Not long ago I was inundated with pro-life friends lamenting the Supreme Court abortion pill ruling. All I could say was “They didn’t have a strong case.” Besides their lack of standing, I didn’t understand why doctors who never prescribed the pills had brought the lawsuit rather than patients who had taken them. I wasn’t surprised at the outcome.

The plaintiffs argued that the FDA acted recklessly when it raised the gestational age at which one of the pills used in chemical abortions could be administered. But why go after the FDA for making mifepristone more accessible rather than for having approved it in the first place? Either this drug is deadly, or it isn’t. To say the FDA is wrong to increase the gestational age is to imply they were right to approve the drug in the first place. And therein lies the problem with the pro-life strategy of incrementalism. While we can and should look for ways to make abortion harder to access, our goal first and foremost should be an outright abortion ban.

I was surprised to see Roe overturned in my lifetime. I would have expected it to take another 100 years what with the way the pro-life side was moving. Rather than pushing for a complete ban on all abortions, the game for a long time now has been small incremental steps. No wonder it took almost 50 years to get rid of Roe. While many rights movements were born in the late 60s and early 70s (think women’s rights, civil rights, gay rights) all the early movements have tangible wins and cultural shifts they can point to today; sadly, the pro-life side does not. Forty-six years after the Stonewall riots the Supreme Court gave us Obergefell, and now we have a whole month dedicated to “owning” one’s sexuality. It took 49 years to overturn Roe, but still, we don’t see much cultural shift in our direction. Rather we’re plagued by apologetic Republican politicians refusing to back a 15-week abortion ban, while voters even in some red states are proving abortion-friendly.

The abortion-pill case is an example of the incrementalism that has stifled the pro-life movement and impeded its attempt to save lives. At no other time have we had such a prime opportunity to forge a pro-life America and yet we are not doing it. Instead of going after the main culprit—the legalization of mifepristone for use in chemical abortions—pro-life doctors go after the regulatory body for changing the protocol of a medication. Our strategy doesn’t make sense.

The other side’s strategy does make sense. Their goal is simply stated: “Free abortion on demand at whatever stage of pregnancy.” Political talking points may have tried to soften that reality—think “Safe, legal, and rare”—but Planned Parenthood and other national groups have always promoted unlimited abortion and always fought against any abortion regulation. And they have the public ear—the multi-billion-dollar abortion lobby has been successful in every major ballot initiative since the fall of Roe.

The pro-life side can actually learn a thing or two from pro-abortionists when it comes to movement building. Instead of cowering and trying to justify a 15-week ban—one that doesn’t even cover most abortions—prollfers need to be firm that what we are fighting for is a human life. We will never change hearts and minds by compromising on abortion.

What Alliance Defending Freedom (the legal group that argued the abortion pill case) should have done was encourage some of the countless women who have publicly spoken about the dangers of the abortion pill to sue the FDA over legalizing mifepristone. Their case would have had standing as well as a human element the public could empathize with. While some prolifers will say that this is too extreme and would never have popular appeal, I vehemently disagree. Let us learn from past movements what a winning strategy actually looks like.

The Gay liberation movement has taught us that America cannot be shocked easily and no “right” is too “unnatural” to be considered. From the start they demanded legal same-sex marriage—we should not be shy about demanding legal personhood at conception.

From the civil rights movement we learned that peaceful sit-ins and boycotts are extremely effective; they could also be effective in the pro-life movement. While this administration has weaponized outdated laws to quash rescue, we should open up the discussion of large-scale mass resistance sit-ins at abortion facilities. Or at least try to round up more people to pray regularly in front of abortion facilities.

Finally, the women’s liberation movement has shown us the power of human stories, of people telling the world at large how their lives have been affected by a perceived lack of rights. While some conservatives may quip that “facts don’t care about your feelings,” voters certainly do, and the very real and human stories are what change societal views. I love the “silent no more” campaign, which features women (and men) who have undergone abortion speaking publicly about their negative experiences. We need these women (and men) in the news as well as in courtrooms telling judges how they have been affected by the decision to kill their child.

Elections are a couple of months away and we are on the losing side. No major candidate is touting the pro-life position—it’s as if Roe were still on the books. Pro-abortion politicians are touting our recent Supreme Court loss as a sign that the “majority of Americans are pro-choice!” Pro-abortion groups are fundraising like crazy to put abortion initiatives on the ballot. And here we are still fighting for what sounds less extreme, a 20-week ban or a 15-week ban. What we need is to stick firmly to our beliefs because our fight is not about what constitutes marriage, or gender equality, or even the very noble cause of ending racism. Our fight is about the most basic question that can ever be asked: “Is human life sacred?”

__________________

CORRECTION: A commenter points out that in addition to the FDA’s expansion of access to mifepristone in 2016 and 2021, the lawsuit discussed here (Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine) did in fact also challenge the regulatory agency’s approval of the abortion drug in 2000. That challenge, however, was rejected by a federal court—the reason being that too much time (22 years) had passed since the FDA’s initial ruling approving mifepristone for use in chemical abortions, and therefore wasn’t part of the case when it reached the Supreme Court. We regret the oversight.