Euphoric two years ago, US anti-abortion movement is now divided and worried as election nears

Just two years ago, leading anti-abortion activists were euphoric when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 1973 Roe v. Wade decisionwhich ended the national right to abortion.

Now, with the presidential election fast approaching, their movement is divided and anxious. There is doubt and finger-pointing within their own ranks, plus fear that Election Day could provide new evidence that their cause is broadly unpopular.

Michael New, an abortion opponent and professor of social studies at The Catholic University of America, provided an overview of how the movement has fared since the Roe ruling in June 2022.

“Things haven’t necessarily gone the way we had hoped,” he wrote in an email to The Associated Press. “There is certainly a sense among pro-life leaders that we should have had a stronger post-Roe game plan.”

“I always remind my fellow pro-lifers that we were never promised a smooth path to victory,” he added. “There will certainly be setbacks and disappointments along the way.”

A major reason for the caution is the recent losing streak of the anti-abortion movement on abortion-related ballot measures in seven states, including conservative Kansas and Kentucky. Nine other states will consider constitutional amendments enshrining abortion rights in the November 5 elections — Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada and South Dakota. In several of them, abortion opponents tried various failed strategies to block the measures.

“Pro-life people don’t wear rose-colored glasses; we know we have a huge task ahead of us,” Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life, told the AP. “Because of the enormous amounts of money being dumped into the ballot initiatives by those connected to the abortion industry and the Democratic Party, it’s an uphill battle.”

“We will continue to educate, to make people aware of the catastrophic consequences if these measures are adopted,” she added. “I have not seen any waning of energy or loss of resolve among pro-life people.”

Texas is one of the Republican-controlled states that almost total abortion bansStill, John Seago, president of Texas Right to Life, said the anti-abortion movement nationally is “in a critical chapter right now.”

“After a historic legal victory, we have realized that while we have achieved enormous legislative and judicial victories over the past decade, public opinion has not followed the same trajectory,” he added.

Troy Newman, who leads the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, recently published a online opinion piece in which he attacks the movement he has been part of for 25 years.

“The tide has turned, and the pro-life message is now seen as a political liability that could stand in the way of President Trump’s triumphant return to the White House,” Newman wrote.

“After reviewing the terrible mistakes of the pro-life movement in recent years, I can only conclude that we are to blame,” Newman wrote. “We have had more than 50 years to change the culture’s position on abortion, and we have failed miserably.”

In an interview with AP, Newman blamed his own ranks for the plight. He said some anti-abortion leaders should have been more assertive in their positions. “We lose the moment we stop focusing on the babies,” he said.

Kristan Hawkins, leader of Students for Life of America, suggested via email that Newman’s views were out of step with the post-Roe era. She said students in her organization embraced the challenges of a state-by-state playing field.

But she acknowledged the scale of the challenges.

“I truly believe that the greatest threat is ourselves – our mentality – which will lead to reduced recruitment, training and mobilization of our grassroots army of love,” she recently wrote in the conservative media Townhall.

“Look at the challenges we’re going to face this fall with different referendums on late-term abortion,” she added. “Most of them are probably going to be a political loss for our movement because in most states there is no politically sophisticated, organized, well-funded statewide movement.”

Hawkins also acknowledged the anger among some anti-abortion activists over the inconsistent rhetoric on abortion from former President Donald Trump’s Republican presidential nominee and his running mate, Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio.

“I am not here to apologize for the campaign and their political miscalculations, which divide us and could very well lead to their defeat,” Hawkins wrote.

Trump nominated the Supreme Court members who were instrumental in overturning Roe, calling it “a beautiful thing to watch” as different states went in different directions. He has been evasive about whether he would veto a federal abortion ban if Congress were to pass one; his “leave it up to the states” approach indicates that he accepts the current patchwork, in which abortion is widely available in at least half the states.

Trump criticizes new state law that gives Florida voting rights as too restrictive ban abortion after the first six weeks of pregnancy. But he said he would vote against the ballot measure that would make abortion legal until the fetus is viable.

Trump’s support for a state-by-state solution played a role in Charles Camosy, a Catholic academic who opposes abortion, saying he now feels politically alienated.

“The Republican Party has rejected our position. Democrats are running a candidate ( Kamala Harris ) who has made abortion rights a centerpiece of her campaign,” Camosy, a professor of medical humanities at Creighton University School of Medicine, recently wrote in The Atlantic.

“Proponents of the right to life – those who believe that protecting vulnerable and unborn life should be a primary policy priority – no longer fit into either of the two major political parties.”

In an interview, Camosy said abortion rights advocates were better prepared for the post-Roe era than their opponents

“They were well funded and they developed important relationships with the media,” Camosy said, while some Republican-controlled legislatures — in his view — went too far with strict abortion bans.

“I see this moment as an opportunity,” Camosy wrote in The Atlantic. “Pro-life 3.0 must embrace people with multiple political and policy perspectives, who are committed to both prenatal justice and social support for women and families.”

Other anti-abortion activists have also strongly rejected Trump, including leaders of End Abortion Ohio.

“We urge God-fearing American voters to withhold their votes for Trump until he shows true remorse for his pro-abortion stance,” said Nicholas Kallis, the group’s executive director.

However, Mike Gonidakis, president of Ohio Right to Life, encourages support for Trump.

“A vast majority of our members at the state level absolutely support President Trump and believe that he would advance the protection of life at the federal level … more than a Kamala administration would,” he said. “It’s not even close.”

Other anti-abortion leaders have made similar calculations.

For example, in April, Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said she “deeply disappointed” in Trump’s willingness to leave abortion policy up to the states.

Today, in a move that could benefit Trump, the group is planning a $92 million program to reach voters in key states, portraying Harris and other Democratic candidates as “extremists” on abortion.

“It is imperative that the pro-life movement fully unites and mobilizes to defeat this threat,” Dannenfelser said.

Among those embracing Trump is Frank Pavone, who continues to lead Priests for Life despite his dismayed in 2022 after he had a falling out with his bishop over his anti-abortion and party political activities.

“Trump has attracted far more people than he has alienated,” Pavone said via email. “His statements have diluted the effectiveness of the dire, fear-mongering Democratic warnings that Republicans will ban all abortions.”

___

Associated Press’s religion coverage is supported by the AP Newsletter cooperation with The Conversation US, with funding from the Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content.