Pro-lifers, it’s time to ditch the failing electoral strategy and embrace the Lincoln Method.

With Tuesday’s relatively easy passage of an Ohio constitutional amendment that effectively bars that state’s legislature from regulating abortion ⁢in the state, abortion advocates are now convinced that they ⁣not only have the​ public on their side⁤ but have found political gold. They now view‌ abortion as such a winning ​issue that⁤ they think it⁤ can ‌pave‍ the way to enacting⁣ a wide range of other leftist​ goals.

They are largely mistaken, as abortion mercifully remains a highly contentious issue in ‍America. ⁢Still, abortion advocates will continue ⁣to prevail until pro-life‍ leaders and politicians⁣ learn the ⁢political lessons ⁢that have arisen in⁢ the aftermath of their puzzling failure to prepare for a⁢ post-Roe world.

There are‍ two main lessons to‍ be ⁤learned from Ohio — and from other states⁢ where⁤ abortion advocates have scored recent victories. The first is that, as‌

Abraham⁤ Lincoln understood

, “public sentiment is everything” in ⁣a republic. One must win the argument before one can change the laws⁣ (or before one⁣ can keep them ⁣from changing‌ in the wrong direction). And one cannot win the ⁣argument without being willing to make the argument.

The⁣ second is that a⁢ majority of Americans want limits on abortion, but they don’t ‍want​ to eliminate ⁣it. They don’t want ⁤abortion ⁤on demand, but even less⁤ do they want an outright ⁣ban. After‍ a half-century ⁣of legalized abortion imposed by ⁢activist judges, pro-lifers need to cultivate voters’​ trust by emphasizing the need to limit rather⁢ than eliminate abortion, while emphasizing that pro-abortion advocates ‌support abortion up until birth.

Lincoln’s own ​example ⁣is instructive. He regarded ⁣ slavery as “a vast ‍moral evil.” “Slavery is wrong,”‍ he said, and ‍“one cannot ‌say that people have a right to do wrong” —⁣ yet he did not try to ban⁢ it in the South. He instead fought ​unflinchingly against its extension into the western⁤ territories⁤ and states. He fought the battle that could ⁢be won, not‌ the one he was sure to lose.

Likewise, ​pro-lifers can’t win by trying⁢ to ban abortion outright or letting others suggest that this ⁤is their goal. ⁤Nor ⁣does it particularly serve pro-life interests to speak of banning abortion after a seemingly arbitrary number of weeks, severed from‍ a rationale for that number. Not only does a 15-week⁤ abortion ban, the most popular new figure, ‌concede too much — allowing abortions into ‍the second trimester — but it‍ also still requires a lot of political⁢ capital to try to ⁣enact. It is at once ‍too​ much and too little. ‍It may ‍make sense​ in some places, but in ⁣general, it seems ⁢like a losing proposition. (Why the newfound fascination with weeks, anyway? Why ⁤not months, or days, or trimesters?)

Recognizing ‌the importance of swaying public‌ opinion, pro-lifers should ⁢instead⁢ seek to tie​ abortion bans to⁤ a developing⁤ child’s heartbeat or​ capacity for pain. They should push for ⁣requirements⁢ that mothers view ultrasounds before ⁣choosing whether to end their developing‌ child’s ⁣life. ⁣They should‌ defend⁤ crisis pregnancy centers⁤ against all ‍sorts of​ attacks.

At ⁢the same time, ​as I’ve written before, pro-lifers should ask abortion ⁤supporters the uncomfortable ​question of where ⁢life begins. Is it ‌at birth, as the Women’s Health Protection Act suggests? Is‌ a developing child in ‌the ⁣womb a human​ life? ⁤Is there any point before or perhaps even after ‍ birth when⁢ laws should prevent the killing of that life? These questions‍ illuminate ‍and mold public sentiment.

Exit polling provides ⁤evidence that ⁢Americans are in the center ⁣on abortion, as they favor ⁣policies involving ​banning ⁣or allowing abortion in “most cases” over those involving doing so in⁢ “all cases.” Both on Tuesday in Ohio and during last year’s midterm elections nationally,‍ exit⁣ polling⁤ found that a⁢ majority of Americans think abortion should either be “legal⁣ in most cases” or “illegal ⁤in most cases.” In ​Ohio exit polling, 58 percent ⁣said they held one of those two positions, while in midterm exit polling, 56 percent‌ of voters said so. In comparison, only 40 percent of voters in Ohio and 39 percent in last‌ year’s midterms held a more absolutist position, saying either that abortion should⁢ be “legal in all ⁢cases” or “illegal in all‍ cases.”

In the 2022⁤ midterms, exit polling found that voters who held more‌ middle-ground⁣ positions on abortion were⁣ a bit more⁣ inclined to say ⁢abortion should be “legal in most cases” (30 percent) ⁣than “illegal in most​ cases” (26 percent) — yet⁤ they voted for Republicans over⁢ Democrats by 15 ‌percentage points ⁢(35 percent to ‌20 percent). That’s because the “illegal⁤ in most cases” group seemed to hold‍ its beliefs with more‍ conviction — 90 percent of them went Republican, according to ⁢ exit polling, while just 60 percent of those who thought abortion should be “legal in most cases” went Democrat. So Republicans ​won among those with more middle-ground positions on abortion.

In ⁤Ohio, exit polling showed ⁢that ⁢voters who‌ held more middle-ground ‍positions split evenly on the proposed constitutional amendment⁣ (29 percent to 29 percent),⁢ while it ⁤ passed ⁤by 13 points overall. It passed because more than twice ⁤as many voters held the (de facto Democrat)‌ position that abortion‌ should always be ‍legal (28 percent) than held the‍ position that abortion should always be illegal (12 percent). So among the more absolutist ‍voters, pro-lifers are strongly⁣ outnumbered. This was true not only​ in Ohio in ‌2023 but‌ nationally‌ in 2022, when exit polling showed that voters who thought abortion should be ⁤“legal in ​all cases” outnumbered those⁤ who thought it should be “illegal ⁣in ​all cases” by a⁢ margin of 29 to 10 percent.

Even though⁤ most Americans are somewhat in the middle on​ this⁣ profound moral question, ⁢pro-abortion politicians are fully⁢ embracing the issue and portraying themselves as defenders of ​a woman’s‌ “right to choose.” In comparison, pro-life politicians have been far more⁢ reticent about portraying⁣ themselves as defenders of a ‍developing child’s right to ​live.

I reside in ⁣Virginia,⁣ where pro-abortion ads this ​election cycle were ubiquitous and pro-life⁤ ads were nonexistent. The impression surely left in many voters’ minds — because that’s what the ads said —⁢ is that pro-lifers ‍want to ban all abortions. The fact that abortion advocates ‌would generally allow all abortions — even​ partial-birth abortions — was left unsaid.

Americans’ general belief that there should be ​limits on abortion is at odds with the left’s view ⁤that‌ abortion⁢ should be universally available. ⁤Pro-lifers are losing‌ in spite ⁢of this, ‍partly because they’re⁤ not making the case,‌ and partly​ because ⁤Americans think pro-lifers​ want to ban all (or almost all)‌ abortions. Americans are more ‍concerned about abortion⁤ being ⁢eliminated, or nearly so, than they are about abortion advocates’ extreme embrace ‍of abortion ⁤until birth (largely because voters don’t know about that).

As the refreshingly honest abortion advocate Camille Paglia puts it, “Abortion pits the stronger against the weaker, and only ‍one survives.”‍ Her words‍ — highlighting the killing of ‍the weak — starkly illustrate​ abortion’s cruel injustice. Perhaps because, on some‍ level, she recognizes this injustice, Paglia says that while‌ she ⁤favors ⁣“unrestricted access to abortion,” she nevertheless​ respects “the pro-life viewpoint” as the one‌ that “has ⁢the moral ​high ground.”

In⁢ addition ⁢to holding that moral ‌high ​ground, however, pro-lifers must learn to fight in the political trenches. Pro-lifers must work diligently to shift public opinion against abortion, but they neglect the⁢ current political reality at their​ — and ⁢abortion victims’ — peril.

Pro-lifers should follow the example set by Lincoln on an ‌earlier, similarly contentious, issue. While not ‍being shy about⁤ characterizing abortion as‍ a moral‌ evil, ​they should ‍make clear that they are not proposing to ban⁢ the all-too-common practice across the ‌board — for it is too well-established — even as ​their opponents are working ‌diligently to⁤ allow it ⁤in all circumstances and at ⁣all times.

While recent defeats have been ‍dispiriting to the pro-life cause, those determined to protect innocent⁢ human life ​should take heed from Lincoln’s words in his 1860⁣ Cooper⁣ Union ⁣Address: “Let us have⁤ faith that right makes might.” By making their‌ case more ‍forcefully on the merits,⁢ while also demonstrating more political prudence‍ and savvy, pro-life leaders and politicians could succeed in fulfilling⁢ the promise ‌of Lincoln’s words.