Pro-Lifers Are Losing The Fight Against Deceptive Ballot Measures

Some of the biggest players in the national pro-life movement are justifiably frustrated with the ambiguous abortion rhetoric plaguing former President Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign. As Election Day draws nearer, however, those committed to protecting unborn life should focus their energy on combatting the deceptive ballot measures that threaten to undermine the most important and effective tool in the pro-life playbook: state safeguards.

There is no doubt that the GOP’s surrender on abortion leaves a huge bloc of their voters (as well as the women and babies they often claim to protect) hanging out to dry. Trump’s insistence that abortion should be left “up to the states” gives Democrats and abortion giants a free pass to target Republican strongholds like Florida with their extreme abortion agenda.

Trump’s “reproductive rights” rhetoric and Vance’s confirmation that the pair will veto federal pro-life protections are certainly reprimandable. But they shouldn’t be the ultimate focus of pro-lifers’ ire this November.

Nearly a dozen states face deceptive ballot measures that promise to protect abortion. If passed in November, these proposed amendments will not only enshrine abortion for any reason in red state constitutions, but will also prohibit those states from passing laws aimed at holding abortionists accountable for the harm they cause women and unborn babies.

These ballot measure campaigns are dangerous because, even though they are plagued with undefined terminology that can be easily construed to justify abortion for any reason and questionable signature-gathering practices, they are effective.

Time and time again, the pro-life movement has allowed abortion radicals to sneak their ballot measure schemes right past their Republican-controlled legislatures, governors’ mansions, and attorneys general offices. As a result, every single one of the seven state abortion referendums introduced since the fall of Roe v. Wade have ended with enshrining the “right” to murder preborn babies in state constitutions.

These constitutional amendments, which effectively hamper states from legislating on abortion, contraception, assisted reproductive technology, and the radical transing of children, are not easily undone.

Instead of talking about these ballot measures, however, pro-life figureheads and politicos everywhere are postulating about Trump’s position on abortion. Some say voting for Harris, the most extremist pro-abortion presidential candidate in history, will remedy the problem, while others have suggested a solution lies in simply withholding votes from Trump.

This coordinated effort to keep principled pro-lifers home on Nov. 5 does nothing but damage the heart and soul of the movement sworn to preserve unborn life.

The goal of the pro-life movement has always been to eradicate abortion. But hinging that goal on a federal abortion ban (which is only in the realm of possibility thanks to Trump and his first term) and a federal abortion ban only severely restricts pro-lifers’ effectiveness in the states where referendums on abortion are becoming routine.

It shouldn’t be hard to communicate to the majority of U.S. adults who reject Democrats’ unlimited abortion agenda that dismembering babies through all nine months is an extremist position and not, as Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear recently claimed, “loving your neighbor.” Yet, many Americans do not equate Democrats’ euphemistic calls for “reproductive rights” with late-term abortions because pollsters and abortion activists twist the narrative.

The true solution for keeping radical abortion amendments from making it on the ballot lies in prevention and messaging. Yet, national pro-lifers risk becoming too preoccupied with smearing Trump to do the legwork in those states in danger of falling prey to Democrats’ schemes.

If Vice President Kamala Harris wins the 2024 election because pro-lifers pouting about Trump refuse to show up to the polls, the pro-life movement won’t stand a chance. As Federalist Legal Correspondent Margot Cleveland accurately noted, Harris’ commitment to passing a federal law that usurps state-level pro-life protections and packing court benches with abortion activists “will only further dehumanize the unborn, making it more difficult to change the hearts and minds of Americans.”

Similarly, if the pro-abortion activists running deceptive ballot measure campaigns in nearly a dozen states succeed, as they have over the last two years, tens of thousands of babies in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, and South Dakota won’t stand a chance either.

Since its beginning more than 50 years ago, the fight for life has been marred with compromise. GOP politicians have repeatedly failed to move the legislative ball to protect babies forward, offering only toothless statements and the occasional congressional hearing temper tantrums. Even worse, some of them have turned to aiding Democrats’ anti-life schemes by promoting procedures that routinely sacrifice the unborn. Yet, many are still boosted by top pro-life organizations as champions for the preborn.

Pretending that pitting the most pro-life president against the most abortion-crazed one is suddenly an unprecedented moral dilemma for pro-lifers committed to advancing the core mission of saving every unborn baby from in-utero slaughter is not just disingenuous. It verges on a malicious attempt to distract voters from the ballot measure battles that, if left unchecked, will determine without pushback that abortion through all nine months of pregnancy is the new American standard.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on X @jordanboydtx.