In the year since the Dobbs decision, the battle over protecting unborn children has become a state-by-state issue. Tremendous progress has been made. But it is going to be much more difficult to make further gains. To understand why, we have to look at the map and do some nose-counting.

Twenty-five states now have laws that significantly limit or ban abortion (three of which are not in effect during litigation). Some states have total bans (subject to some limited exceptions, such as to preserve the life of the mother), others ban abortion after fetal heartbeat (about 6 weeks of pregnancy), others have bans that take effect at other points in pregnancy.

In 2020, about one-third of the nation’s abortions took place in these protective states. The Susan B. Anthony List has done the math and estimates that these laws are likely to save 179,121 lives per year. That is an amazing accomplishment.

Of course, there’s no reason for complacency. Some of these laws can be made stronger, for instance by replacing a third-trimester ban with a heartbeat law. The serious threat of telemedicine abortions also has to be dealt with.

On the other side, there are twenty-one states that have constitutional or statutory protections for abortion. In 2020, these liberal states accounted for almost 60 percent of the national total—over 540,000 abortions. Most of the states with the highest numbers of abortions are on this list: California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, Michigan, New Jersey, and Maryland.

In most of those states, abortion has been declared a “fundamental right.” That means that it is exceptionally difficult to pass laws to limit or ban abortion. Courts will subject such laws to “strict scrutiny” analysis: They have to be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. As one Supreme Court justice once remarked, this analysis is strict in name, but fatal in fact.

It may help to compare this division of the states with election results to illustrate the challenges in this political climate. This is my analysis, but I think it will help.

It shouldn’t be much of a surprise that in all but a few of the states that protect unborn life, Republicans control both houses of the legislature and the governor’s office. They have also consistently voted for Republican presidential and gubernatorial candidates in the last few decades. In a sense, passing pro-life laws in these states requires work, but it’s still a bit like picking low-hanging fruit.

The reverse is likewise true. Democrats control the legislature and governor’s office of all but a few of the liberal abortion states, and they also have a consistent record of voting for Democratic presidential candidates. Passing pro-life laws in any of these states would be almost a miracle. To borrow a term from electoral politics, these states constitute a “blue wall” against further pro-life gains. That doesn’t mean we should give up on them But we have to be ready to play the long game of converting hearts and winning elections.

This leaves us with a handful of “swing states” where there are viable chances for progress. In these states the parties split control of the government or have mixed results in presidential races. Some already have protections after viability or other regulations, but it’s politically realistic to pass stronger laws if more pro-lifers win elections. Unfortunately, with some exceptions (e.g., Pennsylvania), very few abortions are taking place in the swing states. So the potential impact of pro-life legislation would be limited. But every life is worth fighting for.

All of these political and legal calculations are subject to regular changes. Elections are taking place all the time, and even small changes can make a huge difference. For example, in Virginia, a switch of a handful of seats could change which party controls both of the houses of their legislature and dramatically increase the prospects for pro-life legislation.

Pro-life laws are under consistent litigation attack, and it’s hard to keep track of the court decisions that are continually coming down. As we all know, the election and confirmation of judges is a seriously political process. We also have to remember that legal education—and thus the profession—has long been infected by progressive approaches to interpreting and making law. So even in otherwise conservative states, court rulings are unpredictable. Recent decisions in Oklahoma and South Carolina provide perfect examples.

Obviously, we need to challenge and change this political climate that limits our potential for further gains. People need to be reminded that their votes have real-world consequences for unborn children. We must continue to press the moral and scientific argument about the humanity of unborn children and the injustice of abortion. We must emphasize the basic American ideal of equal protection under the law, which has been the pillar of every civil rights movement. “All human beings are created equal” is a campaign slogan for every election—particularly for state legislatures and courts.

It is a simple message that can appeal to the hearts of everyone, even those who are behind the “blue wall.” To quote a recent statement by pro-life leaders, “To be pro-life is to affirm that the lives of innocent human beings deserve legal protection from violence, both before and after birth.”