I’m very pleased to highlight two excellent new essays that present valuable and encouraging political lessons for pro-lifers.
In “Learning from Lincoln on Abortion,” Jeffrey H. Anderson draws from Abraham Lincoln’s battle against the moral atrocity of slavery the broader lesson that “[g]reat political battles require powerful reasoning, persuasive arguments, and careful strategizing.” As Anderson points out, Lincoln “did not push to end slavery where it was already entrenched” but instead “steadfastly opposed its extension into the Western territories and states”:
Lincoln knew—but many pro-lifers often forget—that “public sentiment is everything” in a republic. One must win the argument before one can change the laws….
Lincoln’s example of fighting to achieve all that can reasonably be achieved in a given moment, while not trying to force the adoption of one’s own beliefs if, or where, they are hopelessly unpopular, should inform the actions even of those who regard something as a moral evil, as a deprivation of natural rights, and as a barbaric act unfit for a civilized people.
Rather than pushing unpopular legislation that bars abortion altogether, or very nearly so, in states where opinions about abortion are roughly evenly divided—or where public opinion is in favor of allowing abortion—those who oppose abortion would be better off recognizing the importance of shaping public opinion by exposing the weaknesses in the pro-abortion position. Pro-lifers should push for limits on abortion that are tied to a developing child’s heartbeat or capacity for pain; for requirements that mothers view ultrasounds before choosing whether to end their developing child’s life; and for stopping the unjustifiable attacks on crisis pregnancy centers.
At the same time, pro-lifers should ask abortion advocates the uncomfortable but pivotal question of where life begins. Is it really at birth, as the so-called Women’s Health Protection Act—recently backed by 49 senators (every Democrat but Joe Manchin)—suggests? Pro-lifers should also ask abortion advocates whether a developing child in the womb is a human life—whether he or she is alive and is a member of the species homo sapiens—and whether there is any point before, or perhaps even after, birth, when laws should prevent the termination of that young life. Such questions are crucial for illuminating the issue and molding public sentiment.
In a Public Discourse essay, my Ethics and Public Policy Center colleague Alexandra DeSanctis addresses what the midterm elections tell us about how to make abortion a winning issue. As she points out, the simplistic argument that support for pro-life policies is an “electoral loser” is belied by the fact that “in five major races—the gubernatorial contests in Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Texas—Republican governors who signed pro-life laws in their last term won reelection handily … [and] ran substantially ahead of other Republicans in their own states.”
Her lessons are consistent with Anderson’s:
Americans aren’t enthralled with any of their viable options on abortion policy, but they dislike the Democratic position most.
Strategic incrementalism on abortion is a major political advantage, and Republicans should view it as such.
Most Americans don’t yet support protections for all unborn children from the moment of conception. But the pragmatic Republican position—embracing the most pro-life policy that also lines up with public opinion on our way to the goal of total abolition—is far more popular than the Democrats’ all-or-nothing stance.
Pro-life politicians must learn to rebut the falsehoods of abortion-rights activists.