The forward-thinking pro-life movement

The Weekly Standard has published an article whose message bears repeating.

That the pro-life movement is bigger is a given. It’s also younger, increasingly entrepreneurial, more strategic in its thinking, better organized, tougher in dealing with allies and enemies alike, almost wildly ambitious, and more relentless than ever.

All that is dwarfed by an even bigger change. Pro-lifers have captured the high moral ground, chiefly thanks to advances in the quality of sonograms. Once fuzzy, sonograms now provide a high-resolution picture of the unborn child in the womb. Fetuses have become babies.

This passage is particularly encouraging:

Three pro-life trends have spiked in 2011. The first is the rise in opposition to abortion among young people. The under-30 cohort was the most pro-choice in the 1970s, second most in the 1980s and 1990s. Now they’re “markedly less pro-choice” than any other age group, scholars Clyde Wilcox and Patrick Carr have written. “Clearly, something is distinctive about the abortion attitudes of the Millennial Generation of Americans.”

Indeed there is. Millennials haven’t grown more religious, politically conservative, or queasy about gay rights. Nor do they go out of their way to vote for pro-life candidates. But they tend to see abortion as a human rights violation. Thus their resistance to abortion is gradually increasing.

You can see a manifestation of this generational shift at the March on Washington each January 22, the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade ruling. For years, the marchers were geezers, initially Catholics, then aging Protestants too. In the past few years, the march has been dominated by teenagers and people in their 20s, often carrying infants.

Having attended the March for Life four times myself, I can personally corroborate this evidence of increased support among young people.

What's unavoidable about the pro-life movement is that it commands such a stronger sense of commitment than other "social issues" movements in the U.S. Oh, sure, gay marriage...whatever. Prayer in schools...*yawn.* If the abortion issue were simply a matter of having a particular religious or social point of view, it could not possibly command such dedication--and diversity--as we in fact see.

That's because abortion is a fundamentally unique issue. It is the slavery issue of our time, not because the moral contours are the same, but because it is that enormous elephant in the room. Being pro-life means you actually understand that the United States allows around 3,500 deaths every day at the hands of licensed medical doctors. This is not the kind of issue that makes you upset because of some vague dissatisfaction with the moral character of people around you. This is the kind of issue that makes you say in your heart, Oh my God, people are dying!


I'm glad that pro-lifers have found ways to energize young people in support of this extremely important cause. I would like to see the pro-life movement become more than a single-minded mission, however. Ending Roe v. Wade is not enough. In fact, it isn't even enough to end abortion. The goal is to institutionalize a respect for life. We need to be talking about our societal attitude toward violence in general, particularly nationalized violence in the name of "national security."

I'm optimistic about the future of the movement, and I would like to tip my hat to some of the groups, left unmentioned in the Weekly Standard, which I believe have made a positive difference. SecularProLife is now getting some attention among pro-life news sources. Feminists for Life has long been making a profound difference on college campuses. I Am Whole Life is a movement to make the pro-life movement more expansive and comprehensive. And I just have to throw in Libertarians for Life, who have provided some of the most rigorous (secular) philosophical and moral arguments against abortion I have ever seen.

Reflections on the March for Life

Today thousands upon thousands of Americans met in Washington, D.C. today to protest against Roe v Wade, the decision made by the Supreme Court 37 years ago that forced all laws against abortion to be overturned.

This has become an annual event; indeed, this was the 37th annual March for Life. I'm inspired by the dedication of so many thousands of Americans to this cause. I believe their heart is in the right place: they believe in the inherent dignity of human life, and they want to end the killing of innocent human life.

However, it's hard to come away from the March for Life and not feel a little drained. For one thing, it is exhausting marching in such a large crowd, but that's not primarily what I'm talking about.

One of my friends remarked during dinner this evening, "What are we really doing? I mean, 37 years... Have we changed anything?" It's hard not to get a sinking feeling inside when we consider how this protest has become another tradition, an event so commonplace, so predictable that the media hardly even notices it.

My main criticism of the March for Life is that it is too traditional, too predictable, too conservative. This causes the event to be easily passed over not only by the mainstream media, which already has a pro-choice bias, but even by many Americans who would be valuable pro-life allies.

I get the sense that the current leadership of the March for Life has been doing this for way too long, and really needs to let go of some control of the event. I've been to five marches in a row, and every year it's the same line-up of speakers. The only difference I've seen is that the past two years our nation's president has neglected to address us.

A severe weakness is the lack of innovative speakers at the rally before the march. It hurts to say it, but none of the speakers at the rally are especially eloquent (but I do enjoy the impassioned rhetoric of pastor Luke Robinson and Rabbi Levin--though he is a bit of a loose cannon). Mostly what we get are a bunch of senators and congressman spouting off a bunch of empty cliches.

It significant to note the lack of speakers from organizations like Feminists for Life, or even Students for Life. Many pro-lifers like to brag how young people are more pro-life than previous generations, yet the March for Life folks seem to refuse to bring in younger, more progressive speakers.

Ultimately, the March for Life remains for the most part a Catholic event. It's clearly run by Catholics and the majority of attendees appear to be Catholic, which is reinforced by the fact that at the end of every rally we always hear from the many bishops from around the country who are in attendance, while the members of their respective dioceses cheer, and after all that a final blessing is given by a priest.

I'm fine with Catholics being pro-life and everything, but abortion isn't a matter of Catholic doctrine or any other religious belief. Nor is the percentage of Catholics in attendance reflective of national public sentiment on this issue. As you can see in this poll and this poll, there is a higher percentage of Protestants that are pro-life even than Catholics (and that's including all the liberal mainline denominations).

Not that I blame Catholics for organizing the event, and not that I don't blame Protestants for not being more involved. I just think the March ought to have a more unified image, not only for the sake of attracting a broader base of pro-lifers, but also for the sake of defending our views in the public square. I don't see why we need to go on provoking the response, "Keep your rosaries off my ovaries!"

On the positive side, the Silent No More awareness campaign is a wonderful, insightful program that plays into the strengths of the pro-life movement: compassion, genuine personal respect for life, and a desire for reconciliation. Not only are these the traits that will continue to reach the younger generations, but they are the right traits for us to have as human beings. This is one thing that the March for Life does not want to lose.

In short, I wish the March for Life could rethink its old-fashioned ways to create an event that would legitimately capture the nation's attention, an event full of speakers with a young, fresh, progressive attitude able to inspire the younger pro-life generation. There will certainly always be a place for the traditional in the pro-life movement; indeed, young people can be inspired by tradition as much as previous generations. But if the pro-life movement wants to succeed in the long-run, it must build credibility with as broad an audience as possible, and that may require the old guard stepping back a little to let new voices be heard.