[Michael J. New is an Assistant Professor of Practice at the Busch School of Business at the Catholic University of America and a Senior Associate Scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute. The following was posted June 24, 2026 at National Review Online (www.nation-alreview.com). Copyright 2026 by National Review. Reprinted with permission.]

Today marks the four-year anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The Dobbs decision remains an important victory for prolifers. The reversal of Roe v. Wade finally made it possible to enforce laws protecting preborn children.

Currently, 13 states have largely banned abortion, and seven others have gestational age limits that would have been struck down before Dobbs. Overall, prolifers are right to celebrate Dobbs and the resulting pro-life laws as a monumental victory. However, the past four years have also taught prolifers that we need to be clear-eyed about the challenges we face in the future.

First, it is important for prolifers to recognize the good that Dobbs has done. Estimates released by the Guttmacher Institute and the Society of Family Planning claim that abortion numbers have increased since Dobbs. However, the prevalence of telehealth abortions makes accurate abortion estimates difficult. Furthermore, a growing body of research shows that recently enacted pro-life laws are correlated with state birth rate increases. My new Charlotte Lozier Institute policy analysis summarizes that research.

Three separate studies of the Texas Heartbeat Act show it is correlated with a birth rate increase of several hundred lives a month. Additionally, three other studies analyzing a range of recent pro-life laws find that they are associated with tens of thousands of more births. Overall rigorous analyses of birth data suggest that pro-life laws have saved thousands of lives.

Of course, during the past four years, many pro-abortion advocacy groups and their allies in the mainstream media have worked overtime to claim that pro-life laws are causing a range of public health and economic problems. To put it charitably, they have not found much.

Overall, rates of infant mortality and maternal mortality have been declining in recent years. Multiple studies have found that maternal mortality trends are simi-lar in pro-life states and in states with permissive abortion policies. Another study found that there have been larger increases in practicing ob-gyns in states with strong pro-life laws. Finally, census data have found that 14 of 17 states with strong pro-life laws in place in 2024 saw a population increase. Pro-life laws have hardly been a public policy disaster.

That said, prolifers are certainly facing some important political and policy challenges. Pro-life elected officials have generally fared well since Dobbs. In fact, not one pro-life incumbent has lost a statewide race since the Dobbs decision.

However, state-level ballot campaigns remain a challenge for prolifers. Pro-abortion direct democracy campaigns have nullified strong pro-life laws in both Missouri and Ohio. Successful efforts to place abortion in state constitutions have also threatened incremental pro-life laws in these and other states. With abortion on the ballot in Nevada, Virginia, and Missouri this fall, prolifers need to be vigilant.

Additionally, telehealth abortions remain an important challenge. The most recent abortion estimates released by the Society of Family Planning shows that approximately 28 percent of abortions that took place in 2025 were done by telehealth. These telehealth abortions weaken many of the strong pro-life laws that have been passed since the Dobbs decision.

Telehealth abortions were approved by the Food and Drug Administration as a temporary measure during the Covid-19 pandemic. Unfortunately, neither the Biden FDA nor the Trump FDA has been willing to restore previous rules requiring that women seeking chemical abortions have an in-person visit with a medical professional.

Prolifers are wisely pursuing other legal and political strategies to prevent tele-health abortions. Separate legal challenges filed by attorneys general in Louisiana, Texas, and Florida are worth following.

As prolifers reflect on the fourth anniversary of the Dobbs decision, we should take heart. Overturning Roe v. Wade was a hard-fought and monumental victory for the pro-life movement. Furthermore, the reversal of Roe occurred much earlier than many seasoned prolifers anticipated.

That said, there are many important battles for prolifers to fight. We need to make gains in the court of public opinion, win elections, and perhaps most important, change the culture. Like other social conservatives, prolifers face powerful cultural headwinds that can make progress challenging. For over 50 years, the pro-life movement in the United States has been incredibly dedicated and persistent. We have succeeded in overcoming many obstacles. That, by itself, should give us hope for the future.