Catholic World News News Feature

The US pro-life movement at 35: time for new leadership January 23, 2008

"Twenty years ago, being pro-life was déclassé. Now it is a respectable point of view."

That statement is encouraging in itself. When you consider the source, it's absolutely stunning. The authors are Frances Kissling and Kate Michelman, two of America's leading proponents of legal abortion, writing in the Los Angeles Times.

A few years ago it would have been counted a major public-relations victory merely to place the term "pro-life," rather than the negative "anti-abortion" or even "anti-choice," in a newspaper like the Los Angeles Times. Now Kissling and Michelman are using the term, while the Washington Post is offering a mostly sympathetic portrait young people involved in the annual March for Life.

Meanwhile, far more importantly, the number of surgical abortions performed in the US each year continues to decline. The decline is far too slow; the numbers are far too high. Still the progress is undeniable.

Folks, we're gaining ground. The pro-life movement is winning the arguments. We're gaining the cultural advantage. And again, I'm not alone in saying that; Kissling and Michelman agree!

So why has the pro-life movement been unable to transform that popular advantage into practical political action?

Thirty-five years after Roe v. Wade, we are further than ever from restoring effective laws to ban abortion. Twenty years ago-- when the pro-life position was supposedly unrespectable-- we could speak about plans to overturn that egregious Supreme Court ruling. Now Roe is enshrined law, and even an avowedly pro-life President admits that there are no realistic prospects for changing it.

Instead, on the political front the pro-life movement has been confined to a few marginal victories. During the current presidency we have succeeded in outlawing one particularly gruesome form of abortion, saving a handful of unborn lives each year. It was a victory, to be sure; every baby saved is a victory. But what a meager return on so much political effort!

Every major Republican presidential candidate-- with the remarkable exception of the allegedly Catholic Rudy Giuliani-- has courted the pro-life vote. These politicians recognize the influence of the pro-life movement. They value the energetic contributions that pro-life activists have made to campaigns, year after year. They know that the pro-life vote can swing elections, because they have seen it happen.

But what are these candidates offering, in return for pro-lifers' support? Not much. It's significant that pro-life activists are divided in their sympathies; no one candidate has made the sort of commitment that would rally the movement behind him. Each expresses pro-life sentiments; each touts his pro-life record-- except one. Yet isn't in remarkable that the party's leading pro-abortion group, Republicans for Choice, has concentrated its fire on the one candidate who does not have a pro-life record? Maybe Mitt Romney's conversion to the pro-life cause is genuine; evidently Republicans for Choice think so. But it speaks volumes that the candidate most feared by the pro-abortion lobby is one who has never, in his political career, cast a vote or enacted a policy that would have restricted abortion.

Why aren't we winning the political battles, at a time when we're making such inroads in the overall culture wars? Let me offer three explanations:

First, pro-lifers have set their political sights too low. We have assumed that if a candidate is (or seems to be) genuinely pro-life, that's good enough. We haven't learned how to demand specific campaign promises and make sure they are fulfilled. We haven't learned to collect on our debts. So candidates can be perceived as champions of the pro-life cause without making firm contributions.

Second, we haven't pressed our advantage at the crucial points. The argument today (unfortunately) is not over the abolition of abortion, but over restrictions on the slaughter. We must pound home that point: that our foes are taking the unreasonable, uncompromising approach. The pro-abortion movement today opposes all restrictions, no matter how modest, no matter how prudent. Kissling and Michelman correctly identify the Achilles heel of the abortion lobby:

And when the choice movement seems to defend every individual abortion decision, rather than the right to make the decision, it too becomes suspect.

Let's learn from our adversaries. The pro-abortion movement does not want to discuss restrictions on abortion. So let's discuss them. Ask the presidential contenders: What restrictions are you ready to support-- right now? Judge the candidates by their replies.

Third, we need to recapture a sense of urgency about our efforts. Immediately the Roe decision, a wonderful group of activists emerged to lead the pro-life movement, convinced that we could soon reverse this horrible injustice. A generation later, the injustice remains-- and remarkably enough, the same cadre of activists remains at the forefront of the American pro-life movement.

I have nothing but admiration for the people who have guided the movement thus far-- for the sacrifices they have made and the courage they have shown. But I worry that some have now become entrenched in their positions, wedded to old methods, stuck in old conflicts, unready to adapt. And I quail when I see the occasional announcement, from people who should know better, that we are "celebrating" 35 years since Roe v. Wade. Every movement eventually needs new leadership. It's time for a change.