The Corner

An Important March for Life

Anti-abortion demonstrators hold a banner as they gather outside the Supreme Court during the annual "March for Life", in Washington, D.C., January 24, 2025.
Anti-abortion demonstrators hold a banner as they gather outside the Supreme Court during the annual “March for Life”, in Washington, D.C., January 24, 2025. (Elizabeth Frantz/Reuters)

Hopefully, a strong turnout at Friday’s March for Life will convince Republican elected officials and the Trump administration to prioritize pro-life policy goals in 2026.

Sign in here to read more.

On Friday, the 53rd March for Life will take place in Washington, D.C. The March for Life is a great opportunity for pro-lifers to gather in the nation’s capital and witness to the tens of millions of lives tragically lost to abortion since the Roe v. Wade decision. It is also an opportunity to reconnect with friends, attend some good spinoff events, and hear some inspiring speakers. Overall, attendees, as always, should look forward to returning home energized to build a culture of life.


That said, this year’s March for Life takes on greater importance than usual. The consistently large turnout at the March for Life has always been an extremely powerful signal to policymakers and elected officials of the importance of sanctity of life issues. As such, it is especially important that turnout is strong this year. That is because this year pro-lifers need the Trump administration and Republican representatives to prioritize two key issues

The first is preventing taxpayer funding of abortion through Affordable Care Act subsidies. When the Affordable Care Act was being debated by Congress in 2010, Republican elected officials admirably refused to support legislation that included taxpayer subsidies for abortion. However, President Obama was able to get the final legislation through Congress without any Republican votes. Since then, millions of taxpayer dollars have subsidized state-based exchange plans that cover abortion. A 2014 GAO analysis found that over 1,000 exchange-based plans in 20 states cover elective abortion.




Republicans possess unified control of government. As such, now is an apt time to enact Hyde amendment-style protections that would prevent taxpayer subsidized exchange plans from covering elective abortions. However, pro-lifers have reasons for concern. Earlier this month at a policy retreat, President Trump told Republican representatives they need to be a “little flexible” regarding the Hyde amendment. Furthermore, 17 House Republicans recently voted for a three-year extension of Affordable Care Act subsidies that lacked Hyde protections.

The second issue is placing effective limits on telehealth abortions. As recently as 2016, women seeking chemical abortions had to make three in-person visits to an abortion facility. In 2016 the FDA reduced the number of in-person visits from three to one. During the Covid-19 pandemic in 2021, chemical abortion policy became even more permissive — as the FDA removed the in-person dispensing requirement on mifepristone. As such, women could obtain chemical abortions without an in-person medical exam.


Both the Biden administration and the Trump administration have continued this unwise policy years after the conclusion of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Trump administration FDA currently has the power to restore the rules that were in place prior to 2020 — and require that women seeking chemical abortions have at least one in-person medical exam. FDA officials say they are conducting a review of the safety of telehealth abortions. However, details about the specifics of the FDA review have been sparse.

As the Trump administration dithers, the reported number of abortions continues to rise. Guttmacher Institute data indicate that between 2020 and 2024, abortions have increased by over 12 percent. Again, much of this increase is being driven by jumps in telehealth abortions. Indeed, Society for Family Planning data indicate that approximately 27 percent of abortions performed in the United States during the first six months of 2025 were done via telehealth. These telehealth abortions are undermining the strong pro-life laws that many states enacted in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision


The Trump administration has done some good for pro-lifers. Shortly after taking office, President Trump pardoned over 20 pro-lifers who were jailed due to FACE Act violations. Like other Republican presidents, President Trump reinstituted the Mexico City policy, which prevent U.S. foreign aid dollars from going to entities that promote or perform abortions overseas. The president also signed a budget that defunded Planned Parenthood. That said, the expiration of the Affordable Care Act subsidies and the prevalence of telehealth abortions has created new challenges for pro-lifers. Hopefully, a strong turnout at Friday’s March for Life will convince Republican elected officials and the Trump administration to prioritize pro-life policy goals in 2026.

Michael J. New is an assistant professor of practice at the Busch School of Business at the Catholic University of America and a senior associate scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute.
Exit mobile version