Pro-Lifers Must Continue to Show They Care about More Than Just Ending Abortion

T he clock is ticking for pro-life leaders and politicians to convince the public that we are as pro-life as we are anti-abortion.

One year ago, the Supreme Court ruled in Dobbs v. Jackson that states, and possibly even the federal government, can regulate abortion. We wrote a few days afterward that pro-life leaders need to show, not just say, that we care for women and their children. We suggested that we lead the way by advocating a tapestry of policies that ensure that women faced with the difficult decision to carry a child to term or face economic hardship are fully supported.

We need to put our money where our mouths are.

The Dobbs decision has radically realigned the electorate with regard to self-identification. Prior to the decision, in 2021, self-identification was largely split, with 49 percent pro-choice and 46 percent pro-life, and two years earlier the numbers were reversed. However, after the ruling, self-identification realigned to 55 percent pro-choice, the highest percentage since 1995, and only 39 percent pro-life.

Some analysts suggested that the election results of 2022 were affected by this realignment. According to the Cook Political Report, “abortion mattered most to the kinds of swing voters who Republicans should have been able to win over, given President Biden’s low approval ratings and the real-life squeeze rising prices were having on voters.” Surveys “found that swing independent women were not only turned off by the GOP position on abortion but didn’t see the Republican Party as stronger on the economy either.”

Did this translate in the ballot box? According to exit polls, voters on Election Day in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and other critical states ranked abortion, not inflation or crime, as the most important issue in the midterms.

One of our concerns is that this realignment will be cemented unless pro-life leaders prioritize more than just further restrictions on abortion access.

After our essay was published, we hosted a call with National Review Institute and a number of pro-life organizations to survey their interest in a set of policies we put forward for their consideration, ranging from the Pregnant Worker Fairness Act and ensuring health-care coverage for pregnant women to paid leave and increasing the child tax credit. We found that most individuals on the call supported almost all of the provisions.

The challenge, however, is a view that many pro-life donors have that nonprofits in the private sector, notably faith communities, will rise to the occasion and meet all the needs. We applaud and support the valiant efforts of these organizations and volunteers — and efforts, such as Susan B. Anthony’s Her PLAN, to make them more visible to women in need. Still, we believe that, if the goal is even more children carried to term, there is a role for federal and state governments to provide support where nonprofits don’t have the capacity to step in. There used to be, especially in Catholic circles, pro-life donors willing to rally government resources to support human life. When inquiring into financial support for a collective advocacy effort among the pro-life groups, we heard crickets from the donor base.

It may not be too late, but the clock is ticking. Recent polling shows that Gen Z is not yet settled on the issue of abortion, but we believe that without a clear vision for how pro-life leaders will address increasing demands as abortion is restricted in red states, they may become permanently aligned with pro-choice policies.

The good news is that we have some legislative initiatives to rally support behind. Most notably, Senator Marco Rubio’s Providing for Life Act, S.74, provides a host of well-rounded services to help a pregnant or new mother to support her child. It includes a larger child tax credit, expands child-support enforcement, has a paid-leave option using one’s Social Security earnings, extends WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) for two years postpartum, and creates community-based pregnancy resource centers. Last summer, Senator Kevin Cramer and Representative Mike Johnson promoted legislation to allow for child-support payments during pregnancy. Initiatives such as these send a clear message to pregnant women across the country that there is a safety net and financial support ready to assist them even prior to the birth of their baby.

Some states as well have emerged as leaders in this space. North Dakota passed a package of assistance including an adoption tax credit, expanding Medicaid and TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) coverage for pregnant women, barring employment discrimination against pregnant workers. Mississippi doubled its existing state tax credit for adoption, strengthened foster-care laws, and modernized its baby drop-off law. North Carolina passed paid-leave coverage, expanded child-care availability, and expanded its “safe surrender” law. And over 20 states expanded their Medicaid coverage to cover an additional twelve months postpartum.

While these examples are encouraging, many more red states have yet to attempt to pass any supportive safety-net provisions despite increasing abortion restrictions. Without supportive measures such as those mentioned above, an inadvertent message is sent that the state cares not for the fragile future of these women and their babies.

We believe that a coalition of pro-life and conservative pro-family organizations should be coalesced into an advocacy effort that supports policies such as those proposed by Patrick Brown at the Ethics and Public Policy Center through its Life and Family Initiative — policies that promote child affordability, development and parent–child attachment and development, health-care coverage, and other material support.

Without pro-life leadership at the federal and state levels rallying public resources to care for women and children who otherwise would have pursued abortion, gains made in the courts may be lost as younger voters cement their identity in reaction to the belief that being “pro-life” means caring more about restricting abortion than about the women and children involved. A year after Dobbs, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Pro-lifers must rise to the challenge of ensuring a culture of life.

Mark Rodgers is the principal of the Clapham Group and formerly a staff director of the Senate Republican Conference and chief of staff to Senator Rick Santorum. Kiki Bradley, a partner with Chartwell Policy Solutions, is formerly a GOP House leadership aide and a presidential appointee at the Department of Health and Human Services in the Office of Family Assistance.