On election day, voters in 10 states will vote on ballot initiatives related to abortion. If the past two years are any indication, I fear the pro-life movement can expect yet another round of bruising electoral defeats. Since the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization returned the issue of abortion to the states, we in the pro-life movement have lost ground in elections, referenda and state constitutional amendments. The Democratic Party has centered its pro-abortion stance, and the Republican Party has eviscerated its pro-life platform. Most distressingly, abortions recently reached their highest rate in over a decade.
Yet professing the truth of the goodness of life at every stage and every condition is not and will never be optional. That the world remains committed to war is no reason to give up Pope Paul VI’s clarion call: “No more war. War never again!” Likewise, the pro-choice drift of the United States does not change our clarion cry: “No more abortion. Abortion never again!”
The urgency of life cannot be forgotten, but we must adjust our approach. We must save as many lives as we can now, always on the way to ending abortions entirely. Just as the movement to abolish slavery involved slow reforms, smaller bans, cultural shifts and legal changes, the pro-life movement, too, will need to aim at the possible to advance the essential. That means incremental changes.
This process includes state-level bans, but some will have to first focus on late-term abortions. Some states may only manage to ban abortion after 20 or 24 weeks instead of six or 12. Bans may include exceptions with which we are uncomfortable but result in saving the lives we can. Meanwhile, we should aim to restore the pro-life platform to the Republican Party that Donald J. Trump discarded. We should support groups like Democrats for Life who bravely fight against the radically pro-abortion stance of the Democrats.
Further, we need to switch our attention from attacking the supply side of abortion to addressing the demand side. A lot of our efforts have focused on making abortion harder or impossible to get. We should not give up on this, but we need to consider just how unpopular this approach is. To deal with this, we need to give more of our attention to the demand side of abortion, advocating for policies that would reduce the desire for abortion. The most fundamental demand-side approach is economic support for women and families. For women in poverty, the conception of a child presents economic challenges, like the cost of health care, the goods necessary to raise the child and the adverse effects on employment.
These challenges extend to many in the middle class as well. I feel this pinch routinely and, with the conception of our fourth child, I am a bit frantic. How will we fit another person in a small house? Can we afford a minivan? Can we afford any of this? Abortion is not an option for us, but the economic hardship is real. Too many, whether with their first or fourth, think they cannot afford a baby. We should build a society where they can and know they can. In such a culture, mothers and families will find it easier to choose life.
What can we do? Pro-lifers should rally for serious political proposals to support families and mothers. These might include increases in government support for health care, measures to make birth free in the United States and increases in maternity and paternity leave. Or consider Mitt Romney’s proposal, which includes income support that begins during pregnancy for all parents. For a mother considering abortion due to economic hardship, knowing that she will receive help starting from the pregnancy test and extending to their child’s 18th birthday could change her decision.
In advocating for these positions, we can recognize them as pro-women and pro-family measures that enact Catholic social teaching. Further, they create the possibilities of fruitful political alliances through something the political philosopher John Rawls calls “overlapping consensus.” We might have different motivations for a policy, but we can still support it together. Pro-life and pro-choice politicians may have different reasons for backing economic support for families, but such measures would certainly reduce abortion.
Such an approach would help the pro-life movement sidestep a standard critique: pro-lifers only care about getting babies born, not about families and mothers. Advancing robust social and economic support for families and mothers leaves such criticisms behind and builds a culture of hospitality that welcomes new life.
Peter Maurin offered a wise principle for politics: We should build a society in which it is easier to be good. The pro-life movement should create a society in which it is easier to choose life. Abortion should never feel required if a society truly acts like women and babies matter. Law, as St. Thomas Aquinas taught, either induces or restrains action. Our laws and social policies should not only restrain people from abortion but should lead people to choose life. Focusing on the latter will make the former possible.
None of this means downgrading the importance of abortion. The U.S. bishops are right to call abortion the “preeminent priority.” We should act like it by making every effort, especially plausibly successful ones, to reduce abortion. What this will mean is an authentic commitment that might be tough to swallow for some Catholic conservatives, who are not keen on robust government support for families, and for some Catholic progressives, who too often downplay abortion.
Despite the challenges, the path forward is clear. We must pray and fast, witness to others, advocate thoughtfully, develop policy, march in D.C. and down the street, establish research centers at Catholic universities (which need to be actually pro-life), support families and work tirelessly. Winning the courts was a first step. It is time to start winning voters’ support with a comprehensive approach to building a culture of life.
