If Pro-Lifers Don’t Get Back On Offense, They’ll Lose All Their Dobbs Momentum

Though the results of last week’s ballot measure in Ohio are being billed as a loss for the pro-life movement, they also present opportunities the movement should be enthusiastic to embrace.

Patrick T. Brown, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, drove this point home with a tweet that got some attention: “The Ohio result tonight … needs to be a five-alarm fire for the pro-life movement.”

In other words, it has become increasingly clear, in Michigan, in Kentucky, and now in Ohio, that a defensive posture of the movement is unsustainable.

As these state losses compile, the momentum of pro-life voters, legislatures, and the movement dwindles. The pro-life movement finds itself in the position of separating the strategic wheat from the chaff.

On the level of procedure, one objective should be a no-brainer for state-level movements…

The largest contributor to the One Person One Vote Campaign, the group organized under the Kettering Foundation that campaigned against Issue 1, was the Washington, D.C.-based Sixteen Thirty Fund, which Politico described in 2021 as “a left-leaning, secret-money group.” Sixteen Thirty poured more than $2.6 million into the campaign. The San Francisco-based Tides Foundation donated more than $1.8 million. The Advocacy Action Fund in Burlingame, California, gave $1 million. And so on.

The financial incentives would be muted were it not for the constitutional amendment regime in Ohio and 17 other states. Those 18 jurisdictions permit citizen-initiated constitutional amendments, which require a minimum number of signatures from registered voters in the state. This system is especially sensitive to the influence of organizations that function outside the state. Because money buys the popular vote, millions of dollars flooded into Ohio this year to ensure that abortion codification would be on the ballot in November.

To curb this influence, pro-life legislatures that currently practice citizen-initiated constitutional amendments such as Texas, Iowa, and Kansas could move to require legislative referrals for their constitutional amendments.

But again, this defensive posture cannot define the pro-life movement on either the national or state levels. A more straightforward strategy is required.

the pro-life movement should focus on pursuing ballot measures that would create abortion alternative funds for pregnant mothers and their children. These states with Democratic majorities, which have marketed themselves as havens for abortion, could be tested with a proactive strategy with the aim of supporting women.

More From The Federalist: