For the past five decades, conservatives have sought to overturn Roe v. Wade, undo the Supreme Court’s creation of a constitutional right to abortion, and return the issue to the states for voters to decide. Though it long appeared out of reach, that goal appeared to be a reality Friday morning, with the Supreme Court overturning the landmark decision.
It’s the culmination of one mission and the immediate beginning of another. The pro-life movement to restrict or abolish abortion will move to new terrain: state legislatures and, likely, Congress.
The road that brought us to the brink of overturning Roe was long but straightforward: Supporting pro-life candidates who vowed to nominate pro-life judges, and electing state leaders who agreed to bring challenges to abortion precedent before those judges. It was boosted by parallel efforts to support women and families in need and to keep abortion at the forefront of the national debate.
Much of this agenda will remain the same moving forward. But in a post-Roe America, the pro-life movement’s focus will shift from judges to lawmakers. It must be matched by an urgency to craft strong support policies such as paid family leave. The goal, however, will be the same: to make abortion politically unpopular, legally unobtainable, and culturally unwanted.
At the state level, this will mean enforcing dormant conditional laws that many states passed before Roe to restrict or outlaw abortion and passing new pro-life laws in states where there are none. Luckily, this work has already begun. Thirteen states have pro-life trigger laws that will go into effect almost immediately after Roe is overturned. Eleven states have introduced so-called heartbeat bills that will be signed into law post-Roe. And in states that have not yet moved to restrict abortion, pro-lifers will need a messaging strategy to make sure voters know their elected representatives have the power to act.
Of course, each state’s process will be different. What can pass the Texas legislature would likely look different than what might pass in Michigan, where the voters are much more divided on the issue and reluctant to pass sweeping changes. The goal, said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, is to make each pro-life bill as ambitious as it possibly can be while still earning enough votes to pass. In Mississippi, that might be an outright ban on all abortions with only a few exceptions. In Ohio, it might be a bill restricting elective abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected.
Then there are the key political seats the movement should target, which will differ from state to state as well. In North Carolina, passing such bills will require a pro-life governor who will sign them, which the state does not have now. Virginia’s legislature is likely still a few anti-abortion votes shy of the threshold it needs. Wisconsin would need an attorney general who will enforce the trigger law restricting abortion in the state after Roe is overturned. (Current AG Josh Kaul is a Democrat supportive of abortion access who has vowed not to enforce the state’s trigger law.)
The danger in all of this is that the pro-life movement will get so bogged down by these individual state battles that it splinters and loses focus. That’s why a federal strategy is so important. Ideally, all of its efforts at the state level will be part of a larger effort to pass a federal ban on abortion. National abortion abolition should be the clear goal.
One legal approach toward that end would be to apply the 14th Amendment’s equal protection parameters to the unborn. This strategy might very well be the easiest way to wrangle lawmakers who will be tempted to excuse themselves from the abortion debate once it’s returned to the states. But it also has the benefit of being right. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection of the laws to “any person,” which, historically, has always included unborn persons in the womb, according to Princeton University’s Robert P. George. Indeed, state courts leading up to the passage of the 14th Amendment made it clear that the unborn child at every stage of pregnancy “is a person” and is therefore entitled, under “civil and common law,” to the same rights as a child who is born.
The pro-life movement, then, must push Congress to fulfill its duty as laid out in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to “enforce, by power of legislation,” the Constitution’s equal protection guarantees, which includes a federal ban on abortion.
A pro-life federal strategy must also recognize that the government has a responsibility to support and encourage family formation in more ways than just one. Protecting unborn life from intentional killing is obviously the movement’s focus. But just as important is providing material aid to mothers and families in need, and rewarding them for bringing life into the world in spite of the many difficulties that can accompany such a decision. The grassroots of the pro-life movement have been working to do this for years through pregnancy resource centers across the country. It’s time for the government to take on part of the burden as well.
There are several policies lawmakers can adopt to make that happen. The first is a child tax credit proposal introduced by Sens. Mitt Romney (R-UT), Steve Daines (R-MT), and Richard Burr (R-NC) and endorsed by several pro-life organizations that would eliminate the current child tax credit and three other aid programs and replace them with a $3,000-per-child benefit for families with children between the ages of 6 and 17 and a $4,200 benefit for each child under 6. This benefit would be doled out monthly — parents with young children could expect to receive $350 each month per child, and parents with school-aged children could expect to receive $250 each month per child — and would start phasing out for higher-income families.
The best part of the proposal is that it would make sure the benefit kicks in during pregnancy, four months before a baby’s due date. In other words, the policy recognizes that the unborn child in the womb is a life worthy of protection and support while providing financial assistance to families that need it. It’s “a framework that is pro-family, pro-work, and pro-life,” Daines told the Washington Examiner — one that “will make federal policy work better for families across the nation.”
Another policy along these lines would be a significant increase in funding for pregnancy resource centers and other organizations that help women who are driven to seek an abortion out of desperation. Texas, for example, poured another $100 million into its Alternatives to Abortion program shortly after it passed a law restricting abortion access in the state. This program provides material support, including job training and placement, adoption counseling, child development classes, housing, diapers, clothing, and strollers, to a mother and her child for the first three to five years of her child’s life. It’s a program that should be replicated across the country.
But without Roe, the bulk of the pro-life movement’s mission will still be cultural. After all, passing pro-life laws at both the state and federal level won’t be possible unless voters make it a priority and elect leaders who will do the same. That’s where organizations like the March for Life come in. The purpose of the march, which is held in Washington, D.C., every year and is now headed to several states, has always been to keep the abortion debate front and center and, most importantly, to remind pro-life Americans that they’re not alone, said Jeanne Mancini, the organization’s president.
This will be especially important in the days ahead, when corporations try to pressure states into abandoning pro-life legislation at the behest of leftist activists and middle-of-the-road voters are shamed into voting against their consciences. The movement is not just trying to change minds, though it has and will continue to do that. It’s also trying to support and reinforce the anti-abortion instincts of those who might not feel as strongly about the issue and assure them that their reservations about abortion are not only commonly held but rightly placed.
The trap that awaits activists is that of the false dichotomy, as Ryan T. Anderson, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and author of a forthcoming book about the harms of abortion, put it. Efforts must be cultural and legal, political and grassroots-based, federal and state-by-state, he said. There can be no either/or approach if the goal is to eradicate both legal access to abortion and the reasons women feel led to seek it out in the first place. Anti-abortion activists must also reject making any tactic or strategy a litmus test for participation in the movement or for elected office. The only such test should be whether the end goal itself is shared. Reasonable people will disagree on how to get there.
The fall of Roe has taken nearly 50 years, and the fight to eliminate abortion will be protracted. Activists should remain undaunted so long as the movement is unified in its vision for the future: a society that cherishes life at all stages.
Kaylee McGhee White is a commentary writer and the deputy editor of Restoring America for the Washington Examiner, focusing on religion, politics, and culture.
