It’s tragic. It’s terrible. But in 2024, being pro-life is becoming a losing issue for conservative politicians.

In fact, this has been clear ever since the disastrous failure of the expected “Red Wave” in 2022. It is for this very reason that Trump himself has recently changed his stance on the issue so radically, prompting some conservatives to follow suit. 

These conservatives remember that, despite a failing economy, soluble border, failing domestic and foreign policy, and a host of other disastrous leftist policies, Democrats in the last four years were able to maintain power over one thing: abortion.

Never mind, of course, that if our nation be so marred by in-fighting as to fall to foreign “abortion rights.”

While the sanctity of human life must be defended, the battle over abortion rights is eating our country alive. If moral absolutism should sell out America’s sovereignty, the nations that are likely to rule us, be it China, Russia, or some other state, will have no interest in picking up where pro-life left off.

But here’s the thing: this issue doesn’t have to divide Americans. In fact, it could have quite the opposite effect.

If protecting the unborn is the goal, then our strategy needs to pursue diplomacy, not total victory. A strong place to start for this is in the cases of rape, incest, and threat to the mother’s life. More specifically, we should have legal exceptions for abortion in such situations.

Data from the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute reports 95.9% of abortions are for elective reasons; however, ads about why abortion should be maintained almost always cite the heartbreaking 4% as the norm.

While there are certainly philosophical and theological arguments that could be made against these exceptions, the truth is that your political career is going to be in rough shape if you go out and argue against them. To be stuck in a fight to the death against these niche situations is to inhibit the much more obtainable protection of the 95.9%. Let us first procure their safety first before moving toward more strenuous goals.

Our strategy doesn’t have to be tied to bans. Rather, it can aim toward slow change that will one day render the institution of abortion a shell of its former self.

The Guttmacher Institute, a research and policy organization, reported in 2023 that over 72.7% of abortions occur for women with family incomes less than 200% of the federal poverty level — roughly $72,400 for a family of four. An astounding 41.8% of those abortions were for women with a family income of less than 100% of the federal poverty level — roughly $31,200 for a family of four. It doesn’t take a genius to see the relation here: poverty and abortion rates go hand in hand.

Education is another factor strongly correlated with abortion rates.

Multiple studies have suggested a connection between these two across the West. A study run on three age cohorts in Finland in 2015 by the London School of Economics and Political Science found an astoundingly strong connection between a woman’s education level and her likelihood of having an abortion. 

“The cohort abortion rates standardized for education showed that it is likely that, without the increase in education in Finland, relatively more abortions would have occurred in the later cohorts,” the study reads. “Thus, part of the decline in abortion rates in the country is attributable to the changing educational composition of the population.”

Both decreased income and education correlate with increased abortion rates. If we can make improvements in these areas, then we can not only bring down the number of abortions nationally but also solve other issues of innate significance while we are at it.

Pro-choice advocates cannot argue against economic and educational advancements the same way they can against abortion bans, for these are goals that all — Right and Left — can agree are in the nation’s best interest.

If we can rethink how we approach the pro-life movement, not only can we bring down abortion, but we can also help to solve other critical issues. It isn’t a perfect solution, but it’s a start, and if the government can testify to anything, it’s that getting started is the hardest part.

 

James Joski is a freshman studying the liberal arts.