OPINION:
The Republican Party and the pro-life cause have recently enjoyed a series of victories in the judicial arena (Dobbs) and suffered a series of setbacks in the electoral arena (the latest in Wisconsin).
That should come as no great surprise. The right-to-life movement has for five decades been focused like a laser on striking down Roe v. Wade and, eventually, reestablishing some legal constraints on the killing of children in the womb. When a great cause suddenly achieves an important goal, it is tough to reorient the effort immediately. Ask the abolitionists who were unprepared for the backlash against civil rights in the wake of the Civil War. That effort took almost 100 years to fully find its footing.
Nevertheless, it is time to embark on such a reorientation.
The pro-life cause, its allies and its cognates need to start to think more holistically about the problem facing us. There is, unfortunately, a lot of demand for abortion. Restraining the channels of supply legally is a necessary but probably insufficient approach. At some point, we will need to change hearts and minds and create a society in which abortion is the least attractive option, one in which it is not socially, personally or morally acceptable to consider abortion.
In short, we need to drive the idea of abortion to the social margins. Fortunately, we have a case study of social marginalization in the United States: cigarette smoking. As recently as 1965, smoking was common pretty much everywhere and at all times — prevalent in the movies and television, allowed in airplanes and restaurants, and even embraced in high schools.
What changed? Steady pressure from the public health community coupled with modest doses of legal discouragement (age and sales restrictions, taxes) and funding for cessation programs and alternatives have reduced the smoking rate, which had hovered above 40% in postwar America, to less than 15% of adults.
Of course, no analogy is perfect or precise. The pro-life community and its arguments would be stronger if they addressed both the demand and supply side of the problem.
Finally, we need to insist on better from our allies. Many Republicans have either remained or gone silent about the right to life. For example, not a single contestant for the Republican nomination for president in 2024 has said a word about the recent dueling court rulings on abortifacients. In some instances, they seem almost indifferent to Dobbs.
The Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision sending the issue of abortion back to the states was a huge win that delivered on promises that had been made and work that had been done for generations. Usually, politicians would be claiming their share of the credit.
At a minimum, pro-life advocates should start by asking those who support abortion what constraints, if any, they might favor. No abortions after the first trimester? After the second? Where would they draw the line?
If we want to change the culture and talk about the absolute importance and essentiality of life, now is the moment. Everyone is focused on these questions. Staying silent in the face of the expected backlash from entrenched interests is a significant strategic error politically and inexcusable morally.
• Michael McKenna, a columnist for The Washington Times, co-hosts “The Unregulated Podcast.” He was most recently a deputy assistant to the president and deputy director of the Office of Legislative Affairs at the White House.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.