Pro-life advocates have waited 49 grueling years for the judicial barbarity of Roe v. Wade to be finally overturned in last year’s blockbuster film Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. This ruling, issued by Justice Samuel Alito, merely re-politicized a hotly contested issue that was wrongly accorded the status of “constitutional law” in Roe. Unfortunately, based on rapidly accumulating data, it seems likely that pro-lifers’ patience may be similarly tested as we move toward the only logical endpoint in this defining fight for substantive justice and human dignity: the abolition of abortion in America.
The resounding defeat of No. 1 this week in increasingly vivid red Ohio is another difficult pill to swallow for pro-life advocates, who have suffered a string of painful defeats at the ballot box in the more than a year since Dobbs. It’s true that this ballot measure, which would (reasonably) raise the threshold for amending Ohio’s constitution to 60% of voters over the super-majority status quo, said nothing explicitly about abortion. But before November’s separate ballot referendum on codifying abortion “law” in the Ohio Constitution, No. 1 was treated by Buckeye State activists on both sides as a stand-in on abortion – not to mention those across the country who flooded the state waves of money to lend a hand mobilize voters on both sides. Release 1 was 57-43% rejected.
If this was the end of the story, it wouldn’t be so bad. However, the failure on issue 1 should be interpreted in a broader context. The following has happened since Dobbs: Michigan’s “proper” constitutional amendment on abortion passed 57-43%; Kansas residents retained the “right” to abortion in their state constitution – through an extremely poorly worded referendum, albeit – by a 59-41% margin; Kentuckians voted to reject the declaration that their state’s constitution cannot be interpreted as including a “right” to abortion by a 52-48% vote; and a key Supreme Court election in Wisconsin was won decisively by a pro-abortion lawyer, transforming the court from a conservative to a progressive majority in what has become one of the most swing states in the country.
It is certainly true that many pro-life governors easily won the November midterm elections even though they passed pro-life legislation: Ron DeSantis and Kim Reynolds demolished their opponents in Florida and Iowa, respectively, as well as Greg Abbott of Texas and Brian Kemp of Georgia secured re-election with a very comfortable majority. At the same time, available exit polls from last November tended to show that a majority of single-issue abortion voters – those whose votes were largely animated or even cast solely because of their position on abortion – pulled the Democratic lever, not the Republican one . This represents a stark reversal from the pre-Dobbs era, when most single-issue voters on this issue were energized by their pro-life beliefs and determination to consign Roe to the dustbin of history.
The question thus becomes one of the oldest in all of politics: what to do when the progress of one’s cause, even though it is clearly right and just, is hampered by both whims and entrenched social sentiments? The answer lies in drawing another parallel between abortion and chattel slavery, which, like abortion before it, involved both the iniquitous treatment of human life as disposable property and was falsely codified as a “right” under the United States Constitution due to the oxymoronic doctrine of constitutional law known as “substantive due process” (Roe on abortion and the infamous 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford case on slavery).
In 1858, during his first debate with Senator Stephen Douglas (R-Ill.) in Ottawa, Illinois, Abraham Lincoln said: “In public sentiment nothing can fail; without them nothing can succeed. As a result, whoever shapes public sentiment reaches deeper than whoever enacts laws or announces decisions. He makes laws and decisions possible or impossible to execute. Lincoln’s thesis: Law and Culture should not be misinterpreted Down influence each other, and a talented ruler can use the law as a means of inculcating virtue or instilling sound republican habits of mind. However, in order to make transformational changes, a certain reserve of social mood is still necessary. For voters to trust and ultimately be guided by a ruler, they must first have sufficient trust that the ruler speaks appropriately on their behalf and has their best interests in mind.
The unfortunate reality for abolitionists is that the mood of the American public does not yet match the orthodox pro-life claim: that human life, already in the fertilized egg or embryo, possessing a unique genetic code, is worthy and inherently deserving of legal protection because “person(s)” as defined in the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. It is true that courts and legislatures have been ahead of public opinion in many other cases, including the same-sex marriage battles that have occurred over the last decade. But while Americans strongly oppose late-term abortions and, depending on the wording of a given poll, will often support bans on abortions at 12 to 15 weeks of gestation, the average American’s moral intuition about the inherent dignity of the human embryo is simply not yet in line with the orthodox position. pro-life. Let me repeat: this is the plain reality.
Therefore, broader education in this area is greatly needed, covering everything from embryology to legal philosophy. Fortunately, there are great pro-life organizations like Live Action and Americans United for Life that do just that. Also crucial to the political viability of the state-of-the-art pro-life movement is the full support of various family policy measures that provide direct financial support to families raising children, such as policies implemented in Poland and Hungary, some of which are becoming increasingly popular in America among conservative circles .
For their part, pro-life lawmakers must follow the path outlined above: speak appropriately on behalf of their constituents, gain their trust, and adequately assuage their concerns before attempting to steer public opinion that may not be able to keep up with the demands of substantive justice. Referenda on completely abolishing abortion should therefore be avoided for now in all but the deepest red states. State lawmakers, and ideally the U.S. Congress, should focus for now on legislating in an area not too far removed from the desires of their constituents. The exact shape of the legal act will depend on the specific state and political system, not to mention the political and rhetorical skills of a given state’s legislators and governors. Some level of federal protection from Congress is also entirely appropriate, even at this point: given current opinion, a gestation period of roughly around 15 weeks is approximately correct.
Pro-lifers must remember that although Lincoln hated slavery and lived long enough for the 13th Amendment to pass Congress (though not long enough to see it ratified), he was a “moderate” Republican who opposed slavery in the truest sense of the word. deadline. Lincoln’s scruples were unshakable, but above all he appreciated the practical need for incrementalism prudence, which Aristotle considered the queen of virtues and the defining feature of a statesman. Lincoln’s prudence ultimately helped bring about substantive justice: the abolition of slavery.
This same prudence is even more vital at a time when the leading presidential candidate of the only major pro-life political party, Donald Trump, has unfortunately blamed pro-lifers for the results of the November 2022 GOP midterm elections and continues to have strained relations with pro-life leaders. life in America. Many staunch pro-lifers – including this columnist – would certainly prefer a different Republican presidential candidate this time around. However, if the pro-life movement is to remain politically viable as a close ally of the Republican Party in the wake of Roe and in the Trump era, prudence would now suggest minimizing rather than emphasizing differences with the volatile 45th president. After all, you first have to gain power or at least be close to it to be able to employ it.
As Lincoln concluded his second stirring inaugural address: “With malice toward none, with love for all, with firmness in the right hand that God gives us to see good, let us strive to finish the work in which we find ourselves (and) bind ourselves to heal the wounds of the nation… ” And so everyday life advocates “press on” to “dress” the festering “wounds” of the now defunct Roe regime. Wishes good luck.
