Editor’s note: This text is a component of The Conversation with America Media, offering diverse perspectives on essential and contested issues within the lifetime of the church. Read other views on abortion and the reversal of Roe v. Wade, in addition to news coverage of the subject, here.
The headline of the 2022 midterms was the red wave that fizzled. The outcomes as a substitute reflect a closely divided nation.
But in five states—California, Michigan, Montana, Kentucky and Vermont—the reason for protecting life was on the ballot, and in all five it failed. Combined with this summer’s loss in Kansas, it needs to be increasingly clear to the pro-life movement that the post-Dobbs landscape poses real, if not existential, threats to the reason for protecting unborn life within the womb. If nothing changes, we should always expect abortion-related referenda in all however the deepest conservative states to provide results just like what we saw Tuesday night.
The professional-life movement will metamorphosize, or it’ll die. The half-century battle to overturn the constitutional travesty that was Roe v. Wade required a certain set of rhetorical tools and political strategies. That goal, thank God, was achieved last June.
If nothing changes, we should always expect abortion-related referenda in all however the deepest conservative states to provide results just like what we saw Tuesday night.
However the institutions and networks that did a lot to finish Roe, and proceed to be real sources of strength for pregnant women, need to shift gears. Fighting state-level battles on the ballot box requires a greater willingness to seek out compromise and credible commitment to supporting women and youngsters, reasonably than the legal strategy that, by necessity, took center stage from 1973 until this 12 months.
Pro-lifers should all the time expect to be outgunned by deep-pocketed opponents and a hostile media environment. But prioritizing the virtue of prudence—advancing a holistic agenda for being fully pro-life and pro-family, and picking battles that advance our goals incrementally even in the event that they should not the uncompromising ideal some would really like to see—should be the subsequent stage of pro-life activism.
All is removed from lost. Pro-life candidates can, and do, win elections by resounding margins. Brian Kemp, the Republican governor of Georgia who shepherded through and signed a law banning abortions when a fetal heartbeat could be detected, convincingly won his re-election bid in a closely divided state. Greg Abbott, the Republican governor who has leaned full-bore into restricting abortion in Texas, did similarly well this week. Perhaps most notably, Ron DeSantis, the Republican governor of Florida, stomped his technique to a victory after signing a 15-week ban on abortion within the state earlier this 12 months. The truth is, his 19-point win suggests he could have staked a little bit more political capital on moving Florida’s threshold earlier in pregnancy.
Crucially, none of those races centered around abortion, and every of the candidates made meaningful gestures to support pregnant women reasonably than simply restricting access: All three of those states, in addition to other Republican strongholds like Tennessee and South Carolina, have expanded postpartum advantages for moms on Medicaid. Texas and Indiana have each put a big chunk of cash into programs aimed toward giving moms alternatives to abortion. Savvy politicians will find ways of advancing pro-life bills through the legislative process as a part of a broader commitment to improving families’ lives.
Savvy politicians will find ways of advancing pro-life bills through the legislative process as a part of a broader commitment to improving families’ lives.
But when abortion is on the ballot, the side of life is behind the eight-ball. Even when, as many polls show, the vast majority of Americans have conflicted thoughts on the morality of abortion, an up-and-down vote on protecting life will face long odds. Faced with a alternative between an abortion regime that’s perceived as too permissive or one which is just too restrictive, they are going to tend toward the previous. The fear that too-strict laws will leave some pregnant women facing extraordinary circumstances in danger is sufficient to tip the sort of moderate swing voter who might describe themselves as “personally against abortion, but hesitant to impose my morality.”
And the opposite side knows this. Buoyed by their success in politically competitive and conservative states like Kansas, Kentucky and Michigan, the constellation of abortion rights groups will doubtless be collecting signatures for referenda in a state near you.
Applying the virtue of prudence to the reason for protecting unborn life will look different in several states. Depending on the demographics and legal landscape at play, the most effective final result could also be a ban at eight, or 10, or 12 weeks with crystal-clear exceptions for heartbreaking cases like ectopic pregnancies and rape and incest.
Some pro-life groups might gather signatures for ballot questions of their very own, searching for to get a 12-week ban with exceptions passed in states where the law is currently lacking. Sometimes it’ll mean giving up on the purest ideals within the name of getting something across the finish line, unlike when a gaggle of hard-liners in South Carolina this fall shot down a six-week abortion ban for not going far enough.
In all states, but particularly in politically divided ones, the pro-life movement needs to be eager and willing to work across the aisle to advocate for laws against pregnancy discrimination and safety net advantages for low-income moms. A fivefold increase in social spending probably wouldn’t have staved off the leads to Michigan or Kentucky. But staking the pro-life movement’s credibility to a willingness to take a position government resources, even at the danger of annoying some small-government allies, can refute charges of hypocrisy and chart an appealing political course.
At the top of the day, politics will all the time play second fiddle to the essential, heroic work that so many pro-life organizations do every to accompany women in need, and to the quiet witness to friends, family and coworkers that so many who treasure unborn life live out on a regular basis. However the political work matters too. Coming to terms with a technique of the second-best—of prudentially advancing the ball forward, working inside the realm of the possible—will likely be a crucial a part of the pro-life movement moving forward if it desires to avoid more defeats just like the ones on display this week.
