The Conversation of Life Evolves After Dobbs, Similar to its Evolution Before Roe

Where are we now over 50 years since the Roe v. Wade decision at the U.S. Supreme Court? If you pay attention to the media or ask a person on the street, you may receive oversimplified answers about the reversal of Roe and the Dobbs v. Jackson decision. But as I taught my students last semester, the history of abortion law and policy is more complex than a series of Supreme Court case decisions. In fact, the advocacy of both the pro-life movement and the abortion movement shifted messaging and strategy over time – and their messages are still shifting today. After 52 years, we have seen the Courts correctly rule that a woman does not have a right to kill the unborn. This Court decision was decades in the making and it was not the end of advocacy for women and babies.

 

How the Conversation Around Personhood and Life Changed

A key measure of success in the pro-life movement has been the ability to help women and society as a whole recognize the humanity and the personhood in the unborn child. In fact, it could be assumed that the abortion industry and abortion politicians were able to make gains in their advocacy by alienating the baby in the womb from its identity as a living person. This is exactly what Roe v. Wade did by re-introducing the centuries-old argument of ‘quickening’, which is when a baby becomes animated making that baby ‘human’.[1] But as science developed, so did the messaging of the evidence of life in the womb. A notable example was the film “The Silent Scream” created by a former abortionist turned pro-life doctor Bernard Nathanson. In the film, Dr. Nathanson shows detailed footage of what happens to a preborn child during an abortion. The discussion of the details of what happens to a baby during an abortion continued in 1995 when the United States Congress first debated the Partial-Birth Abortion Act. Despite abortion doctors resisting the term “partial-birth abortion” for the procedure that extracts a baby in order to abort, the discussion of this procedure caused the public to take a second look at the brutal nature of abortion. The bill in 1995 was vetoed by President Bill Clinton but would later have success in 2003. The passage of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban can be attributed to the new technology of ultrasounds that were beginning to be required by law before a woman chose an abortion. Alabama became the first state to require an ultrasound in 2002. A Charlotte Lozier Institute study found that when Wisconsin began mandating ultrasound viewing before a woman obtains an abortion women increased their decision to give birth to their child from 8.7 percent to 11.2 percent.[2] Ultrasound technology has advanced since the early 2000s and has helped more people see the detailed features of the baby in the womb. As science continues to develop so does the recognition of life in the womb.

 

How the Advocacy of Both Sides Changed

While science has played an important role, the advocacy strategy of both sides has evolved since Roe and continues to evolve after Dobbs v Jackson. Abortion advocates have consistently argued women’s rights as their basis for abortion. However, lately, abortion advocates have argued for women’s safety as a rallying cry against pro-life laws in many states. Abortion scholar Mary Ziegler explains in her writings that after Roe, the focus for abortion advocates was increasing women’s access to abortion. Some of the goals of abortion advocates included: training doctors to perform abortions, creating model clinics, and paying legal fees for doctors facing criminal charges.[3] More notable was the abortionist’s strategy to turn their largest organizations, the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL) and Planned Parenthood, into mega-lobbying organizations with their focus shifting to elections and stopping pro-life legislators from winning an elected office.[4]

 

For the pro-life movement, the ultimate goal was to overturn Roe v. Wade (and for some to make abortion illegal). But the path to overturning Roe and ultimately removing abortion from American society has seen various playbooks from different thought leaders on how this goal should be achieved. Most people are familiar with the ‘incremental’ approach to pro-life advocacy. Similarly, those who follow the pro-life movement have also observed the criticism of the ‘incremental’ approach as well. From bills that stopped Planned Parenthood government funding to bills like the Infant Born Alive Protection Act; these bills have been praised as victories when passed but also critiqued by those who thought our country was well overdue for Roe to be overturned. While religious liberty protections for pro-life doctors and stopping Planned Parenthood from providing sex education were important goals, the legal trajectory of the Texas Heartbeat Law and the Dobbs V. Jackson case were instrumental in overturning Roe v. Wade.

 

Where We are After Dobbs

The Dobbs decision accomplished the ultimate goal of overturning Roe. But was Dobbs the end goal of the pro-life movement? Sadly, as current President Trump pointed out on the campaign trail, Dobbs only returned the issue of abortion back to the states.[5] The immediate response of some states with pro-life laws that became enforced after Dobbs was to have the citizens of the state vote on the issue of abortion. These ‘abortion referendums’ that passed were further proof that abortion would continue to be practiced in several states after the overturn of Roe v. Wade.

 

In addition to the abortion referendums in several states, there is the increasing issue of women obtaining abortion pills and traveling across state lines when they reside in states with pro-life laws.

 

However, the pro-life movement discussion is moving in a positive direction. While a defensive strategy is needed to address the increase in abortion drugs distribution, Texas has made efforts to foster a culture of health family formation through the passage of SB 24, The Thriving Texas Family Program.[6] The Thriving Texas Families Program is the new name of the Alternatives to Abortion program in Texas with the new goal of encouraging healthy marriages and families so that moms and babies won’t just receive immediate financial needs but will continue to thrive in society for the remainder of their lives. The Texas Legislature believed that the traditional family provides the foundation for success. Hopefully, this perspective and conversation of strong families becomes the next phase of the pro-life movement.

 

It is clear that while the message of the pro-life movement and even the efforts of the opposition remain the same, the strategy to protect the pre-born child will continue to evolve. There are remaining external factors, like abortion referendums and abortion drugs that will cause the pro-life movement to shift strategy. But our internal values on life, marriage, and family will continue to be the driving force in the conversation.

 

________________

[1] Roe v. Wade, 41 U.S. 113 (1973) at 133.

[2] Skop, Ingrid, “Is Induced Abortion Health Care?”, https://lozierinstitute.org/is-induced-abortion-health-care/, August 7, 2024.

[3] See Mary Ziegler, Launching a Quest to Reverse Roe, in Abortion and the Law in America, Roe v. Wade to the Present, (February 2020).

[4] Id.

[5] Tierney Sneed, Trump says he’ll leave abortion to the state. It won’t be so simple, CNN, (November 25, 20224). https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/25/politics/abortion-trump-leave-to-states/index.html.

[6] Thriving Texas Families Program of 2023, SB 24, 88th Texas Legislature (2023). 

​

​