The Republican Party Sidelines the Pro-Life Cause

Pro-life politicians have a duty to pursue realistic objectives, given political circumstances. But all of us—including men and women in the practical work of gaining executive, legislative, and judicial power—must be witnesses to the sanctity of life. The pro-life cause has been sidelined by the Republican Party. This undermines the battle for life.

The degree to which the GOP has downgraded the grave evil of abortion is striking. The final draft of the 2024 Republican Party platform champions “the sanctity of marriage” (although it no longer defines marriage as between one man and one woman). It repeatedly targets the “Radical Left” in higher education and goes so far as to call for the immediate deportation of “pro-Hamas radicals.” But on abortion, the position is minimal: “We will oppose Late Term Abortion.” The platform allows that the states are free to pass laws protecting the unborn. These affirmations are immediately followed by pandering reassurances that the party will “protect access to Birth Control, and IVF.” 

There is no mention of the sanctity of life. Meanwhile, some Republican candidates, including the presumptive presidential nominee, are attacking limits on abortion that exist in states where the pro-life position is popular. They are running from the issue, even though no pro-life senator or governor has lost re-election since Dobbs. Shame on the grandees of the American Right.

This is a confusing moment for pro-life politics. For decades, overturning Roe received most of the attention. As a result, pro-life politicians and advocates rarely had urgent debates in which prudence was weighed against principle. Now we must have such debates, and amid ominous developments, as ballot initiatives in deep-red states confirm that Americans regard abortion as essential. What should pro-life politicians do?

They must learn from the successful campaign for gay marriage. Activists were unequivocal in their calls for gay marriage at each stage of that campaign. In 2004, they achieved their goal in Massachusetts, when the high court in that state deemed gay marriage a constitutional right. At that time, no prominent Democratic politicians supported gay marriage, because to do so was politically dangerous. During his 2008 campaign, Barack Obama expressly affirmed that marriage was between a man and a woman.

But neither Obama nor other prominent Democrats denounced the Massachusetts decision as “too extreme.” Obama did not sideline the Human Rights Campaign. Democratic legislators in deep-blue states were not censured for their support of gay marriage. The Democratic Party platform continued to affirm the general cause of gay rights. And the party never tired of denouncing moral censure of homosexuality as hateful and “homophobic.”

Those of us who are committed to the sanctity of life must demand a similar approach.

A 2023 Gallup poll reported that only 12 percent of Americans hold that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. But the maximal pro-choice position does not command a majority, either. Only 35 percent of Americans hold that abortion should be permitted in all circumstances. The balance of Americans—a majority—hold that abortion should be limited to some degree. These data tell us that the pro-abortion extremism of the Democratic Party is unpopular. An incremental pro-life agenda can win votes.

What should the Republican Party platform hold concerning abortion?

• It should back the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funding of abortion. This measure is agnostic about the legal status of abortion, ensuring only that taxpayers who object to it will not fund abortion through their tax dollars.

• It should oppose efforts to import Canada’s evil regime of doctor-assisted suicide. Republican politicians should promise to appoint judges who will not invent a spurious “right to die.” The pro-life cause is about more than abortion.

• It should decry the prosecution of anti-abortion protestors by the Biden administration. One element of the platform identifies the politicization of our legal regime. The targeting of the pro-life cause should be identified as an instance of left-wing lawfare.

• It should speak of the sanctity of life and express the hope that every child will be protected in law and welcomed in life. Even as we acknowledge the political realities of a society addicted to abortion, we must always identify the truth that we seek to defend.

These additions to the platform would not commit the Republican Party to the ambitions of those of us who seek the comprehensive protection of innocent life under the law. But they would signal that the party is committed to defending life, as far as political realities permit. 

Jesus told us to be innocent as doves. We must speak clearly about the evil of abortion. Our country needs our witness. First Things does not—will not—carry water for the Republican Party by falling silent about the culture of death. 

And our Lord told us to be wise as serpents. Pro-life politicians must discern what can be done—and what cannot. They must test the public’s appetite for restriction. Measures to limit abortion may be indirect, as in restricting public funding, or imposing the requirement that a sonogram be performed before an abortion. Or they may take the form of legal limits tailored to the attitudes prevailing in different regions and states. In my estimation, the Republican Party platform abdicates the responsibility to discern what is possible. Too impressed with what cannot be done, it fails to seek what can.

Prudence must operate in rhetoric, as well. To attack the macabre ambitions of the Democratic Party, which seeks to enshrine a woman’s right to kill her child even in the final days of pregnancy, does not commit a politician to an outright ban, a six-week ban, a fifteen-week ban, or any other policy of restriction. Rather, it signals which side he is on. This was the strategy of Democratic Party politicians before Obergefell. They signaled their loyalties by attacking “discrimination” without saying a word about gay marriage.

As citizens and voters, we too must exercise prudence. It is counterproductive moralizing to denounce politicians who refuse to promise what cannot be done. The case of the chemical abortifacient mifepristone is a signal example. A supermajority of Americans supports legal access to it. For pro-life advocates to denounce politicians who are otherwise supportive of the cause of life, because they refuse to commit to banning mifepristone, is simply unrealistic. (Although they can point out that its widespread use courts many medical dangers.) Gay activists showed their understanding of this dynamic in 2008, when they refrained from attacking Obama. They understood that he was on their side—all those attacks on “discrimination”—and when political reality permitted, he proved them right.

The cause of life is at a turning point. Dobbs was rightly decided. Our Constitution no longer accords privileges to the culture of death. And yet Dobbs exposed a terrible truth: The culture of death has made deep inroads into our society. The danger is twofold. Our political leaders may capitulate, deeming the battle for life not worth fighting. And we, in our rage, may fail to support those who pick their battles, fighting only where they have hope of a meaningful victory.

Let us meet this challenging moment with clarity and wisdom.

R. R. Reno is editor of First Things.

First Things depends on its subscribers and supporters. Join the conversation and make a contribution today.

Click here to make a donation.

Click here to subscribe to First Things.

Image by Andrés Nieto Porras, licensed via Creative Commons. Image cropped.