The pro-life movement’s post-Roe mistake
by Jonathon Van Maren, The Bridgehead:
Since the fall of Roe v. Wade and a string of successive referendum losses, the pro-life movement has faced an apocalypse—that is, a revelation. We are finding out where the American people stand on abortion, and what previous polling did not tell us. As it turns out, many of those who identified as personally pro-life are still politically libertarian. Abortion groups were prepared for direct democracy referendums, and we were not. Our messaging, as I have observed in several essays for First Things, has been chaotic and unconvincing. This has left many groups scrambling to adjust to the new landscape.
Academics studying the pro-life movement have noted that the phrase “pro-life movements” is a more accurate phrase when examining the diverse range of different groups with different focuses that are frequently united only in their opposition to abortion. There are the traditional groupings—the political, pastoral, and educational arms of the movement—but even within these “arms” there is significant disagreement over strategy and other key issues. These differences have been brought into stark contrast in the post-Roe era as pro-life groups employ different strategies in the state-level referendums unfolding across the country.
A microcosmic example of this would be the 2022 referendum in Michigan. The main pro-life coalition, led by Right to Life of Michigan, employed messaging that focused on Proposal 3 as “too confusing, too extreme.” Other groups have employed similar messaging in other states, despite the failure of these tactics everywhere thus far. As I noted in my autopsy of the Michigan campaign in First Things, the strategy of avoiding abortion as the primary issue is based on several profound miscalculations.
Read also: Make the Pro-Life Movement Great Again by Brian S Brown, Public Discourse
Related Posts
Tags
Share This
