Don’t Avoid Pro-Life Messaging Despite State Abortion Setbacks.

Reflecting on the Pro-Life Movement’s Defeats

At a closed-door meeting last week,​ Sen. ​Mitch McConnell and ​other Republican‌ senators were briefed ⁣on a new study encouraging‍ them to move away from‌ “pro-life” language as potentially alienating voters in the wake of Dobbs. This report‌ was a direct response to a string of defeats ⁤the pro-life movement has ‌experienced at the ballot box over the past year, mainly on proposals to amend state constitutions.

Proposals to neutralize⁤ the ‌state constitution as a source of abortion rights ⁣were rejected by voters⁣ in Kansas and ​Kentucky, while,‍ in ​California, Michigan, and Vermont, voters⁢ approved proposals to add ​so-called abortion rights⁢ to ​their state constitutions. The outcomes ​in California​ and Vermont were ‍not surprising and, in any event, neither state ⁣was‍ likely ⁢to regulate, much less prohibit,‌ abortion. But the​ outcomes in Kansas, Kentucky, and, particularly, ⁢Michigan⁤ were very disappointing. ​The vote in Michigan⁣ effectively overturned 50 years of successful pro-life advocacy in the state, wiping out not only the pre-Roe ⁣law prohibiting⁤ abortion but a broad spectrum‌ of ‌post-Roe laws regulating⁤ abortion.

Reflection ‌and Perspective

All of​ these results call⁤ for reflection by the pro-life movement.‍ Reflection, not despondency, for all great⁢ social⁢ movements⁤ take time and often experience defeats⁣ on the way ‌to ultimate victory. After all, it took almost 60 years for the Supreme Court, in Brown v. Board of⁣ Education (1954) to overrule Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and ban segregation ⁢in public schools, ‍and almost 50 years to persuade the Supreme Court, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) to overrule ‍ Roe v. Wade (1973). Overruling Roe was the indispensable ​step — but only the first — toward restoring legal protection for unborn children. And, with respect to the issue of state ballot proposals, something else is called for in addition ‌to reflection, and that is perspective.

What must be recognized at the outset is that it is ⁤not possible for ‍advocates ⁣of legal abortion to “run the table,” so to speak, with⁣ citizen initiatives seeking to constitutionalize abortion “rights,” thereby bypassing conservative⁢ legislatures and nullifying pro-life legislation. More ‍than two-thirds of the states allow their state​ constitutions to be amended only by a measure proposed by the state legislature, while less than one-third also allow amendments to be proposed by a citizen initiative.

Of the 25‍ states ⁣that ‍have laws on the books prohibiting abortion through part or all of pregnancy, only nine allow citizen initiatives to be used to amend their state constitutions. And of those nine states, citizen initiatives to constitutionalize abortion rights have been proposed ⁢in six states — Arizona, Florida (which requires approval of 60 percent of the votes ‍cast for an amendment), Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, and South Dakota (to date,‍ only the Missouri ‍and Ohio measures ‌have qualified for the ballot). No such initiative has ⁣(yet)‌ been undertaken in Arkansas, ​North Dakota, or Oklahoma. There is, in sum, a very‌ limited number of states in which a citizen initiative constitutionalizing a right to abortion could be pursued,⁢ and even fewer in which such a measure would likely be proposed,⁢ qualify for the ballot, and be ⁢approved by the voters.

Some political perspective is also in order. It must be acknowledged that on the same day Michigan voters approved a citizen initiative to constitutionalize abortion rights, they also (barely) turned over control of the state legislature to Democrats.⁢ But the outcome of ballot measures is not necessarily a reliable proxy for predicting elections to‌ public office.

Results and Future Possibilities

For example, in‌ Montana, ​on the same ‌day voters rejected a legislatively-sponsored, pro-life ballot measure​ (a statute, not a state constitutional amendment), they ⁢also decided to retain the Republicans in control of their legislature. Apart‍ from Michigan, Republicans ‌lost control​ of only two other legislative chambers — the Minnesota Senate and the Pennsylvania House — in contests that had no apparent relationship to any proposed or pending abortion legislation.

Republicans kept control of​ every other legislative chamber they had controlled before the election (57 of 88 chambers for which elections were held in​ 2022), including those legislatures that, prior to the election, had enacted laws prohibiting abortion. All 12⁢ incumbent, pro-life, Republican governors (including several who had signed bills prohibiting abortion) were reelected, and a pro-life candidate ⁢(Sarah Huckabee Sanders) was elected governor of Arkansas. And ⁣although Republicans lost control of the Wisconsin Supreme ⁤Court earlier this year, they won control of the North Carolina Supreme‌ Court last November.

Since⁣ Dobbs, no state supreme court has recognized a broad right to abortion, while five state​ supreme courts have⁢ either ‌held that their state ⁤constitution does not protect a right to abortion⁣ (Idaho and South Carolina) or protects such a right only under narrow circumstances​ (Indiana, North Dakota, and Oklahoma).⁢ And, shortly before Dobbs ‌was decided, the Iowa Supreme Court overruled its earlier decision recognizing a state constitutional right to ⁤abortion (and the Florida Supreme Court is expected to do so, as well).

Finally,‌ since the Supreme ⁢Court overruled Roe v. Wade last ​year,⁢ 11 states enacted (or re-enacted) laws prohibiting abortion. All but two of those​ laws (Indiana and West Virginia) were enacted after the midterm⁣ elections and‍ after the pro-life defeats on ​state constitutional amendments ⁢in⁤ California, Kansas, Kentucky,​ Michigan, and Vermont.

Looking Ahead

Given that we had a legal regime of abortion on demand for almost 50 ‌years, it should not surprise anyone that it will take time ‌to persuade the public that abortion is a moral and social evil that must be addressed by appropriate‌ legislation. ⁢But with half of the ⁢states already providing at least some measure of protection (and‍ 18 of those 25 state laws prohibit abortion throughout pregnancy), pro-life advocates and conservatives​ have ​achieved a good start toward that goal.

In light of these accomplishments since​ Dobbs, conservatives ​should not be reluctant to ⁤debate the⁤ issue or defend extending legal protection to the most defenseless of⁢ us all: unborn children.