November 5 – which abortion activists were hoping would be called “Roe-vember 5” after making a clean sweep of abortion referendums from Florida to Nebraska and installing one of their own in the White House – brought welcome relief to pro-lifers instead.
For the first time since Dobbs, the pro-life losing streak was halted with the failure of Amendment 4 in Florida, Initiative 439 in Nebraska, and Amendment G in South Dakota, all of which would have made abortion a constitutional right in their respective states.
And of course, Kamala Harris lost – badly. The Democrats lost the presidency, the popular vote, the Senate, and likely the House. Donald Trump, a man condemned by both the Democrats and their abortion activist allies as little better than a fascist, has been handed a blank check by the electorate. Time will tell how he plans to use it.
After the initial relief of Tuesday night, pro-lifers must be clear-eyed about where we stand. It is true that the post-Dobbs abortion activist winning streak was halted, and that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis showed pro-life politicians that it is possible to be politically successful while defending pro-life laws.
But we also lost seven abortion referendums, from Missouri to Maryland. This time, we didn’t lose all of them. But once again, pro-lifers were confronted with the reality that America is a libertarian, pro-abortion country. The real work that lies ahead is that of changing the culture on abortion from campus to campus, door to door. Politics, as we have seen, is not the answer.
Indeed, we do not know what the second Trump presidency means for pro-lifers. We know what Kamala Harris has been prevented from doing, but we also know that Trump has pivoted on abortion and embraced a pro-abortion position. He has vowed to veto any national abortion ban. He has purged many pro-life voices from the RNC. He has promised to fund IVF with taxpayer dollars and stated that he will be great for “reproductive rights.”
Many of the pro-life stalwarts from Trump’s first administration are no longer with him. JD Vance ran for the Ohio senate as a pro-lifer but has echoed the president-elect and conspicuously avoided defending the pro-life position, from the vice-presidential debate to Joe Rogan’s podcast.
Indeed, the pro-life movement has not yet fully reckoned with the fact that two things are true about Tuesday’s election results. First, Kamala Harris ran a campaign almost entirely focused on abortion – and lost. Second, Trump became the first GOP candidate in over 40 years to run on an openly pro-abortion platform – and win. While DeSantis provided a model for convictional leadership, some will no doubt argue that Trump picked up many independent voters because he chose to “moderate” on abortion. Republicans eager to run from the issue will see this result as giving them permission to do so, and that will undoubtedly have long-term implications for the political arm of the pro-life movement in particular.
I am not quite as pessimistic as those who believe that Trump took pro-life voters for granted and got away with it, and that thus “the pro-life movement as a national, political force is dead.” At several points during the presidential campaign, Trump reversed his position after pressure from pro-lifers, and a number of those in his inner circle are very pro-life. Nonetheless, Trump has established a precedent: a Republican can run on a platform that includes condemning most abortion restrictions – and win. In 2016, pro-life activists were integral to his campaign. In 2024, they weren’t. That’s simple fact.
Tuesdays’ result was the beginning of a long, brutal slog that may last as long as it took to overturn Roe. Trump will have to be opposed on the “IVF mandate,” and his pro-choice rhetoric will have to be corrected, and constantly. As we work to change the culture, we must also work to ensure that Trump’s pro-abortion candidacy was an aberration – because if we have a similar scenario in 2028, the pivot will be permanent.
