Secularization and the Legalization of Abortion
Throughout history, Western societies were largely shaped by a religious worldview that valued life’s sanctity from conception. However, beginning in the 18th century, a cultural and intellectual shift known as the Enlightenment began to challenge the authority of religious institutions. This period emphasized “reason”, scientific inquiry, and the “rights of the individual”, gradually diminishing the influence of religious teachings on public life. The rise of secular philosophies set the stage for a transformation in how Western cultures approached ethical and moral questions, including reproductive rights and the issue of abortion. As secular values gained prominence, individual autonomy and scientific reasoning were prioritized, often at the expense of the unborn, whose rights were increasingly overlooked.
Rise of Secular Philosophies
Rise of Secular Philosophies
The process of secularization accelerated in the 19th and 20th centuries, as scientific discoveries and advancements in technology challenged long-standing religious explanations of the world. Traditional religious institutions, which had often served as the moral and ethical compass of society, faced increasing scrutiny and were progressively replaced by secular ethics and a human-centered worldview. In this context, the concept of personal autonomy gained prominence. Emphasizing the rights and freedoms of the individual became a central tenet of emerging secular philosophies, advocating for the separation of church and state and minimizing religious influence over personal choices.
As secular values grew stronger, so did the belief in the sovereignty of personal decisions, particularly regarding bodily autonomy. This shift gradually influenced views on reproductive rights, including contraception and abortion. The emphasis on personal choice, coupled with a focus on scientific reasoning and medical advancements, led to greater acceptance of birth control and “family planning”. By the mid-20th century, these ideas coalesced into a broader movement advocating for the legalization of abortion, viewing it as an essential aspect of women’s rights and equality.
Secular philosophies not only shaped the legal landscape but also transformed societal attitudes. Abortion, once widely condemned by religious authorities as morally unacceptable, came to be seen by many as a matter of personal choice. The emphasis on scientific reasoning also played a role, as discussions about fetal development, women’s health, and population control were framed in empirical and data-driven terms. This scientific approach minimized the influence of religious teachings on the moral status of the unborn, instead prioritizing considerations of practicality, public health, and women’s autonomy.
However, the rise of secularization and its impact on reproductive rights sparked deep divisions within society. The debate over abortion continues to reflect the tension between secular and religious worldviews, as opposing sides grapple with questions of morality, autonomy, and the nature of human life. For many religious adherents, the sanctity of life remains a fundamental principle, while for proponents of secular philosophies, individual autonomy and freedom of choice are paramount.
Human Rights and Individual Autonomy
In our modern world, the tension between personal autonomy and collective moral values remains a central theme in many ethical debates. One of the most poignant examples is the discussion surrounding abortion, where individual rights often clash with traditional understandings of the sanctity of life. Over the past few centuries, Western society has shifted from a largely religiously anchored moral compass to a more secular, individualistic one, deeply influenced by the Enlightenment and the human rights movements of the 20th century. Yet, amid this secular transformation, the question of abortion transcends political and philosophical divides. For many, especially in the pro-life movement, the debate centers on the inherent value of human life from conception, highlighting the ethical responsibility to protect the most vulnerable among us, unborn children. Understanding the historical context of secularization, human rights, and ethical shifts can help us navigate the complex terrain of modern reproductive choices while upholding the principle that every life is a sacred and irreplaceable gift.
Secularization Theory:
Auguste Comte and Émile Durkheim
Secularization is the process by which religious institutions, practices, and beliefs lose their social significance. This trend has been linked to the gradual transition from traditional to modern societies, especially in the West. Philosophers like Auguste Comte and Émile Durkheim played a pivotal role in shaping secularization theory, offering perspectives that marginalized religious authority in favor of "rational" and scientific thought.
Auguste Comte
Auguste Comte (1798-1857), often regarded as the father of positivism, argued that human history progresses through three stages: the theological, the metaphysical, and the positive (or scientific). In the theological stage, society is governed by religious interpretations of the world, while the metaphysical stage sees abstract philosophical principles take precedence. Finally, in the positive stage, science and rationality become the dominant forces. Comte's framework suggested that societies, as they evolve, would increasingly rely on scientific reasoning rather than religious dogma, paving the way for secularization.
Émile Durkheim
Émile Durkheim (1858-1917), another key figure, contributed significantly to secularization theory by exploring the social function of religion. In his seminal work The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, Durkheim emphasized that religion's primary role was to promote social cohesion, serving as a moral foundation for communities. However, as societies modernized, he theorized that this communal bond would weaken, leading to the rise of secular institutions to fulfill the same functions. This shift allowed moral judgments, including those on matters like abortion, to be rooted in secular ethics rather than religious absolutes.
Eugenics and the Influence of Francis Galton
The debate surrounding abortion was further complicated by the eugenics movement, which emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Eugenics sought to improve the genetic quality of the human population through selective breeding and sterilization. Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, was a key figure in the development of eugenics. Inspired by Darwin's theory of evolution, Galton coined the term "eugenics" and advocated for the application of scientific principles to human reproduction. He believed that by encouraging the reproduction of the "fit" and discouraging that of the "unfit," society could achieve a superior population.
The eugenics movement, while initially driven by scientific curiosity, soon intersected with broader societal attitudes, including ideas about abortion. In some contexts, abortion was promoted as a means of controlling the population and eliminating perceived undesirable traits. This raised ethical concerns, as eugenics often targeted marginalized and vulnerable populations, reflecting deep biases and prejudices. While the eugenics movement lost mainstream acceptance after World War II due to its association with Nazi ideology, its legacy influenced conversations around reproductive rights, individual autonomy, and societal control. The notion that abortion could be used to prevent "unfit" births highlighted the dangers of reducing human life to utilitarian calculations of social value, contributing to a devaluation of individual worth.
The following content may be disturbing to some viewers.
Abortion Legalization Timeline
The legal landscape surrounding abortion has experienced profound changes over the past century, driven by a cultural shift from traditional religious values to a more secular, individualistic worldview. For many, this transformation represents a departure from the recognition of the inherent value and sanctity of human life, as societies have increasingly prioritized personal autonomy over protecting the vulnerable. These changes have sparked intense debates, reflecting deeper questions about what it means to honor and defend life.
Timeline of Significant Legal Changes
1920
Soviet Union
1955
Soviet Union
1967
UK
1973
United States
1975
Germany
1975
France
1978
Italy
1983
Ireland
2007
Portugal
2018
Ireland
1920 - Soviet Union
The Soviet Union became one of the first countries to legalize abortion, although it was later restricted and then re-legalized. The legalization reflected the government's attempt to address health concerns, women's labor participation, and control over population growth.
1955 - Soviet Union
Abortion was once again permitted in the Soviet Union after a brief period of restriction, signaling a movement towards state regulation of reproductive health.
1967 - United Kingdom: The Abortion Act
The UK passed the Abortion Act of 1967, which permitted abortions up to 28 weeks if two doctors certified that continuing the pregnancy posed a risk to the woman's physical or mental health, or if there was a high likelihood that the baby would be born with severe disabilities. This law represented a significant shift, moving away from religious perspectives that dominated the earlier abortion debates in favor of a more secular framework emphasizing health and social considerations.
1973 - United States: Roe v. Wade
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade was a watershed moment in the history of abortion legalization. The court ruled that a woman's right to privacy, grounded in the Fourteenth Amendment, extended to her decision to have an abortion. This decision effectively invalidated many state-level abortion bans, legalizing abortion nationwide during the first trimester of pregnancy. It underscored the influence of secular legal reasoning over religious or moral arguments, emphasizing personal autonomy and individual rights.
1975 - Germany: The Federal Constitutional Court Decision
Germany's Federal Constitutional Court ruled that a law legalizing abortion was unconstitutional, emphasizing the protection of life. However, a compromise in 1976 allowed abortion within the first trimester under certain conditions, highlighting ongoing tensions between secular and religious influences on reproductive laws.
1975 - France: The Veil Law
In France, the Veil Law (named after Simone Veil, the then Minister of Health) legalized abortion during the first ten weeks of pregnancy. This law emerged as a response to widespread illegal abortions and was part of a broader movement towards secularizing French society, which traditionally adhered to Catholic values. The Veil Law is seen as a symbol of women's emancipation and the state's shift towards secularism.
1978 - Italy: Law No. 194
Italy legalized abortion through Law No. 194, allowing abortions up to 12 weeks and beyond in specific health circumstances. This change represented a break from the strong influence of the Catholic Church, reflecting the Italian state's move towards greater secularism in legal matters.
1983 - Ireland: The Eighth Amendment
In contrast to the secular trends elsewhere, Ireland introduced the Eighth Amendment to its constitution, recognizing the equal right to life of the mother and the unborn child, effectively banning abortion. This underscored the influence of Catholicism in Ireland, contrasting with secular trends in Europe.
2007 - Portugal: Legalization through Referendum
Portugal legalized abortion through a national referendum, allowing it during the first ten weeks of pregnancy. This decision was a clear move towards secularization, as the country's legal framework began to shift away from traditional Catholic values.
2018 - Ireland: Repeal of the Eighth Amendment
Decades after the Eighth Amendment, Ireland held a referendum to repeal it, resulting in the legalization of abortion up to 12 weeks of pregnancy. This marked a significant secular shift in a country once dominated by strong Catholic influence.
While the legalization of abortion in many parts of the world signaled a cultural shift toward secularization and personal autonomy, recent developments have brought renewed hope to the pro-life movement. One of the most significant moments was the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which had stood as a landmark ruling for nearly half a century. This reversal did not end abortion nationwide, but it returned the authority to regulate abortion to individual states, sparking a wave of new legislation aimed at protecting unborn life.
For many, this turning point represents more than a legal change, it is a sign that cultural currents can shift, and that deeply rooted convictions about the sanctity of life can regain influence in law and society. The overturning of Roe v. Wade reinvigorated the pro-life movement, providing tangible evidence that decades of advocacy, prayer, and persistence can bear fruit. It has also underscored the importance of hope: even in the midst of widespread secularization, there remain opportunities for society to reaffirm the dignity of every human life. We will explore the overturning of Roe v. Wade and its wide-ranging implications more fully in a later section.
The Role of Social Movements & Activism
The mid-to-late 20th century marked a significant period of societal change, where traditional moral values, rooted in religious perspectives, began to be challenged and reshaped by secular ideals. A key aspect of this shift was the reframing of abortion as a central women’s rights issue by various social movements and activists. While these movements succeeded in reshaping the cultural and legal landscape, the pro-life perspective maintains that every life, including that of the unborn, holds inherent dignity and worth. This tension between secular and religious views reveals the profound complexity surrounding abortion, a topic that continues to spark deep moral and ethical debates to this day.
Second-Wave Feminism and the Women’s Liberation Movement
The second-wave feminist movement, emerging in the 1960s and 1970s, focused on a wide array of social, political, and economic inequalities faced by women. While the first-wave feminists had centered their efforts on legal rights like suffrage, the second wave sought to address broader systemic issues, including reproductive health, workplace discrimination, and personal autonomy. The Women’s Liberation Movement was a powerful subset of this wave, characterized by grassroots activism, consciousness-raising groups, and direct challenges to patriarchal structures.
Reproductive autonomy became a core demand of second-wave feminists, who argued that women’s ability to “control their bodies” was fundamental to achieving true equality. They viewed restrictive abortion laws as tools of patriarchal control, denying women agency over their reproductive choices and, by extension, their economic and social freedoms. The fight for the right to choose became emblematic of the broader struggle for gender equality, shifting the debate on abortion from a private moral decision to a public issue of human rights.
Woman's Liberation March 1970
NARAL and the Shift to Legal Campaigns and Advocacy
In 1969, the formation of NARAL marked a turning point in the reproductive rights movement, as the organization provided a structured and strategic approach to legal and political advocacy for abortion access. NARAL, later known as the National Abortion Rights Action League, sought to repeal restrictive abortion laws and championed the idea that reproductive decisions should be left to women and their doctors, free from governmental and religious interference.
The organization's focus was not merely on access to abortion but on framing the conversation around choice, emphasizing that reproductive decisions were integral to women's autonomy. NARAL's legal campaigns included lobbying for legislative changes, challenging restrictive abortion laws in court, and backing political candidates who supported pro-choice positions. These efforts culminated in significant legal victories, most notably the landmark 1973 Supreme Court case, Roe v. Wade, which recognized a woman’s right to choose as a constitutionally protected liberty under the right to privacy.
NARAL has been at the center of various controversies since its founding in 1969. One significant point of contention arose from the claims of co-founder Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who later became a pro-life advocate. He alleged that NARAL misrepresented statistics to shift public opinion toward abortion legalization, including inflating the number of women who died from illegal abortions to garner sympathy for their cause. Nathanson’s assertions have fueled criticism from pro-life advocates, who argue that such tactics were unethical and intended to manipulate public sentiment in favor of abortion access.
Additionally, NARAL's media strategy has also drawn scrutiny. A report (by NARAL Pro-Choice America), highlighted that the organization often challenges media outlets for portraying abortion primarily as a political issue, which NARAL claims leads to polarizing coverage and underrepresents medical perspectives. This stance has led to accusations that NARAL pressures media to adopt more favorable pro-choice framing, which some critics argue may limit balanced coverage on such a polarizing issue.
Legal Campaigns, Protests, and Advocacy for Reproductive Autonomy
The feminist movements and organizations like NARAL also relied heavily on direct activism to sway public opinion and put pressure on lawmakers. Mass protests, rallies, and demonstrations became key tactics to draw attention to the issue of abortion rights. Activists organized public campaigns, such as “Speak Out” events, where women shared personal stories of illegal abortions, highlighting the dangers of unsafe procedures and emphasizing the need for safe, legal access. These movements sought to destigmatize abortion, portraying it not as a moral failing but as a necessary and responsible choice in some circumstances.
Social movements also utilized media and education as powerful tools to shift societal attitudes. Feminist activists penned influential books, articles, and pamphlets, while advocacy groups conducted educational campaigns that linked reproductive freedom to women’s economic and social liberation. These efforts resonated with a broader audience, particularly as they connected the ability to make reproductive choices with the pursuit of personal and professional goals.
Impact on Secularization and Cultural Change
The rise of these social movements contributed to the broader secularization of society by challenging the traditional, religiously-informed moral framework that had governed views on issues like abortion. Feminist activists argued that abortion was not solely a moral or religious issue but a personal and political one, situated within the larger struggle for human rights and individual freedom. As secular arguments gained prominence, legal and public discourse shifted to emphasize personal autonomy, bodily integrity, and the separation of church and state, reflecting a growing trend towards secular and rights-based frameworks.
One example of secularization changing societies views on morality is the birth of “abortion parties.” The concept of "abortion parties" emerged as part of a cultural shift in some Western societies where social events and gatherings began to celebrate abortion as a choice and personal liberation. These gatherings reflect a broader trend within the secularization process, where personal autonomy and bodily choice are celebrated openly, sometimes with a sense of ritualistic camaraderie. Abortion parties signify a dramatic cultural shift in which procedures historically viewed as private and somber are instead embraced as milestones of liberation, challenging traditional values that emphasize the sanctity of life and the role of motherhood.
The development of such practices reflects how secularization and changing social norms around sexuality and autonomy have contributed to a blatant disregard for morality. Some scholars suggest that this movement aligns with a broader liberalization of attitudes around reproductive rights, as societies become more secular and prioritize individual freedom over collective moral values. This shift is often influenced by a combination of media representation, legal changes, and a reduced influence of traditional religious structures that once shaped societal views on life and ethics.
While the rise of social movements and secularization significantly reshaped society’s understanding of reproductive rights, pro-life values continue to emphasize the intrinsic value of every human life, from conception to natural death. The pro-life perspective challenges the notion that autonomy and choice should override the dignity of the unborn, advocating for a holistic view of women's well-being that includes the protection of both mother and child. As debates continue to unfold, the hope is that society can find ways to honor both women's rights and the sanctity of life, fostering a culture that values compassion, support, and the protection of all lives.
The Impact of the Sexual Revolution
The Sexual Revolution of the 1960s and 70s marked a profound shift in Western society, transforming attitudes toward sex, relationships, and reproductive rights. This era, characterized by a growing rejection of traditional values, particularly those rooted in Judeo-Christian ethics, played a crucial role in reshaping societal norms. The increasing separation of church and state, along with political realignments that included the rise of the Religious Right, further fueled the polarization of the abortion debate, solidifying the cultural divide that continues to this day.
The Sexual Revolution’s Role in Changing Societal Views
The Sexual Revolution ushered in a dramatic change in how society viewed sexuality and relationships. Prior to the 1960s, Western norms were largely shaped by Christian moral teachings, which emphasized the sanctity of marriage, the sacredness of human life, and the importance of family stability. This moral framework upheld sexual activity as something reserved for the marriage covenant, highlighting the connection between sex, procreation, and commitment.
However, the Sexual Revolution promoted a different narrative. Emphasizing personal freedom, self-expression, and individual autonomy, the movement sought to detach sexual activity from its traditional moral and relational contexts. Access to contraceptives, like the birth control pill, became widespread, allowing individuals to separate sex from procreation. In addition, the rise of the feminist movement during this period advocated for women’s reproductive rights, including the right to choose abortion. The Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade became a pivotal moment, legalizing abortion nationwide and symbolizing the shift toward a more secular, individualistic view of sexuality and reproductive autonomy.
While proponents of the Sexual Revolution argued that these changes liberated women and encouraged freedom, the movement's impact on society cannot be separated from its consequences. The newfound emphasis on sexual freedom often led to the devaluation of life, especially that of the unborn, as autonomy and personal choice overshadowed the inherent worth of human life. From a pro-life perspective, this shift was not merely a cultural trend but a move away from recognizing the dignity and sanctity of every human being, born and unborn.
The Separation of Church and State
The rise of secularization also played a significant role in shifting societal attitudes toward sex and reproductive rights. As the concept of the separation of church and state became more prevalent, many Western societies began distancing themselves from religious influence in public policy and moral decision-making. Secularism promoted a worldview that sought to marginalize religious perspectives, especially in matters of sexual ethics and human life.
In this context, traditional Christian values, which had long underpinned laws and cultural norms, were increasingly dismissed as outdated or oppressive. The push for secularization meant that moral questions related to sexuality, marriage, and the value of life were no longer discussed within a spiritual or theological framework. Instead, they were reduced to matters of personal choice and autonomy, detached from any higher moral or religious authority.
From a pro-life standpoint, this shift represented a weakening of the societal commitment to protecting the most vulnerable, the unborn. The move toward secular ethics, focused on autonomy and personal freedom, often led to a diminished appreciation for the sanctity of life, resulting in more permissive attitudes toward abortion and other life-related issues.
Globalization
The mid-20th century marked a pivotal era of transformation as the world emerged from the devastation of World War II. The global community united with a renewed commitment to universal human rights, access to healthcare, and establishing global standards, particularly in response to the atrocities witnessed during the war. These ideals, while laudable in their intent to foster justice, equality, and freedom, also contributed to the widespread secularization and globalization of values that led to significant cultural shifts, particularly around the issue of abortion.
Post-World War II Human Rights Emphasis
The horrors of World War II left an indelible mark on the global consciousness. In response, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) was adopted by the United Nations, setting a global standard that underscored the dignity and rights of all human beings. However, as the definition of "human rights" expanded, debates around bodily autonomy, reproductive rights, and individual freedom took center stage. With growing emphasis on healthcare as a fundamental human right, advocates argued for the decriminalization of abortion as a necessary step to ensure women's health, safety, and autonomy.
From a pro-life perspective, this expansion of rights, though often grounded in compassion, led to ethical dilemmas. While the global community recognized the right to life as a foundational human right, the focus on reproductive rights obscured the inherent value of unborn life. Pro-life advocates contend that true human rights must protect all stages of life, including the most vulnerable and voiceless, the unborn.
Global Standards and Healthcare Access
As globalization accelerated after World War II, global standards around healthcare were established, driven by the desire to eradicate poverty, promote education, and ensure healthcare access for all. Organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) championed women's health and reproductive rights as part of this mission. Increased access to healthcare and education empowered women in unprecedented ways, leading to movements advocating for the decriminalization of abortion as part of comprehensive reproductive healthcare.
However, from a pro-life perspective, the drive for healthcare access should not come at the expense of unborn life. The rhetoric of "choice" and "healthcare" often downplays the reality that abortion ends a distinct, developing human life. The pro-life argument maintains that supporting women's health can, and should, be pursued without diminishing the value of unborn children. Providing holistic healthcare that includes prenatal care, maternal support, and adoption service offers a life-affirming alternative to abortion.
Economic Factors and Abortion Decriminalization
The rise of secularization and economic shifts influenced a global trend toward the decriminalization of abortion. Countries facing economic strain, demographic challenges, and healthcare concerns often sought to reduce the perceived burden of unplanned pregnancies by liberalizing abortion laws. Many nations integrated abortion into family planning initiatives and population control efforts, emphasizing economic efficiency over the sanctity of life.
This mindset of reducing human beings to economic units mirrors the dehumanization seen in other oppressive systems, such as the Soviet gulags. In the gulags, individuals were stripped of dignity, labeled as “enemies of the people,” and treated as disposable labor rather than as persons with inherent worth. By denying the humanity of those imprisoned, the state justified their suffering as a necessary cost for economic and political goals. In a similar way, when societies frame abortion primarily in terms of economic efficiency or demographic management, they risk perpetuating the same logic of dehumanization, where vulnerable lives are sacrificed for the sake of perceived progress.
From a pro-life viewpoint, such economic-driven arguments fail to recognize the intrinsic value of every human being, regardless of economic status or convenience. A society's worth is not measured by its economic output but by its commitment to protecting the vulnerable. Pro-life advocates argue that embracing a culture of life, even amidst economic challenges, requires supporting both mothers and children through compassionate care, adoption services, education, and community-based assistance.
Forced Laborers of the USSR Gulag
The Roe v. Wade Era
Overview of Roe v. Wade
The Roe v. Wade decision, a landmark 1973 Supreme Court case, shaped abortion rights in the United States by establishing a constitutional right to privacy that included a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy. The case began in Texas when Norma McCorvey, under the pseudonym "Jane Roe," filed a lawsuit against Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade. McCorvey, unable to obtain a legal abortion under Texas law, argued that the law was unconstitutional. Represented by attorneys Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee, McCorvey's case was intended to challenge restrictive abortion laws affecting women across the country.
The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision led by Justice Harry Blackmun, held that a woman’s right to an abortion was implicit within the "right to privacy" found in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision struck down many state laws prohibiting abortion and introduced a framework allowing states to regulate abortion based on the pregnancy trimester. In the first trimester, the decision to abort was left to the woman and her physician; by the second trimester, the state could introduce regulations related to maternal health; and in the third trimester, states could restrict or ban abortions except where the mother's life or health was at risk.
Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) and her lawyer (1989)
The Legal Framework of Roe v. Wade
The Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade (1973) established a constitutional right to abortion, invoking the right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment. However, this decision has been subject to intense criticism for both its legal reasoning and its implications for unborn life. By framing abortion as a matter of personal privacy, Roe v. Wade arguably set a problematic precedent that continues to shape legal, moral, and societal perspectives on the value of prenatal life and the role of government in protecting it.
Questioning the Right to Privacy under the 14th Amendment
One major criticism of Roe is that the decision extended the right to privacy in a way that is neither explicit in the Constitution nor clearly aligned with the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Constitution does not mention privacy in relation to abortion, and critics argue that the Court's use of the Due Process Clause in this case was a stretch, going beyond what the Framers intended for personal liberty. Previous cases involving privacy, like Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), dealt with issues closely tied to marriage and family life. Critics contend that the Court's decision in Roe ignored the unique implications of abortion by treating it as a private choice disconnected from the state’s interest in protecting prenatal life. The broad interpretation of privacy in this ruling, they argue, was neither grounded in clear constitutional language nor historical legal precedent.
The Trimester Framework
The trimester framework, which the Court devised to balance a woman’s autonomy with state interests, has also faced criticism for its arbitrary nature. By dividing pregnancy into three stages, the Court essentially implied that the state’s interest in protecting life only becomes significant after a certain point in pregnancy, which seems to ignore the biological fact that human life begins at conception and develops continuously. Critics argue that the Court’s distinction is based on convenience rather than science, resulting in a framework that places less value on prenatal life in its early stages.
This very question, whether life truly begins at conception or later, has become a central point of debate in recent years, with public figures like Charlie Kirk engaging in discussions that highlight the stark divide between scientific evidence and legal precedent. In the following video, Kirk debates this issue with students. Tragically, he was assassinated on September 10, 2025, while participating in similar campus debates.
Additionally, the trimester system is seen as an unworkable and overly complex method for regulating abortion. The viability standard in the third trimester has shifted over time with medical advancements, underscoring the fluid nature of the Court’s reasoning. Critics contend that by failing to provide a stable, principled basis for when and why states may intervene to protect life, the framework encouraged arbitrary and inconsistent regulations across states, which remain a source of contention today.
Lack of Consideration for State Interests
One of the most significant criticisms of Roe is its limited recognition of the state’s interest in protecting unborn life. By framing abortion as a private decision, the Court effectively marginalized the state’s responsibility to defend the rights of the unborn. Many believe that the Constitution, which is meant to protect "life, liberty, and property," implicitly requires the government to safeguard human life at all stages, including the prenatal stage. By setting up a framework that prioritizes personal autonomy over the state’s role in protecting vulnerable life, Roe established a troubling precedent that overlooks the inherent value and dignity of each human being from conception.
Critics argue that this decision has led to a societal view that values individual rights over the sanctity of life, contributing to a cultural shift that accepts abortion as a solution to personal and economic difficulties. This framework, they contend, has ultimately devalued human life by treating it as a matter of personal choice rather than recognizing it as an inherent good that the state has a duty to protect.
Cultural and Political Consequences of Roe v. Wade
The landmark Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, which legalized abortion across the United States, had profound cultural and political effects, deeply polarizing public opinion and shaping the landscape of U.S. activism and policy for decades. It set in motion powerful social forces, leading to the formation and mobilization of both the pro-choice and pro-life movements, whose influence continues today.
Polarization of Public Opinion and the Rise of Activism
The decision spurred activism on both sides, with supporters viewing it as a victory for women's autonomy and privacy, while opponents considered it a moral and ethical violation of the sanctity of life. This division catalyzed two strong social movements: the pro-choice movement, advocating for reproductive rights, and the pro-life movement, fighting for the rights of the unborn. Organizations such as Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America became influential pro-choice advocates, promoting the legal and accessible provision of abortion as central to women’s rights and equality. These organizations lobbied extensively to maintain and expand reproductive rights, underscoring the connection between abortion access and women’s broader social and economic freedoms.
In recent years, however, this growing wave of activism has also fueled troubling incidents of hostility. Violence has disproportionately emerged from pro-choice or anti–pro-life individuals targeting peaceful pro-life advocates. Pro-life protesters and sidewalk counselors have increasingly faced verbal abuse, physical intimidation, and in some cases, outright attacks simply for publicly expressing their convictions. The following videos highlight only a couple of examples where pro-life demonstrators were assaulted, underscoring how this tension has escalated beyond debate into acts of aggression.
The Role of Religious Groups in the Pro-Life Movement
The opposition to Roe v. Wade quickly found support among religious groups, particularly evangelical Christians and Catholics. Over the years, these groups increasingly organized around the issue of abortion, solidifying their political presence. The rise of the Moral Majority in the 1980s, a conservative Christian political organization, marked a pivotal moment in mobilizing religious voters to consider abortion a litmus test for political candidates. This development contributed significantly to aligning conservative Protestant Christians and Catholics with the Republican Party, creating a lasting political alliance that positioned abortion as a core issue for conservative voters.
At the same time, even within evangelical circles, there remains an ongoing debate: can someone personally oppose abortion yet still vote for a pro-choice candidate? The video that follows not only presents this important question but also offers thoughtful responses that address it directly.
Roe’s Overturn and the Post-Roe Era
In the years following Roe, pro-life advocates, religious organizations, and various legal scholars criticized the decision as fundamentally flawed. They argued that the ruling failed to recognize the inherent value of unborn life and instead prioritized subjective privacy rights over the moral and ethical considerations surrounding abortion. Critics also highlighted that Roe placed the U.S. among a small minority of countries that allowed relatively unrestricted access to abortion, especially in the later stages of pregnancy. Opponents of the decision contended that abortion legalization had fostered a culture that undervalued life and contributed to adverse social consequences, such as weakening the family structure and disregarding the rights of unborn children.
John Hart Ely (1938–2003)
A leading constitutional law scholar who taught at Yale, Harvard, and Stanford. Though personally supportive of abortion rights, Ely became one of Roe v. Wade’s most influential critics, arguing that the decision lacked a constitutional foundation. His book Democracy and Distrust (1980) remains one of the most cited works on judicial review.
“Roe v. Wade is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”
(The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade, 1973)
Richard John Neuhaus (1936–2009)
A Lutheran pastor who later became a Catholic priest, Neuhaus was a prominent theologian, ethicist, and public intellectual. He founded the journal First Things and wrote extensively on religion and public life. He was a leading pro-life voice, emphasizing the moral consequences of abortion for both society and the individual.
“The abortion license has become the keystone in a culture of death, corroding the moral fabric of our society and teaching us that the lives of the weak can be discarded when they are inconvenient.”
(The Naked Public Square, 1984)
Justice Byron White (1917–2002)
Appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by President John F. Kennedy in 1962, White served for 31 years. A former professional football player and World War II veteran, he was known for his pragmatic approach to law. In Roe v. Wade, he issued a notable dissent that became a cornerstone for legal critics of the decision.
“I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right… an exercise of raw judicial power.”
(Dissenting in Roe v. Wade, 1973)
Roe’s Overturn
The eventual overturning of Roe came in June 2022, with the Supreme Court's ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. This decision not only invalidated the constitutional protection of abortion rights but also transferred the authority to regulate abortion back to the individual states. The court’s majority opinion in Dobbs emphasized that the Constitution neither explicitly nor implicitly grants the right to abortion, declaring that the issue of abortion should be determined by the people and their elected representatives rather than by federal mandate. This ruling marked a profound shift in legal interpretation, emphasizing state sovereignty and allowing states to enact policies that either restrict or protect abortion access according to their populations' values and preferences.
Effects of Dobbs
The immediate effects of Dobbs were sweeping and polarized. In states where pro-life values are predominant, such as Texas and Oklahoma, abortion restrictions were swiftly implemented or expanded, often including strict limitations on the gestational period and exceptions primarily for maternal health. Conversely, states that support abortion rights, like California and New York, introduced measures to codify and protect access to abortion, resulting in a patchwork of laws that has left the U.S. more divided than ever on the issue of reproductive rights. Politically, Dobbs amplified debates over states' rights, highlighting how deeply polarized the nation remains on social issues and sparking renewed advocacy on both sides of the abortion debate.
The following video is an example of how these state laws played out in 2023.
The post-Roe era has thus placed abortion policy back into the hands of states, reinforcing the belief held by many that local governance is more attuned to the will and values of its constituents. By shifting the decision-making process closer to the people, Dobbs allowed states to take a more direct role in upholding or restricting abortion, marking a turning point that could foster a culture more protective of life and responsive to the ethical dimensions of abortion.
Planned Parenthood
Origins of Planned Parenthood
Planned Parenthood, founded in the early 20th century by Margaret Sanger, emerged from Sanger’s advocacy for birth control access for impoverished communities in New York City. Sanger, a nurse and activist, was stated to believe that empowering women with reproductive choice would alleviate poverty and improve health conditions among the poor. In 1916, she opened the first birth control clinic in Brownsville, Brooklyn, a neighborhood largely inhabited by working-class immigrant families. This clinic, which provided women with contraceptive information, was a radical step in a time when U.S. law largely prohibited such education and access. Within just nine days, the clinic was shut down, and Sanger was arrested. Her willingness to face arrest underscored her commitment to what she believed and spurred a movement that would ultimately lead to the establishment of Planned Parenthood.
Birth Control Review, November 1923
However, Sanger’s motivations were shaped by controversial influences, including her views on eugenics and a belief in the principles of Darwinism. Influenced by Social Darwinist ideas popular at the time, Sanger associated birth control with population control, advocating that limiting reproduction among “undesirable” populations would prevent social issues like poverty and crime. Although Sanger did not openly endorse forced sterilization, she did participate in eugenics-based conferences and espoused ideas that viewed reproductive health as a way to “improve” society through selective breeding.
She often spoke about her support for eugenics as a solution to social issues. She argued that birth control was not only a matter of personal freedom but a crucial tool for “racial health.” In a 1921 article in the Birth Control Review, she stated, “Birth control… is really the greatest and most truly eugenic method, and its adoption as part of the program of Eugenics would immediately give a concrete and realistic power to that science” (Sanger, 1921). She believed eugenics to be “the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political, and social problems,” connecting birth control advocacy to the prevailing ideas of selective breeding to “weed out” traits considered undesirable in society.
Sanger’s views reflect her era’s eugenics movement, which promoted selective reproduction to improve human populations and, controversially, targeted marginalized groups. Her statements often linked eugenics with controlling the reproduction of the "feeble-minded" and those she saw as contributing to societal "ills" through unrestricted birth rates, especially among the poor and immigrant communities in New York City. These views reveal a complex and contentious foundation for Planned Parenthood, where her advocacy for birth control intertwined with attempts to address perceived racial and class-based issues through population control measures.
This early philosophy attracted support from some who saw Planned Parenthood’s mission as one of public health improvement. Still, it also drew sharp criticism for prioritizing birth control in ways that, at times, marginalized vulnerable communities. Sanger’s ideals and Planned Parenthood’s early alignment with eugenics complicate its legacy, as the organization’s mission has evolved to focus on reproductive choice and health equity. This history highlights the complex origins of Planned Parenthood and the intersections of public health advocacy, social reform, and ethical challenges in its foundation.
Growth and Influence
Planned Parenthood began as a small birth control clinic established by Margaret Sanger, Ethel Byrne, and Fania Mindell in 1916, driven by the belief that family planning could empower individuals and improve societal health. At the time, discussing or distributing birth control information was illegal in the United States, so Sanger’s initial clinic in Brooklyn, New York, operated under considerable legal risk. However, her determination laid the foundation for an organization that would expand significantly over the coming decades, broadening its mission and global reach.
Expansion into a National Health Organization (1940s-1960s)
The 1940s and 1950s marked a period of substantial growth for Planned Parenthood as it transformed from a local clinic into a national health organization. Following World War II, the United States experienced a population boom, along with rising demand for family planning services. This demand encouraged Planned Parenthood to broaden its scope, providing education on contraception, fertility, and general reproductive health. By the early 1950s, the organization was operating clinics across the country, delivering accessible reproductive care to women, particularly those in underserved communities.
Planned Parenthood Ad in the Yamaka Valley Sun
During the 1960s, Planned Parenthood's influence continued to grow as it responded to a rapidly evolving social and cultural landscape. The availability of the birth control pill in 1960 was a pivotal moment, as it became one of the most widely used contraceptive methods in the country. Planned Parenthood played an instrumental role in promoting the pill and other family planning resources. By educating the public and offering contraceptive options, the organization contributed to the era’s broader sexual liberation movements, reshaping cultural attitudes around women’s autonomy and reproductive rights.
As the organization grew in the U.S., it also diversified its services, expanding from family planning into broader aspects of reproductive health, including cancer screenings, infertility counseling, and general health education. This transition established Planned Parenthood as not only a family planning clinic but also a trusted health service provider advocating for women’s health and sexual health rights.
International Reach through the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF)
The global influence of Planned Parenthood took a significant leap in 1952 with the establishment of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). Through this federation, Planned Parenthood partnered with organizations worldwide to advance its agenda of expanding access to abortion and contraception under the banner of “reproductive rights.” Headquartered in London, IPPF quickly grew into one of the most powerful family planning organizations, extending Planned Parenthood’s reach to over 100 countries by the 1970s.
Rather than promoting a culture that honors the dignity of both mother and child, IPPF sought to standardize practices that placed convenience and population control above the sanctity of life. Its programs emphasized widespread distribution of contraceptives, abortion advocacy, and efforts to erase traditional moral and cultural objections to these practices. In particular, IPPF framed high fertility rates in developing nations as a social problem to be solved, presenting children as burdens that contributed to poverty and limited resources. In doing so, the federation claimed to improve the “quality of life” for women, while tragically disregarding the value and rights of the unborn, including unborn girls, whose lives were ended before they began.
The following instructional video, produced by IPPF, teaches advocates how to discuss abortion while deliberately ignoring the child’s existence. At no point is the baby acknowledged, as if it does not exist, and instead the guidance centers entirely on framing the mother’s feelings and choices. By training others to avoid any mention of the unborn, the video conceals the true reality of abortion and replaces it with a carefully controlled narrative.
As Planned Parenthood expanded from a small birth control clinic to an influential organization with national and international reach, its role in promoting reproductive rights has sparked significant controversy. The organization’s growth has drawn attention to ethical concerns surrounding its advocacy for abortion services, which many pro-life supporters believe undermines the inherent value of life from conception. While Planned Parenthood has contributed to advancing healthcare services for women, its support for abortion has led some to question its influence and the societal impact of its mission.
From a pro-life perspective, the promotion of family planning should prioritize alternatives that protect the sanctity of life. Many pro-life advocates argue that resources should focus on comprehensive support for pregnant women, adoption services, and family-centered health care. With increasing awareness of the emotional and physical impacts of abortion, some believe the future of reproductive health lies in life-affirming approaches that honor both women and the unborn. The debate surrounding Planned Parenthood continues to underscore the importance of an ethical framework that upholds the dignity of all lives, advocating for a future where healthcare advances without compromising life’s sanctity.
Controversies and Criticisms
Planned Parenthood, one of the largest providers of reproductive health services in the United States, has long been a focal point of controversy, drawing intense criticism over its abortion practices, the actions of its founder, and its use of federal funding. Critics argue that Planned Parenthood’s focus on abortion, its associations with eugenics through founder Margaret Sanger, and its involvement in fetal tissue research underscore a disregard for the sanctity of human life. Despite Planned Parenthood’s attempts to rebrand and distance itself from these controversies, pro-life advocates assert that its problematic legacy remains deeply ingrained in its operations.
The Fetal Tissue Donation Scandal of 2015
In 2015, Planned Parenthood faced another wave of criticism when undercover videos released by the Center for Medical Progress alleged that the organization profited from fetal tissue sales, a practice widely condemned by pro-life advocates as unethical and inhumane. These videos purportedly showed Planned Parenthood employees discussing the sale of fetal tissue from abortions, suggesting a potential profit motive. While Planned Parenthood maintains that it adhered to legal standards and only accepted reimbursement for costs associated with tissue donation, critics argue that the video evidence highlighted the organization’s lack of respect for human life.
The controversy grew when then–California Attorney General Kamala Harris, who had received political support from Planned Parenthood, took steps to suppress the spread of the footage (provided for you below). Harris’s office executed a search warrant on David Daleiden’s apartment in April 2016; later felony charges were filed by AG Xavier Becerra in 2017. This lawfare was meant to silence the release of further videos, actions which critics contend were an attempt to protect Planned Parenthood from public scrutiny rather than uphold justice. Her involvement drew sharp criticism from pro-life advocates, who argued that government officials were actively working to shield Planned Parenthood by censoring damaging information from the public.
The scandal fueled calls for defunding Planned Parenthood, with opponents arguing that taxpayer dollars should not support an organization involved in such morally contentious practices.
Federal Funding Controversy
The federal funding controversy surrounding Planned Parenthood is primarily rooted in whether public money indirectly supports abortion services, despite legal restrictions intended to prevent this. Federal funds to Planned Parenthood come largely from Medicaid reimbursements and Title X grants, which are intended for services like contraceptives, cancer screenings, and other reproductive health care, excluding abortion. However, pro-life advocates argue that these funds essentially subsidize Planned Parenthood’s infrastructure, freeing resources that can be redirected to support abortion services.
Planned Parenthood receives millions annually in federal funding through Medicaid, which provides reimbursements for services to low-income patients. These services, by law, exclude abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother’s life is at risk, as outlined by the Hyde Amendment. Pro-life groups argue that by funding other health services, Medicaid indirectly supports Planned Parenthood’s broader operations, including abortion. In Trump’s second term, this argument shifted into direct policy: a Republican-backed law and subsequent executive action gave the administration authority to block Medicaid reimbursements to organizations that provide abortions, even when those reimbursements were for unrelated health services. A federal appeals court upheld the move in September 2025, allowing the administration to cut off Medicaid funding while litigation continues. Planned Parenthood has warned that this ruling could threaten hundreds of clinics and the care of over a million patients who rely on Medicaid.
In addition to Medicaid, Planned Parenthood has historically received Title X family planning funds, although it withdrew from the program in 2019 after the Trump administration implemented a rule prohibiting Title X recipients from referring patients for abortion. This rule was reversed in 2021, allowing Planned Parenthood to re-enter the Title X program under the Biden administration. Pro-life critics argue that Title X funds still support an organization primarily focused on abortion, given Planned Parenthood’s high rate of abortion services compared to other family planning services it offers. Under Trump’s second term, Title X funding has again come under pressure: the administration has frozen tens of millions of dollars in grants, including those to multiple Planned Parenthood affiliates, pending compliance reviews. This freeze has already forced some clinics to scale back services or shut down entirely, reducing access to contraceptives, cancer screenings, and STI testing in several states.
Planned Parenthood’s Efforts to Rebrand and Persistent Legacy
In recent years, Planned Parenthood has attempted to mitigate its association with Sanger’s eugenicist ideology by removing her name from certain facilities and rebranding itself as an inclusive healthcare provider. However, pro-life advocates assert that these efforts are superficial and fail to address the deeply rooted issues within the organization. Critics argue that Planned Parenthood’s continued focus on abortion, particularly in marginalized communities, perpetuates the same discriminatory ideals that Sanger promoted. According to pro-life activists, this focus disproportionately impacts minority populations and contributes to generational cycles of hardship and loss, countering the organization’s claims of promoting reproductive “freedom” and “health.”
According to a 2017 study from the Life Issues Institute, 79% of Planned Parenthood’s facilities are within walking distance of minority communities. “Disturbingly, 80 percent target Black communities, 56 percent target Hispanic/Latino neighborhoods and 80 percent target one or more colleges. In total, 96 percent (24 of 25) of the mega-centers target women of color, college women, or both.” (lifeissues.org) Critics claim this aligns with Sanger’s eugenics philosophy, pointing to these locations as evidence of a targeted approach toward population reduction in marginalized communities.
The Guttmacher Institute’s study, designed to undermine claims that Planned Parenthood targets minority neighborhoods, looked only at the zip code where each facility is located. Life Issues Institute points out how this narrow method ignored nearby communities and undercounted the minority populations living just across the street. By contrast, analyzing census tracts within a two-mile radius shows many facilities, like the Houston mega-center, are in fact surrounded by majority Black and Hispanic neighborhoods.
Image Source: www.lifeissues.org
Planned Parenthood has historically collaborated with organizations to reach minority populations, focusing on access to contraception and abortion as solutions for socioeconomic challenges. Critics argue this implicitly promotes limiting family size in these groups rather than offering resources that encourage family growth and support.
Planned Parenthood’s advocacy for “reproductive justice” in minority communities has been criticized by some as advancing an ideology that implicitly suggests abortion is a solution to poverty and social disadvantage. Pro-life advocates argue that this stance subtly perpetuates a eugenics-like approach to managing population growth among vulnerable communities.
From its eugenicist roots under Sanger’s leadership to its involvement in fetal tissue research and reliance on federal funding, Planned Parenthood remains a deeply controversial organization. While it has made attempts to rebrand, pro-life advocates argue that these efforts fail to address the fundamental ethical concerns associated with its practices. Pro-life critics call for an end to federal funding for Planned Parenthood, asserting that public funds should not support an organization they view as perpetuating harm against vulnerable populations through its abortion services and alleged profit motives. Through these controversies, the pro-life movement continues to call for increased accountability and ethical scrutiny of Planned Parenthood’s practices, advocating for alternatives that prioritize life and offer support for women facing unplanned pregnancies without resorting to abortion.
Political and Advocacy Work
Planned Parenthood’s political and advocacy work has faced significant criticism for its role in promoting abortion access and for its close ties with political and legislative bodies. The Planned Parenthood Action Fund (PPAF) is the primary lobbying arm of the organization, actively campaigning against any form of abortion restriction and funding political candidates who align with its pro-abortion stance. Critics argue that Planned Parenthood's influence in politics allows it to support policies and politicians who prioritize the organization's financial and ideological interests over the broader public's preferences and values.
Lobbying and Policy Influence
Planned Parenthood's lobbying efforts, led by PPAF, include significant financial contributions to political campaigns and extensive advocacy against abortion restrictions at both state and federal levels. Opponents of the organization argue that Planned Parenthood’s lobbying efforts prioritize access to abortion over alternative health care solutions, often overshadowing other aspects of women’s health care in legislative discussions. Some critics have pointed to Planned Parenthood's opposition to restrictions on late-term abortions and parental notification laws as examples of policies that they argue do not align with mainstream views on responsible reproductive health care.
In 2024, PPAF officially endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris in her presidential campaign, declaring (as stated on their website):
“Here’s the undeniable truth: Vice President Kamala Harris is the only person running for president that we can trust to protect access to abortion. Kamala Harris has spent her career fighting to protect access to sexual and reproductive health — and for the last two years as states have banned abortion, she has used her time and position to lift up and listen to abortion providers, patients, and advocates, including by being the first vice president in history to visit a Planned Parenthood health center.
“Kamala Harris is more than qualified and ready to lead the nation as we face down the most urgent threat to democracy and our basic rights. In no uncertain terms, we must defeat Donald Trump, J.D. Vance, and Project 2025, whose shared vision for America is a national abortion ban. This November we will decide who has the power to make our health care decisions. The overwhelming majority of Americans have made it clear time and time again where they stand when it comes to abortion rights: no politician is more qualified to make decisions about our bodies than we are. Full stop.
“This election, we decide. Planned Parenthood Action Fund couldn’t be prouder to endorse Vice President Kamala Harris for president — a leader whose empathy, tenacity, and voice bring renewed energy to fight ahead.”
Electoral Spending and Alleged Partisanship
Through Planned Parenthood Votes, PPAF’s independent expenditure arm, the organization spends millions supporting candidates who will protect and expand abortion access. The vast majority of these funds reportedly go to Democratic candidates, which has led critics to label Planned Parenthood as an unofficial arm of the Democratic Party, reinforcing the party’s pro-choice platform while using substantial financial resources to influence elections. Some argue this funding gives Planned Parenthood outsized influence in shaping the party's policies on reproductive health, creating a cycle of support that primarily benefits Planned Parenthood’s financial interests and political reach rather than advancing comprehensive health care.
The Democrat Party
Planned Parenthood actively collaborates with the Democratic Party through its political action arm, the Planned Parenthood Action Fund (PPAF), which invests significant resources in endorsing and financially supporting Democratic candidates. In the 2024 election cycle, PPAF announced endorsements for over two dozen Democratic candidates running for the U.S. House of Representatives, as well as several key Senate seats, viewing these campaigns as essential to maintaining and expanding abortion rights. PPAF specifically aims to secure a Democratic majority in Congress, promoting candidates who prioritize reproductive rights legislation and opposing anti-abortion efforts led by Republican lawmakers. This advocacy focuses on states like Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, which are critical battlegrounds for determining the legislative balance on reproductive policies.
In addition to endorsements, Planned Parenthood committed $40 million to support President Joe Biden’s re-election campaign and Democratic congressional candidates, amplifying messaging through ad campaigns and mobilizing voter outreach in targeted states. This large-scale investment underscores Planned Parenthood’s strategic partnership with the Democratic Party, seeking to secure policy outcomes aligned with its mission to protect and expand access to abortion and reproductive health services. Historically, many Democratic leaders and legislators were associated with defending slavery prior to the Civil War and later enacting and enforcing Jim Crow laws during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Critics point to this history when drawing parallels between the Democratic Party’s past and its present-day alignment with Planned Parenthood, suggesting a continuity of controversial policies that have profoundly shaped American society.
The organization also collaborates with Democratic leadership in legislative battles, pushing back against efforts to restrict abortion access and lobbying for policies that align with its pro-choice stance. These alliances are particularly visible as Planned Parenthood seeks to restore federal protections for abortion following the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade.
These collaborative efforts illustrate Planned Parenthood’s role as a significant influence within Democratic circles, working alongside the party to shape reproductive health policies that reflect its advocacy goals and to galvanize voter support through substantial political investments and targeted endorsements.
The Crumbling of Planned Parenthood
Critics of Planned Parenthood suggest that the organization's advocacy for abortion access is financially motivated, given that abortion services constitute a significant portion of its revenue. Planned Parenthood has come under fire from some groups that allege the organization prioritizes abortion services over other forms of health care, often citing that a relatively low percentage of its services are related to prenatal care and adoption referrals compared to abortion procedures. This focus has led some to argue that Planned Parenthood’s advocacy for abortion access is more about sustaining its business model than providing balanced, comprehensive reproductive health care options.
Since the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in June 2022, which removed the federal right to abortion, the number of clinics providing abortion services has declined sharply. According to the Guttmacher Institute, the total number of brick-and-mortar abortion clinics in the United States fell from 807 in 2020 to 765 by March 2024, a net loss of 42 facilities. Other reports indicate that over 75 independent abortion clinics have closed since the ruling, with more than 60 shutting down in 2023 alone and additional closures continuing into 2024. The impact has been most severe in states with “trigger laws” and strict abortion bans, particularly in the South and Midwest, where clinics in Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, and Mississippi have been forced to stop providing abortion care or close entirely. These trends underscore how the Dobbs decision has dramatically reshaped access to abortion services nationwide.
This further highlights Planned Parenthood’s dependency on abortion money to be sustainable.
Abortion in Modern Politics
The Political Divide on Abortion
Abortion has become one of the most polarizing issues in modern U.S. politics, emblematic of a stark divide between the nation’s two major political parties. Once a relatively bipartisan issue, abortion now symbolizes the ideological chasm between Democrats, who largely support pro-choice positions, and Republicans, who predominantly advocate for pro-life stances. The evolving political landscape around abortion reflects broader shifts in American politics, with abortion policies often serving as a litmus test for candidates and influencing voter allegiances at nearly all levels of government.
The Partisan Divide
The polarization over abortion in the U.S. has been fueled by shifts in each party’s alignment with influential advocacy groups and constituents. Over recent decades, the Democratic Party has aligned closely with feminist and reproductive rights organizations, advocating for access to safe and legal abortion as a fundamental healthcare right. In contrast, the Republican Party has developed close ties with Christian and conservative organizations, framing abortion as a moral issue and emphasizing the sanctity of life. This alignment has transformed abortion into a central issue that defines party identity, particularly since the 1980s, as documented by political scientists like Chloe Thurston and David Karol, who analyzed the political shifts surrounding abortion from the 1960s onward.
Key Issues and Public Opinion
The divergence in views on abortion is clear on specific aspects, such as legality based on pregnancy stages, the rights of the fetus, and exceptions under certain circumstances. A 2024 survey by Pew Research Center reveals that while Democrats generally support abortion rights throughout most of a pregnancy, Republicans advocate for substantial restrictions, with many favoring illegality after early stages of fetal development. For example, about 60% of Republicans believe abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, while a mass majority of Democrats believe it should remain legal in all or most cases. Additionally, the parties differ on cases like pregnancies from rape or those endangering the mother's life, where Democrats generally favor broader allowances than Republicans.
Political Movements and Grassroots Advocacy
The debate over abortion in the United States has entrenched itself in modern political movements and grassroots activism, shaping public opinion and influencing legislation at all levels of government. Two distinct advocacy camps, pro-life and pro-choice, have emerged with contrasting perspectives on the rights and autonomy of women and the unborn. Key groups within each movement, such as the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) and Susan B. Anthony List on the pro-life side, and NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood on the pro-choice side, have become powerful agents of change, impacting legislation and society through strategic grassroots mobilization and media influence.
Pro-Life Advocacy and Legislative Influence
Pro-life organizations like the National Right to Life Committee and the Susan B. Anthony List play a crucial role in restricting abortion access through both federal and state legislation. Since its inception, the NRLC has focused on advocating for policies that recognize fetal rights and restrict abortion access. Key strategies include pushing for "heartbeat bills," which restrict abortion once fetal heart activity is detected, and supporting laws that mandate parental consent for minors seeking abortions. Additionally, the Susan B. Anthony List directs its advocacy efforts toward electing pro-life candidates who will support and vote for restrictive abortion laws. This group mobilizes voters by emphasizing the sanctity of life in campaign narratives and supporting legislators who back policies that limit federal abortion funding, such as the Hyde Amendment.
A significant legislative victory for pro-life advocates was the passage of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in 2003, upheld by the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Carhart (2007), marking a notable restriction on late-term abortion procedures. Pro-life groups have also used legal frameworks to pass Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP) laws, which impose strict medical regulations on clinics to limit abortion accessibility. These organizations effectively use the legislative process to slowly erode access to abortion, especially in conservative states, by framing it as a moral and ethical imperative to protect unborn lives.
Hearings like this one are the direct result of pro-life advocacy pushing the issue into the halls of Congress. Through the efforts of groups like the National Right to Life Committee and the Susan B. Anthony List, the brutality of abortion procedures is being exposed and debated at the highest levels of government.
Pro-Choice Advocacy and Public Mobilization
In contrast, pro-choice groups like NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood champion the right to choose, advocating for unrestricted access to abortion as part of broader reproductive rights. NARAL, founded as one of the earliest pro-choice organizations, focuses on preserving the rights established by Roe v. Wade (1973), even though Roe’s protections were ultimately overturned in 2022. NARAL has historically mobilized its members through both on-the-ground protests and extensive social media campaigns to counter restrictive legislation. These campaigns are especially prevalent in states where conservative legislation has limited abortion access.
Planned Parenthood, one of the largest reproductive health providers, plays a dual role in both providing services and advocating for pro-choice policies. This organization has built a vast network of supporters, using its position to emphasize the importance of reproductive autonomy and health care access. Planned Parenthood and NARAL have successfully lobbied for protective measures, such as the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, to protect their clinics from harassment and violence. The FACE Act was a response to increased clinic blockades and attacks during the 1980s and 1990s, demonstrating how pro-choice groups have used grassroots pressure to influence federal protections for reproductive rights.
While the FACE Act was originally presented as a means of protecting clinics from genuine threats, its application in recent years has become increasingly controversial. Critics argue that the Biden administration has weaponized this law, targeting peaceful pro-life protestors with disproportionate penalties while failing to apply the same standard to those who harass or attack pro-life organizations. This selective enforcement has raised questions about free speech, equal justice, and the federal government’s role in suppressing dissent. The following video explores how the Biden administration has used the FACE Act against peaceful protestors, sparking national debate.
In critically examining the pro-choice stance on abortion, several ethical and societal concerns emerge regarding its impact on the value placed on life and the integrity of human rights. Pro-life advocates argue that abortion undermines the inherent dignity of human life, particularly at its most vulnerable stages. According to groups like the National Right to Life Committee and Susan B. Anthony List, the pro-choice movement’s focus on autonomy and individual rights neglects the rights of the unborn, often disregarding the moral implications of terminating potential human life. Many pro-life advocates contend that framing abortion solely as a personal choice weakens society's commitment to protecting the voiceless and devalues the fundamental principle that life itself holds intrinsic worth.
Furthermore, critics argue that pro-choice policies often sideline ethical considerations by prioritizing convenience or autonomy over responsibility, particularly when alternative options, such as adoption, are available. This perspective sees the pro-choice stance as fostering a societal attitude that may trivialize or dismiss the moral weight of ending a life. Pro-life organizations maintain that, in striving for autonomy, the pro-choice movement fosters a culture that normalizes abortion as a solution, potentially discouraging deeper engagement with alternatives that affirm both the mother’s and child’s rights and well-being.
Watch highlights from Lila Rose’s 2025 Jubilee Abortion Debate, where she powerfully dismantles common pro-choice arguments. Each exchange reveals how these arguments overlook the dignity of the unborn child, often reducing, dehumanizing, or outright ignoring their very existence.
Ultimately, pro-life critics of the pro-choice stance believe that a more compassionate, life-affirming approach would recognize and support the unborn as individuals with rights while encouraging society to provide resources that help both mothers and children thrive. By focusing on policies that protect all stages of life, pro-life advocates argue for a reorientation toward principles that uphold the sanctity of human life as foundational to a just and humane society.
Public Opinion and Polarization
The polarization of public opinion on abortion has intensified, especially with the Supreme Court's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision in 2022, which overturned Roe v. Wade and allowed individual states to regulate abortion laws independently. This has deepened existing divides across generational, religious, and regional lines, creating a landscape where public opinion on abortion is more contentious than ever.
The Role of Social Media
Social media platforms have played a substantial role in amplifying these divides, transforming abortion into a highly contentious issue. Social media enables rapid dissemination of opinions and mobilizes advocacy efforts, allowing individuals to amplify their stance to wide audiences. Both pro-choice and pro-life movements leverage platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and TikTok to share personal stories, rally supporters, and sway public opinion. While this brings increased visibility to both sides, it also contributes to polarization by creating echo chambers where users primarily engage with content that reinforces their pre-existing beliefs.
This dynamic has also given rise to some of the most controversial and emotionally charged uses of storytelling online. In one striking example, a family with a special needs child was featured in an abortion advertisement that argued it was acceptable to terminate pregnancies in similar circumstances. The ad sparked widespread debate, with many viewers outraged at how a child’s life was portrayed as a justification for abortion. This moment highlights the profound ethical tensions at play, and sets the stage for the following video.
A Rise in Violence
In recent years, America has witnessed a disturbing rise in political violence and intimidation from left-leaning activist groups. Organizations and movements such as Antifa have engaged in aggressive protests, riots, and even targeted attacks against individuals and institutions they view as ideological opponents. Their tactics often include vandalism, harassment, and physical violence, carried out under the banner of “justice” but resulting in fear and division. These groups frequently target pro-life organizations, churches, and pregnancy resource centers, attempting to silence voices that defend the unborn.
In recent years, a troubling rise in violence linked to radicalized transgender activists has drawn national attention. While most in the LGBT community do not condone such acts, an increasing number of cases reveal how extremist rhetoric and online communities can push vulnerable individuals toward dangerous ideologies. This escalation underscores how identity-driven radicalization is not just fueling hostility toward pro-life advocates but also leading to tragic acts of violence. The Minneapolis shooting carried out by Robin, a trans individual reportedly radicalized online, stands as a devastating example of this trend. The following video explores this heartbreaking event and its connection to the broader rise in violence from people on the "left."
These groups not only endorse abortion as a political issue but often celebrate it as a symbol of resistance against traditional moral values. By framing opposition to abortion as an attack on “freedom” or “equality,” they rally supporters to aggressive action, sometimes crossing into violence. This troubling trend highlights the depth of the cultural divide and the lengths to which some activists are willing to go in defending abortion. For pro-life advocates, it serves as a sobering reminder of the courage required to speak the truth in a climate where hostility is too often weaponized against them.
Where Do We Go From Here?
The following content may be disturbing to some viewers.
When we trace the history of abortion, from child sacrifice in the ancient world, to slavery in America, to the modern secularization of society, the pattern is unmistakable: whenever a culture diminishes the value of human life, violence and moral decay follow. Abortion is not an isolated issue; it is part of a long chain of human failures to recognize the God-given dignity of every person. The tragic assassination of Charlie Kirk and the attempted assassinations of President Donald Trump remind us that this erosion of respect for life does not remain confined to the womb. It spills outward, poisoning public discourse and legitimizing hatred, even to the point of bloodshed.
History offers haunting reminders of where such devaluing of life ultimately leads. Just as abortion dismisses the humanity of the unborn, the Holocaust dismissed the humanity of the Jewish people, and racial violence dismissed the humanity of entire communities. These atrocities expose the same root evil: a culture that decides some lives are expendable. As we reflect on these images, we are confronted with the sobering truth that whenever human dignity is denied, the result is suffering, oppression, and death.
At the German concentration camp at Wobbelin
Buchenwald Corpses, Holocaust, World War 2
A man lynched from a tree (1925)
10 Week Abortion
So where does this leave America today? Public opinion on abortion is sharply divided, reflecting the moral confusion that comes from rejecting absolute truth. Polls reveal that many Americans want abortion to remain legal in at least some circumstances, while others are increasingly uneasy with the reality of abortion, especially in the later stages of pregnancy. This divide shows a nation torn between two visions: one that sees abortion as a "right" to be protected, and another that sees abortion as a tragic wrong to be ended. The polarization we witness in politics, media, and even in our communities is the natural outcome of a society that has lost its moral center.
The pressing question is: what now? Will America continue down the same path as cultures that justified slavery or child sacrifice, treating some lives as expendable, or will it choose a different way? The answer depends on whether we as a people are willing to confront the truth that every human life, from conception to natural death, is sacred. It depends on whether our nation can move beyond fear, convenience, and ideological division to embrace courage, compassion, and truth.
America’s future on this issue is not merely about politics or polls, it is about who we are as a people, and whether we will have the moral clarity to defend the voiceless. History warns us of the cost of devaluing life. The present moment challenges us to decide: will we be a nation that perpetuates a culture of death, or will we rise to build a culture of life? The choice is before us, and the urgency could not be greater.
Page References
Secularization and the Legalization of Abortion
https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2020/01/24/four-pro-life-philosophers-make-case-against-abortion https://www.loc.gov/item/lcwaN0018333/ https://eppc.org/publication/abortion-not-always-a-religious-question/ https://epgp.inflibnet.ac.in/epgpdata/uploads/epgp_content/S000825CR/P001133/M018479/ET/1483529647Text.pdf https://www.sociologylearners.com/comtes-three-stages-of-society-theory-of-positivism/ https://www.britannica.com/topic/law-of-three-stages https://reproductiverights.org/roe-v-wade/ https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/abortion/abortion-central-history-reproductive-health-care-america/historical-abortion-law-timeline-1850-today https://www.history.com/topics/womens-history/roe-v-wade https://links.org.au/second-wave-feminism-accomplishments-lessons https://www.britannica.com/topic/second-wave-feminism https://www.womenshistory.org/exhibits/feminism-second-wave https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resource/55401/an-ex-abortionist-speaks https://msmagazine.com/2020/07/01/abortion-media-coverage-is-deeply-and-problematically-politicized-says-study/ https://reproductivefreedomforall.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/NARAL_Report_FINAL-06.11.2020.pdf https://www.yesmagazine.org/social-justice/2019/01/22/shout-your-abortion-amelia-bonbow-interview https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/cambridge-world-history-of-sexualities/sexual-revolution/0CB98C027802FE954A26DDA88B2957BE https://library.fiveable.me/key-terms/introduction-women's-studies/sexual-revolution https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/reports/globalization-and-its-impact-full-enjoyment-all-human-rights-report-secretary-0 https://www.cfr.org/article/abortion-law-global-comparisons
The Roe v. Wade Era
https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/supreme-court-case-library/roe-v-wade https://landmarkcases.org/cases/roe-v-wade/ https://www.history.com/topics/womens-history/roe-v-wade https://www.britannica.com/event/Roe-v-Wade https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/supreme-court-case-library/roe-v-wade https://www.history.com/topics/womens-history/roe-v-wade https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/roe_v_wade_%281973%29 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/ https://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme-court-insights/roe-v--wade-case-summary--what-you-need-to-know.html https://theweek.com/roe-v-wade/1013205/3-explosive-political-consequences-of-overturning-roe https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/law-and-history-review/article/abs/framing-of-a-right-to-choose-roe-v-wade-and-the-changing-debate-on-abortion-law/62A633A776BA98E13D930207145FA7C1 https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/posts/roe-v-wade-religion-and-electoral-politics https://oxfordre.com/americanhistory/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/acrefore-9780199329175-e-449 https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/roe-v-wade-and-supreme-court-abortion-cases https://www.aclu.org/documents/timeline-important-reproductive-freedom-cases-decided-supreme-court https://supreme.justia.com/cases-by-topic/abortion-reproductive-rights/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2013/01/16/a-history-of-key-abortion-rulings-of-the-us-supreme-court/ https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2022/10/advising-the-nation-after-roe-v-wade-cascading-impacts-on-womens-health-family-well-being-and-society https://hls.harvard.edu/today/despite-criticisms-of-roe-v-wade-the-right-to-choose-is-a-part-of-our-culture-sunstein-says/ https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2020/09/24/ruth-bader-ginsburg-abortion-roe-v-wade-catholic https://www.colorado.edu/today/2024/06/20/2-years-after-roe-v-wade-reversal-impacts-and-whats-come https://sites.brown.edu/publichealthjournal/2023/04/24/the-reality-of-maternal-health-in-post-roe-america/ https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/wappp/research/gender-politics/after-dobbs-resources https://openyls.law.yale.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/f4a9575c-5182-4e35-bba8-402d5e757f35/content https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4490&context=wlulr https://angelusnews.com/news/nation/father-neuhaus-remembered-as-civil-rights-pro-life-advocate/ https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2015/03/13/the-story-of-fr-richard-john-neuhaus-an-extraordinary-christian-man/ https://www.oyez.org/justices/byron_r_white https://supremecourthistory.org/associate-justices/byron-r-white-1962-1993/
Planned Parenthood
https://www.equip.org/articles/the-roots-of-planned-parenthood/ https://www.rbf.org/about/our-history/timeline/planned-parenthood https://www.britannica.com/topic/Planned-Parenthood-organization https://www.gale.com/primary-sources/womens-studies/collections/planned-parenthood-and-birth-control-history https://library.csun.edu/sca/peek-stacks/sanger https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMsa1511902 https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_public/ce/f6/cef6efdb-919a-4211-bb5c-ce0d61fda7f5/2024-ppfa-annualreport-c3-digital.pdf https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/birth-control-movement-in-texas https://time.com/4527330/planned-parenthood-100-history/ https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2017/01/understanding-planned-parenthoods-critical-role-nations-family-planning-safety-net https://www.fastcompany.com/3064658/in-pictures-100-years-of-design-at-planned-parenthood https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/ https://www.politifact.com/article/2015/aug/05/politifact-sheet-8-things-know-about-plan-national/ https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/abortion/upload/Planned-Parenthood-fact-sheet.pdf https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/special-collections/abortion-politics-a-collection-of-articles-from-cambridge https://www.christianitytoday.com/2011/01/prolifechallenges/ https://www.focusonthefamily.com/pro-life/becoming-pro-life/from-planned-parenthood-to-pro-life/ https://lifeissues.org/news/investigation-planned-parenthood-speeds-targeting-minorities https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/may/18/candace-owens/fact-checking-claim-most-planned-parenthood-clinic/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-end-of-the-rule-of-law/one-year-later-dobbs-in-global-context/ https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/planned-parenthood-global https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/pressroom/by-the-numbers-how-planned-parenthood-advocacy-and-political-organizations-achieved-decisive-victories-for-abortion-rights-2 https://apnews.com/article/abortion-funding-pills-clinic-closures-56694deb186a0339e1fe9fe3e1c1c363 https://www.guttmacher.org/report/abortion-clinics-united-states-2020-2024 https://prochoice.org/our-work/provider-security/2024-naf-violence-disruption/ https://aleteia.org/2020/07/25/the-complicated-legacy-of-planned-parenthood-founder-margaret-sanger https://www.ncregister.com/features/the-1916-project-exposes-planned-parenthood
Abortion in Modern Politics
https://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/news/2022/the-history-of-abortion-politics.html https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/05/06/wide-partisan-gaps-in-abortion-attitudes-but-opinions-in-both-parties-are-complicated/ https://www.anderson.ucla.edu/sites/default/files/document/2024-09/Abortion%20paper%20Sept%203%202024%20blind%20With%20Appendix_0.pdf https://www.kff.org/report-section/kff-health-tracking-poll-march-2024-abortion-in-the-2024-election-and-beyond-findings/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/clear-contrasts-between-the-democratic-and-republican-parties-positions-on-reproductive-rights-and-health-care/ https://bridgingdivides.princeton.edu/updates/2022/issue-brief-understanding-emerging-trends-protests-and-political-violence-around-abortion https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abortion-politics-mass-media-and-social-movements-in-america/abortion-social-movements-and-mass-media/B67BDCA943DE92A36621108D85E4FC7C https://theconversation.com/religious-beliefs-give-strength-to-the-anti-abortion-movement-but-not-all-religions-agree-182500 https://www.pewresearch.org/topic/religion/religion-social-values/religion-abortion/ https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-gender/virtual-special-issues/abortion-politics-in-the-united-states-and-around-the-world https://reproductiverights.org/the-global-pattern-of-u-s-initiatives-curtailing-womens-reproductive-rights-a-perspective-on-the-increasingly-anti-choice-mosaic/ https://www.cfr.org/article/abortion-law-global-comparisons https://www.brookings.edu/articles/abortion-and-the-2024-election-there-is-no-easy-way-out-for-republicans/ https://www.cambridge.org/us/universitypress/subjects/politics-international-relations/politics-general-interest/abortion-attitudes-and-polarization-american-electorate https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/05/06/wide-partisan-gaps-in-abortion-attitudes-but-opinions-in-both-parties-are-complicated/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlG57leoun4