It began with the factory farms. Billions of creatures crammed into horrid conditions and summarily slaughtered, just because it’s convenient for us. In his book Dominion, the evangelical Christian Matthew Scully wrote that his pro-life views helped inform his compassion for farm animals and revulsion toward their treatment. He didn’t need to convince me; I’d abjured meat years before. But I couldn’t help wondering: should this compassion also flow in the opposite direction? If I was revolted by the brutality of factory farming, could I really be just fine with abortion?
It continued with Pope Francis and Pope Leo. Moral giants. Standing up for peace, for the dispossessed, for protecting the least of us. American Democrats fell in love with them, and they were right to. But both popes have been clear that opposing abortion is part of their social ethos. It’s one of the ways they champion the least of us. Democrats always seem to gloss over that part.
It continued with the pro-life advocates. Not all of them. Not the televangelists who use abortion as a culture-war line to keep donations flowing. Not the online trolls who use abortion rhetoric as an outlet for their gross misogyny. But the other pro-life advocates. Leah Libresco Sargeant, whose pro-life advocacy is shot through with a message of dignity and feminism. Matthew Loftus, the pro-life doctor who moved his family to rural Kenya because that’s where he could do the greatest lifesaving work. Kathryn Jean Lopez, the writer who lives her pro-life ethic by championing compassion for all and malice toward none. And some of the others: Patrick T. Brown, the pro-life family scholar who sends weekly fusillades of policy ideas to help struggling families. Patrick Deneen, the post-liberal pro-lifer whose political ideas are so bracingly heterodox that even Barack Obama has praised them. The American Solidarity Party, a fledgling U.S. political party that has a pro-life policy position together with other policy positions that would have most Democrats nodding along in approval.
It continued with Dobbs. Hours after Dobbs issued in June 2022, my kids’ preschool director led the parents in a sorrowful moment of silence for the decision, prefaced by a short speech about how awful the decision was. But I didn’t need a preschool director to lecture me on constitutional law. I’d written law review articles on constitutional law. And Dobbs got it right. No clause of the Constitution guarantees a right to abortion.
It continued with a recognition of just how stifling the Democratic monoculture has become on abortion. The days of the culturally conservative pro-life Democrat are all but gone. Former Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards was one of the last. Now, to be a Democrat in good standing, it seems you must favor unrestricted abortion up to viability, if not beyond.
Start your day with Public Discourse
Sign up and get our daily essays sent straight to your inbox.It continued with a glance around the world and a recognition that abortion restrictions do not create misogynistic hellholes. According to the World Economic Forum, the United States currently ranks forty-second for gender equality, and most of the countries above us have stricter abortion restrictions than the average blue American state. Some of them (like Germany) have quite significant restrictions. Others (like Chile) virtually ban the procedure.
It continued with a recognition of how brutal abortion can be, particularly as the fetus continues to develop. A second-trimester fetus can suck her thumb. She can feel her surroundings. And aborting her is a bloody business. It typically involves suctioning her out of the uterus with such force that she’s literally torn apart.
It continued in despair as wildfire smoke from ever-hotter summers flooded our skies, fouling our air so badly that my children couldn’t safely play outside. Social conservatives should be natural allies in the fight against climate change, given that they value tradition and dislike wrenching change. But it’s much easier for Democrats to build alliances with social conservatives if Democrats concede some ground on the issues that social conservatives hold most dear. And yes, that certainly includes abortion.
That’s how it started, that’s how it continued. I don’t know where it will end. Not for myself, not for my party, not for my country. But I do know that we’re not in a good place right now.
A Journey for the Pro-Life Movement?
The pro-life movement should also consider some journeying, as it’s not in a very good place, either. The years since Dobbs have seen an increase in abortion rates. We’ve also seen a raft of referenda liberalizing abortion laws, even in conservative states. Finally, the percentage of Americans who consider themselves pro-choice versus pro-life has widened to an eleven-point pro-choice lead, up from a statistical tie in 2020. Given these data points, most observers would conclude that whatever the pro-life movement is doing is not working.
What would work better? The conventional wisdom is for pro-lifers to moderate their position on abortion. But I’d offer different advice: pro-lifers shouldn’t necessarily moderate on abortion. Instead, they should moderate on everything else.
What I mean is this: voters do not consider abortion in a vacuum. The abortion debates in this country are also wrapped up in a red versus blue battle over other values, issues, and ways of life. So long as the pro-life movement is part of the GOP coalition, the attractiveness of the pro-life message is affected by the attractiveness of the GOP. And it’s hard to grow the pro-life tent if the pro-life movement is bound up with a hard-right GOP that is repellent to centrist and center-left voters.
To illustrate this point, consider two powerful political figures who are both associated with the pro-life movement. The first is careful to moderate and triangulate his pro-life views to appeal to more centrist voters. To that end, he opposes national abortion bans, even after fifteen weeks. He’s advocated exceptions in cases like rape and incest. He criticized Florida’s six-week abortion ban for not giving pregnant women enough time to make their decision. By contrast, the second figure is much more dogmatic. He opposes abortion from conception onward. If he favors any exceptions, he hasn’t been public about it.
You can probably guess where this is going. The first figure is Donald Trump; the second figure is Pope Leo. Now ask yourself: which figure is more likely to persuade centrist or center-left voters on abortion? Trump, who is feared and disdained by the left half of the country? Or Leo, who is widely admired? To ask the question is to answer it. Trump is more moderate on abortion, but Leo is better positioned to persuade the moderates because his overall image and ethos is more attractive to them.
Thus, on issues beyond abortion, the pro-life movement has a vested interest in cultivating a humane and center-right GOP over a hard-right GOP. They do not have the luxury of being neutral on “non-abortion issues,” because the palatability of their message is affected by the palatability of the overall GOP brand. When the GOP ravages foreign aid, pro-lifers should speak up. When the GOP blocks clean energy, pro-lifers should speak up. Whenever the GOP veers in a hard-right direction, pro-lifers should speak up, because it’s not in their interests to be part of a hard-right political coalition.
Is this advice to the pro-life movement also self-interested? Absolutely. As a Democrat and an American, I much prefer a humane and center-right GOP over a hard-right GOP. But self-interested advice can still be correct advice. The pro-life movement would be in a stronger place if it served as a moderating influence within the GOP.
The counterargument would be that, given the vast abortion gulf between the parties, pro-lifers should be loyal and uncritical supporters of whatever the GOP policy agenda happens to be, on the theory that GOP political control is the overriding consideration. To that counterargument, I would ask: how’s that working out for you? The last several years have seen GOP control in a majority of states, and GOP federal control since early 2025. But national abortion rates keep rising and the share of pro-life Americans keeps dropping. Even a deus ex machina scenario where the FDA yanks approval of mifepristone would not turn the ship. Misoprostol-only chemical abortions would still be available, as would abortion medication shipped anonymously from overseas, as would cheap interstate travel to pro-choice states. The only way to substantially reduce abortion in this country is through persuasion. And again: the pro-life movement would be better-positioned to persuade moderates if it’s seen as a moderating influence on the GOP. Less Trump, more Leo. That’s how you build a bigger pro-life tent.
