The Corner

Law & the Courts

Culture, Politics, and Life

Attendees at the March for Life in Washington, D.C., January 18, 2019 (Katie Yoder/National Review)

The Bulwark ran another thoughtful pro-life essay last week that I’ve been meaning to note. Sarah Quinlan argues that opponents of abortion must change the culture, not only the law. That’s right and important, and no doubt some pro-lifers could use the reminder. I think, though, that she puts a foot wrong when she suggests that it might be “time to move overturning Roe or implementing restrictive abortion legislation to the bottom of the priorities list entirely.”

These are perennial debates among pro-lifers, and the debates perennially suffer from a tendency to view culture and law as separate boxes. It makes more sense to view law as a part of culture, and a part that influences that larger whole. Quinlan implicitly affirms this view when she recommends various public policies that she believes will move the culture in a pro-life direction. Whether abortion is prohibited, regulated, or subsidized surely belongs high on the list of public-policy questions that can affect its place in our culture. Over the last generation, public policy, public opinion, and the number of abortions have all moved in the direction that pro-lifers want (albeit more slowly than we want). I suspect this is not a coincidence.

Pro-lifers have another reason for wanting to change the abortion laws, beyond their effect on abortion rates: They’re unjust. It is gravely unjust for the Supreme Court to amend our nation’s highest law to say that certain human beings are unpersons who can be subjected to lethal violence without legal consequence. And that injustice is inseparable from the injustice of abortion itself. Why do pro-lifers want to change the culture to make abortion less prevalent? Because it’s the unjust taking of a human life. Different pro-lifers have different roles to play in acting on that conviction. But there should be no question that it requires us to work to change the law too.

Something to Consider

If you enjoyed this article, we have a proposition for you: Join NRPLUS. Members get all of our content (including the magazine), no paywalls or content meters, an advertising-minimal experience, and unique access to our writers and editors (conference calls, social-media groups, etc.). And importantly, NRPLUS members help keep NR going. Consider it?

If you enjoyed this article, and were stimulated by its contents, we have a proposition for you: Join NRPLUS.

Ramesh Ponnuru is a senior editor for National Review, a columnist for Bloomberg Opinion, a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and a senior fellow at the National Review Institute.

Most Popular


An Idea for Student Loans: Get Rid of Them

Here is a three-part plan for something practical the federal government could do to relieve college-loan debt. Step 1: The federal government should stop making college loans itself and cease guaranteeing any such loans. Step 2: It should prohibit educational lending by federally regulated financial institutions ... Read More
White House

The Problem with the Mueller Report

So much for collusion. The media conversation has now officially moved on from the obsession of the last two years to obstruction of justice. That’s because the first volume of the voluminous Mueller report, the half devoted to what was supposed to be the underlying crime of a Trump conspiracy with Russia, ... Read More
White House


Some of you will be familiar with a lefty, partisan Democratic organization called MoveOn, formerly MoveOn.Org. It was founded during an investigation into President Bill Clinton’s shenanigans (which were not, Democratic mythology notwithstanding, strictly sexual in nature) and argued that it was time for the ... Read More