Over the past two weeks concerns over the Republican position on what has historically been “pro-life” issues has been shaken. There was the removal of intentionally pro-life language from Trump’s official platform, a first since the 1980s for Republicans. Then the one-two punch of Trump saying his next administration would be “great for women’s health” and VP candidate Vance stating Trump wouldn’t sign a national Federal abortion ban. Then Trump’s “flip flop” saying he wouldn’t vote on Florida’s abortion 6 week abortion ban, possibly that he would vote for the pro-abortion amendment, then reasserting that he believed that “6 weeks is to radical”. This is happening among a political reality that wherever abortion rights are put on the ballot they pass, even in solidly “red” states. What’s more, ballot measures where they are up to be voted on in 2024 are trending to solid wins for abortion. Nevada and Arizona are polling solidly 75% in favor of enshrining abortion rights in State constitutional and even in Florida where the measure needs 60% to pass is currently polling close to 70%.
The “pro-life” position politically isn’t simply a “dead” position. It’s a currently a position where a “win” is keeping pro-abortion amendments off of the ballot, even in incredibly conservative States like Arkansas. It currently appears that trying to affirm current “pro-life” positions is inviting political suicide.
The question now I believe is how are we supposed to understand this moment and what has led up to it? Do we as people who ostensibly are “pro-life” understand how the overturning of Roe appears to be a pyrrhic victory? Or is there an assumption that one more mandate, or one universal law passed and everyone will see the “truth”?
I think we need to both look to the distant past and see some similarities with Prohibition and ask some difficult questions of the recent past.
The Failure of Prohibition
The passage of the 18th Amendment was so significant to many in American Evangelicalism there were vigils taken the night it went into effect with weeping and hymns sung once the bell struck midnight. The push against alcohol was definitely one that had an Evangelical flavor. Consider what Lionel Benavidez states, “In their pursuit to create an alcohol-free nation, these evangelical activists projected their own Christian values on the public sphere in an attempt bring about their vision of a more perfect world, the Kingdom of God. This kingdom was supposed to be established through a covenant, or contract, with God that enabled the individual and the congregation to have a direct, binding agreement with His authority.”
However, by the ratification of the 18th Amendment the issue was mainly one that had solidified into “wet” and “dry” parts of the country. For many advocates of Prohibition there could be no additional “reasoning” with those mostly in cities that viewed alcohol as a harmless recreation. In many ways the Amendment was more of a symbolic victory than anything else. Those who passed it had little, if any, ideas on how to enforce the law once it became law. What was even worse, with the passage of the Volstead Act in 1919 the “fundamentalists” and utter “abolitionists” went much farther than what had been campaigned on with the 18th Amendment. To put it short, one of the reasons Prohibition failed is it was just too restrictive for the average person who saw things like Beer and Wine normal and good.
Dobbs and Prohibition a Parallel?
I honestly wonder how much of a political parallel there is between the “pro-life” and the “pro-dry” parties historically. You have political ideologies that ended up seeing a largely symbolic measure as a be-all-end-all. Almost as if they were looking for a singular validation that would effectively “turn the tide” and everyone would acknowledge the “rightness” of their position. I’ve seen sentiments concerning Roe in the past such as, “If we can just get the legal position changed (which was flawed with Roe in the first place) then we can get a fetus’ legal status changed everywhere.” Couple this with an extremity of belief that “life begins at conception” and you’ve had a “Volstead” like overreach where the positions that are being passed in the defense of “life” are too far for the average person. Things like being against life of the mother abortive care, IVF, having exclusions for rape or incest, these are things most reasonable people approve of even if they hold on to some “pro-life” stance. The extremity of “life begins at conception” cannot be practically promoted or even held rationally when some begin demanding investigations into miscarriage as attempted murder.
However, I wonder if the issue of “pro-life” will go further than that of Prohibition where eventually the 18th Amendment was repealed and whatever work the “Dry’s” did was undone in ten years. We may be in a place where abortion, at the least where it sat during Roe, will be unassailable law for much of America for the near future. We’ve seen that the Dobbs decision has done little to slow the amount of abortions. So, the question will be, can the “pro-life” platform pivot to something other than abolition?
If it does there are several realities I think the “pro-life” movement needs to acknowledge- The movement as a whole has not won “hearts and minds”. One cannot get away from the reality that 2/3s of the populations of even conservative states want to cement abortion rights. This means there have been key strategic and ideological missteps.
What Does it Mean to be “Pro-Life” Anyway?
One of the biggest problems that our current discourse on abortion has revealed is how much politically abortion has been used as a cover for things that have little to nothing to do with the life of the unborn. I recently responded to a mutual who said “abortion hasn’t been a single-issue for many leaders” in the affirmative, it hasn’t. However, it has been cover for a whole host of “conservative” issues that are agreed to by fiat. Take the Project 2025 “blueprint”, one would have to wonder how much the dismantling of the EPA, FDA, National Weather Service, Medicaid, the Veteran’s Administration, and the National Education Administration is “pro-life”. There is little to no connection between the need to defund the National Public Radio and whether birth control should be legal over the counter. Here is the problem, over the past 20+ years it didn’t matter if you disagreed with some of these extreme (and honestly somewhat ludicrous) platforms, if you were “pro-life” these became your position. This has meant that a lot of the “pro-life” platform is in fact antithetical to it’s stated values. Being against Medicaid expansion has killed people in Conservative states. Allowing rural hospitals to close because of funding, deregulation, and monopolies has killed people. It’s difficult to say you are “pro-life” while you are seeking to expand working hours for children AND seeking to deregulate the businesses that employ them. All this is before we get to the maternal mortality rate.
What has happened has been abortion has been used as the cudgel to beat Evangelical Christians in line so they can vote to supposedly support these other things. If one had a conviction against gun violence, or the death penalty, or any number of things that simply was too bad because to vote otherwise meant immediate shame as a “baby murderer”. The problem that those in the “pro-life” camp find themselves in is that these other policies are at best not working or at worst seem antithetical to being in fact “pro-life”.
This problem goes hand in hand with another issue with “pro-life” positions and that is an inability to nuance from what really is extreme positions. Like “teetotalers” when it came to alcohol there is a reality that banning abortion from “moment of conception” is just practically improbable if not impossible. This is the problem in dealing with extremists- at some point there have to be adults in the room. At some point reality needs to be navigated as to what realistically can and cannot be accomplished. It’s not wrong to have ideals. It’s not wrong to have genuine convictions. But if the extremity is impeding the accomplishment of good, the extreme need to leave the room and let the adults talk. Because if you are so extreme that if you don’t get your way you throw a tantrum and bully everyone else in the room you can’t be in the room anymore.
Effective or Right? You Can’t be Both Anymore
The questions confronting the “pro-life” movement now are, “Do you want to lower the amount of abortions or do you want a symbolic victory?” “Do you want to promote life or win?” “Does being ‘pro-life’ mean more than JUST the unborn?”
My fear is that the way anti-abortion politicians are going, especially in deeply “Red” states, there is going to be a backlash. My fear is in less than ten years being anti-abortion will be as “quaint” as being anti-alcohol.
(Thanks for reading! I’m always grateful for those who lend me their time. If you want to get my latest please subscribe and consider supporting me in making this content. If you’d like to gift a one-time gift of coffee or dinner, that would also be appreciated https://venmo.com/u/Jason-Mallow-1 Lord willing I’ll see you again next week)
There are two kinds of christians that really loved Roe.
1) Someone who deep down supports other right wing policies on the merits, but knows that a lot of them aren't first order NICE even if necessary, and finds is easier to say "I'm pro-life" then "yeah I think the criminals should get locked up."
2) A certain kind of leftist christian that boils down to:
A) Jesus acts pretty NICE
B) Christianity must be NICENESS
...
C) Therefore, being NICE means some kind of christian communism. Or at a minimum, the answer to how much we should be transferring to the underclass should pretty much always be MORE on the margin. Copy paste this VIBE onto every public policy.
It's a pretty questionable prognosis. Christ gives no political program and more or less seems to think the Roman state, which was hardly charitable, wasn't something to rebel against.
Paul says people who don't work shouldn't eat. One wonders what he thinks about obese drug addicts having access to unlimited Medicaid.
So they would really like to be on the left. But there is that BABY GENOCIDE problem. How can people that want to be so NICE to their underclass votebanks also not give a shit about some unborn child that can't vote for them and might even be a personal inconvenience? (Hint, its all self interest).
Of course I've never found that kind of NICENESS particularly NICE. More like That Hideous Strength NICE. That's certainly what you get out of Tim Waltz style Niceness, COVID snitch lines and BLM riots. But I digress.
Without Roe, these people can no longer talk past one another.
Putting my cards on the table, the one part of your post that I think makes sense is "how do we reduce the number of abortions." Though I would phrase is slightly differently, "how do we increase the number of births, especially of normal people."
We could do a lot more to make people want to have more kids, but more welfare for the underclass isn't the answer. We already give them a lot, so much they have higher fertility then the middle class. It doesn't seem to cut down on the number of abortions, and even if it did if the price is taxing to the middle class to the point that they stop having children to pay for it we haven't accomplished anything GOOD.
I think your average GOP person is just a middle class normie that wants to have grandchildren. They know that the hedonism and sexual perversion of the left isn't going to help them in that regard. They know the left is a high/low coalition that mostly screws the middle class wherever they can. They don't like abortion but don't consider crusading to stop every inner city crack head from getting one their lives work.
“My fear is in less than ten years being anti-abortion will be as “quaint” as being anti-alcohol.”
What is there to fear about this scenario? People are free to choose sobriety for themselves in this day and age and while this could result in some awkward questions it is often celebrated. In the same way we are free to oppose abortion for ourselves and this is a valid moral decision. But to make it a legal requirement is something else.