The Pro-Life Movement at a Crossroads

Fault lines are becoming fissures, and a cultural earthquake may be in our future

The pro-life movement should be celebrating. In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned Roe v. Wade, ending 50 years of federal protection for abortion rights. For decades, overturning Roe had been the movement’s primary political objective. It succeeded.

But success has exposed fault lines that were easier to ignore when the movement had a single unifying goal.

Today, the pro-life movement is engaged in several internal debates—over politics, strategy, funding, and even the definition of victory itself. The movement remains substantial and influential, but it is no longer speaking with one voice.

The Political Illusion

The goal of the pro-life movement should be to make abortion not just illegal, but unthinkable. But the quest to make it illegal has energized pro-abortion opponents and alienated the majority of Americans who are moderate or undecided on the issue. The result: The nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, is richer than ever, and this year we will likely see more abortions in this country than at any time in our history.

What thoughtful leaders of the prolife movement know is that the movement has lost the credibility to persuade the very voters it will need to make further political gains. And, in the process of winning such political gains that it has, it has lost its Christian witness. Political victories have become more important than moral consistency.

Not everyone in the prolife movement has succumbed to what the philosopher Jacques Ellul called “the political illusion.” Students for Life President Kristan Hawkins and leaders at Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America have maintained an admirable political independence, sometimes vigorously calling out President Trump for retreating from his pro-life promises. Even Trump supporter Tony Perkins, of the Family Research Council, recently criticized the Trump administration for failure to ban chemical abortion pills, which now make up the majority of abortions.

The disagreement reveals a deeper question: Is the pro-life movement primarily a moral movement that sometimes engages politics, or a political movement that advances moral goals?

Incrementalists vs. Abolitionists

Another major divide concerns strategy.

For decades, most pro-life organizations embraced what is often called incrementalism. Incrementalists seek gradual legal and cultural change. They support measures such as parental notification laws, waiting periods, restrictions on chemical abortion, heartbeat bills, and limits on late-term abortions.

Their reasoning is straightforward: if a law saves some lives today, it is worth pursuing even if it falls short of complete abolition.

Prominent incrementalist leaders include Marjorie Dannenfelser, Kristan Hawkins, Lila Rose, Frank Pavone, and attorney James Bopp Jr. Organizations associated with this approach include Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, National Right to Life, Students for Life, Live Action, and Priests for Life.

A growing abolitionist movement rejects that strategy.

Abolitionists argue that abortion should be treated as an injustice that must end immediately, just as slavery should have ended immediately. They contend that laws restricting some abortions while permitting others implicitly legitimize the abortions that remain legal.

Organizations such as Abolitionists Rising, End Abortion Now, the Abolitionist Society, and the Foundation to Abolish Abortion have become increasingly vocal since Dobbs.

The debate can be summarized in two questions.

Incrementalists ask: What law can save the most lives right now?

Abolitionists ask: What law fully recognizes the humanity of every unborn child?

Before Dobbs, both camps were united by the goal of overturning Roe. After Dobbs, disagreements about the future have become impossible to avoid.

The Funding Debate

The movement is also wrestling with questions of money and accountability.

Pregnancy resource centers have long been a vital component of the pro-life ecosystem. These organizations provide counseling, parenting classes, material assistance, mentoring, adoption referrals, and other services to women facing unplanned pregnancies.

In Texas, state support for these efforts has grown dramatically. The state’s Thriving Texas Families program—formerly known as Alternatives to Abortion—now distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funding.

Predictably, abortion-rights advocates have challenged these expenditures. Critics argue that public funds should go to licensed medical providers rather than organizations they view as advocacy groups. They also question oversight, reporting standards, and measurable outcomes.

Pro-life leaders respond that if states restrict abortion, they have a corresponding obligation to support women, children, and families. Pregnancy centers, they argue, provide practical assistance that government programs often cannot deliver efficiently.

Yet another dispute is occurring inside the movement itself.

Many local pregnancy centers complain that too much funding is absorbed by statewide networks and administrative organizations rather than flowing directly to frontline ministries. They argue that the centers serving clients daily should receive a larger share of available resources.

Statewide networks respond that government funding requires compliance systems, audits, legal oversight, training, and accountability structures that local centers cannot easily provide on their own.

Texas illustrates the challenge. For years, the Texas Pregnancy Care Network served as the dominant contractor administering state-funded programs. More recently, the state has diversified its contracts among multiple organizations, including Human Coalition, Austin LifeCare, and Longview Wellness Center.

The tensions have occasionally become public. The Texas Pregnancy Care Network has criticized aspects of Human Coalition’s advertising and online outreach methods, while Human Coalition has defended its marketing-driven approach as an effective way to reach women actively considering abortion.

My own position is that the local pregnancy resource centers have been—and should be—the backbone of the pro-life movement. They save babies and compassionately care for mothers and fathers. But many abortion-minded women will never enter a Christian-run pregnancy resource center. That is where organizations such as Human Coalition, with a sophisticated online presence, can detour women headed for abortion facilities.

In other words, the motto of the prolife movement should be: Personal is preferable, but it is not always possible. That is why digital interventions are essential.

Advice to Pro-Life Leaders

The movement is wrestling with questions that were theoretical before Dobbs.

Still, these disputes carry risks. Political alliances can become unhealthy dependencies. Strategic disagreements can become personal feuds. Funding battles can distract from mission. And organizations can become more focused on preserving institutions than serving people.

In this “in-between time,” my advice to pro-life leaders is:

• Maintain moral consistency. Political victories matter, but credibility is one of the movement’s most valuable assets. Protecting it should remain a priority.
• Focus on measurable outcomes. Whether taxpayer-funded or donor-funded, organizations should demonstrate clearly how resources translate into services and lives helped and babies saved.
• Distinguish mission from strategy. Incrementalists and abolitionists share many core convictions. Leaders should avoid treating strategic disagreements as evidence of bad faith.
• Invest in local institutions. Large networks provide valuable infrastructure, but frontline pregnancy centers, churches, maternity homes, and adoption ministries remain the movement’s most visible expression in local communities. They are also the least politically polarizing, and the most likely to attract volunteers and advocates for the larger pro-life movement.

The prolife movement, after years of progress because of its compassion and moral consistency, is losing ground. If the movement wants to move forward again, it must regain the compassion and moral consistency that once made it great.

MAIN PHOTO: TO OUR READERS: The mission of MinistryWatch is to help Christian donors become more faithful stewards of the resources God has entrusted to them. Do you know of a story that will help us fulfill our mission, or do you want to give us feedback about this or any other story? If so, please email us at [email protected]

Access to MinistryWatch content is free.  However, we hope you will support our work with your prayers and financial gifts.  To make a donation, click here.