destroyed.

And they’ll say that even if you’re a woman, even though they’ll deny such tactics to commentators like me.

And if you are Republican who supports any form of abortion rights, even very limited rights, you will be branded as being ... well, Bruce Rauner.

The governor of Illinois is definitely an economic conservative who wants to smash the power of public employee unions in the state because he see those unions, rightly, as the foot soldiers and funders of the opposition Democratic Party. He supports smaller government and pro-growth policies designed to grow Illinois’ economy.

But because he was and remains a “liberal” on abortion and alphabet-lifestyle-group rights, he is scorned by the Christian radical right.

This hurts Republicans in Illinois because the religious right provides the foot soldiers, envelope stuffers and phone callers for the GOP, the same function performed by union members for the Democrats.

But Rauner won without this group’s enthusiasm in 2014, so there’s that. The trick is, can he do it again in 2018?

That job got more difficult last week when Rauner signed HB 40, which OK’s Medicaid funding for abortion. The bill also says that if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade, a move that would return the issue of abortion rights to the 50 states, abortion would continue to be legal in Illinois. Previously, Illinois law said the opposite — that abortion would be illegal if Roe vs. Wade were repealed.

Rauner’s signature on HB 40 prompted speculation by some Chicago commentators that Rauner might not seek re-election in 2018. He wouldn’t be alone. More than two dozen legislators and Attorney General Lisa Madigan are packing it in and going home at the end of 2018. There is widespread weariness at state government’s inability to get things done in this age of hyper partisanship, and among the lawmakers calling it a day are longtime stalwarts like House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie, a Chicago Democrat, and Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno, a suburban Republican.

While I don’t pretend to know what the governor will do, I think he still has a chance to be re-elected. Here’s why:

Only a small percentage of voters are primarily concerned about abortion when they go to the polls.

Jobs, the economy and taxation are what people are concerned most about. Most voters in Illinois are very concerned about the continuing failure of state and local leaders to deal with the ever-expanding pension liability, the highest-in-the-nation property tax burden and the empty promises made by politicians who vow over and over to “do something about property taxes.”

Abortion is way down the political agenda for most people.

Rauner will be running against a Democratic nominee (the main race will be among J.B. Pritzker, Daniel Biss and Chris Kennedy) who wants Illinois to have a progressive income tax. I’ve interviewed all three, and none of them would tell me any details of their progressive tax plans.

So, I can’t tell what people in any income bracket would pay. But I know that their suggestions that “middle class taxes would be lower for most people” means nothing if “middle class” is not defined. I just know that Democrats never lower taxes for anyone and that Republicans hardly ever do, either.

Chuck Sweeny: 815-987-1366; csweeny@rrstar.com; @chucksweeny