People often say, “Never discuss politics in polite company.” But, considering today’s volatile climate, let’s break that rule.
As a Christian who’s been president and CEO of Care Net since 2012, I’ve seen the abortion debate shift dramatically — especially since the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned Roe v. Wade. Many pro-lifers celebrated, thinking we’d won the war.
But did we declare victory too soon?
For decades, the pro-life goal was clear: overturn Roe through the courts. Every January, faithful pro-lifers marched in Washington, D.C., aiming for the right Supreme Court justices to rule in favor of life. Dobbs seemed like the victory we’d fought for — overruling Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, declaring abortion isn’t a “substantive right” rooted in our nation’s history.
But events since then demand we reflect and consider the serious limits of purely political solutions.
The Democratic Party’s position on abortion hasn’t budged since 2012: abortion on demand, anytime, for any reason. It’s their litmus test. Meanwhile, the Republican stance has shifted.
In 2012, with Mitt Romney as their standard-bearer, Republicans opposed all abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or the mother’s life — exceptions that would make 97 percent of abortions illegal. Today, President Donald Trump says abortion should be left to “the will of the people” at the state level. Other Republicans support six- or fifteen-week bans with exceptions, allowing nearly 98% of abortions, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The 2024 Republican platform no longer affirms the unborn’s “fundamental right to life” or supports a Human Life Amendment, only opposing late-term abortions — less than 2% of cases.
Here’s the inconvenient truth: when you consider the abortion issue based on both parties’ platforms, both parties are essentially pro-choice now — one has no exceptions, the other has some.
The debate isn’t about bans anymore; it’s about abortion availability.
This shift undermines two core pro-life convictions: human life begins at conception and is worthy of protection, and a baby’s value isn’t determined by conception circumstances. A weeks-based approach — negotiating when it’s acceptable to end a life — compromises these convictions. This should be as non-negotiable as saying it’s wrong to kill an innocent outside the womb.
Pro-choice advocates don’t negotiate. Their conviction — bodily autonomy at all costs — supports abortion up to birth. That’s why they fought Mississippi’s fifteen-week ban in Dobbs, even though it seemed they would lose. But our weeks-based strategy fails morally and practically. Morally, it undermines the baby’s personhood. Practically, compromising on conviction doesn’t inspire others to adopt it. I can’t think of a successful movement — religious, political, or social — where this approach worked.
History shows that compromising on conviction rarely inspires change. Look at slavery. Abraham Lincoln called it “wrong, morally and politically” in 1859, yet his 1861 inaugural address avoided abolishing it, focusing on stopping its spread. He compromised.
Abolitionists like Frederick Douglass shared Lincoln’s conviction but refused to negotiate, linking their actions to ending slavery entirely. Douglass’s clarity pushed Lincoln. By 1865, Lincoln couldn’t imagine a union with slavery, seeing the Civil War as God-ordained “woe” for the offense of slavery.
We need that clarity today. A weeks-based framework doesn’t inspire courage in politicians or the culture. Without acting like Douglass, we won’t get a Lincoln. I’m grateful for pro-life Republicans working to support women at risk for abortion, and for Dobbs. But if the national policy tolerates most abortions, those efforts are muted. Indeed, abortions are up since Roe was overturned, more states have loosened their restrictions on abortion than not, and public opinion has shifted in a pro-choice direction.
Politicians face Pontius Pilate’s dilemma when faced with an innocent Jesus: “Should the shouts of a powerful and vocal crowd sway them to sacrifice the innocent?” The politics of abortion don’t change its morality. In 2012, Republicans had a measure of clarity — I hope they regain it, and Democrats find it, because vulnerable lives are at stake.
Culture shapes politics, and religion shapes culture. The 2023 Ohio ballot initiative, making abortion a constitutional right, passed with 57% support in a “pro-life” state. Exit polls showed Catholics and Protestants voted yes at rates mirroring the broader culture. Worse, 54% of women who have abortions profess to be Catholic or Protestant.
If you lose the pews, you lose at the polls.
Roland Warren is president and CEO of Care Net and the author of The Alternative to Abortion: Why We Must Be Pro-Abundant Life.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
[#item_full_content]
[[{“value”:”
People often say, “Never discuss politics in polite company.” But, considering today’s volatile climate, let’s break that rule.
As a Christian who’s been president and CEO of Care Net since 2012, I’ve seen the abortion debate shift dramatically — especially since the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned Roe v. Wade. Many pro-lifers celebrated, thinking we’d won the war.
But did we declare victory too soon?
For decades, the pro-life goal was clear: overturn Roe through the courts. Every January, faithful pro-lifers marched in Washington, D.C., aiming for the right Supreme Court justices to rule in favor of life. Dobbs seemed like the victory we’d fought for — overruling Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, declaring abortion isn’t a “substantive right” rooted in our nation’s history.
But events since then demand we reflect and consider the serious limits of purely political solutions.
The Democratic Party’s position on abortion hasn’t budged since 2012: abortion on demand, anytime, for any reason. It’s their litmus test. Meanwhile, the Republican stance has shifted.
In 2012, with Mitt Romney as their standard-bearer, Republicans opposed all abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or the mother’s life — exceptions that would make 97 percent of abortions illegal. Today, President Donald Trump says abortion should be left to “the will of the people” at the state level. Other Republicans support six- or fifteen-week bans with exceptions, allowing nearly 98% of abortions, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The 2024 Republican platform no longer affirms the unborn’s “fundamental right to life” or supports a Human Life Amendment, only opposing late-term abortions — less than 2% of cases.
Here’s the inconvenient truth: when you consider the abortion issue based on both parties’ platforms, both parties are essentially pro-choice now — one has no exceptions, the other has some.
The debate isn’t about bans anymore; it’s about abortion availability.
This shift undermines two core pro-life convictions: human life begins at conception and is worthy of protection, and a baby’s value isn’t determined by conception circumstances. A weeks-based approach — negotiating when it’s acceptable to end a life — compromises these convictions. This should be as non-negotiable as saying it’s wrong to kill an innocent outside the womb.
Pro-choice advocates don’t negotiate. Their conviction — bodily autonomy at all costs — supports abortion up to birth. That’s why they fought Mississippi’s fifteen-week ban in Dobbs, even though it seemed they would lose. But our weeks-based strategy fails morally and practically. Morally, it undermines the baby’s personhood. Practically, compromising on conviction doesn’t inspire others to adopt it. I can’t think of a successful movement — religious, political, or social — where this approach worked.
History shows that compromising on conviction rarely inspires change. Look at slavery. Abraham Lincoln called it “wrong, morally and politically” in 1859, yet his 1861 inaugural address avoided abolishing it, focusing on stopping its spread. He compromised.
Abolitionists like Frederick Douglass shared Lincoln’s conviction but refused to negotiate, linking their actions to ending slavery entirely. Douglass’s clarity pushed Lincoln. By 1865, Lincoln couldn’t imagine a union with slavery, seeing the Civil War as God-ordained “woe” for the offense of slavery.
We need that clarity today. A weeks-based framework doesn’t inspire courage in politicians or the culture. Without acting like Douglass, we won’t get a Lincoln. I’m grateful for pro-life Republicans working to support women at risk for abortion, and for Dobbs. But if the national policy tolerates most abortions, those efforts are muted. Indeed, abortions are up since Roe was overturned, more states have loosened their restrictions on abortion than not, and public opinion has shifted in a pro-choice direction.
Politicians face Pontius Pilate’s dilemma when faced with an innocent Jesus: “Should the shouts of a powerful and vocal crowd sway them to sacrifice the innocent?” The politics of abortion don’t change its morality. In 2012, Republicans had a measure of clarity — I hope they regain it, and Democrats find it, because vulnerable lives are at stake.
Culture shapes politics, and religion shapes culture. The 2023 Ohio ballot initiative, making abortion a constitutional right, passed with 57% support in a “pro-life” state. Exit polls showed Catholics and Protestants voted yes at rates mirroring the broader culture. Worse, 54% of women who have abortions profess to be Catholic or Protestant.
If you lose the pews, you lose at the polls.
Roland Warren is president and CEO of Care Net and the author of The Alternative to Abortion: Why We Must Be Pro-Abundant Life.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
“}]]
