Since Dobbs, the pro-life movement has succeeded in banning all elective abortions in thirteen states. Far more states, however, have legalized elective abortion until viability (as Roe required) or beyond. Nationally, the pro-life base - which supports banning all elective abortions - has been gradually shrinking, while the pro-choice base has been growing. That trend has continued, and seemingly accelerated, since the draft opinion in Dobbs was leaked in May 2022. What, if anything, can we still hope to accomplish through pro-life legislation?
The list of social forces contributing to increased support for legal abortion includes a secular culture, the relentlessly pro-abortion mass media, the progressive academy, national feminist organizations, the abortion industry itself, and the mainstream medical organizations that invariably support it. Their talking points are buttressed by the effects of the Supreme Court's longstanding abortion regime, which taught three generations of young Americans to view abortion as a right conferred by the Constitution itself.
Next, there is the rise of medication abortions, which already constitute roughly two-thirds of abortions in America. Politically, medication abortions start with a major advantage: the pills are ingested in the first trimester, when public support for legal abortion is strongest. In addition, just as earlier pro-choice rhetoric portrayed abortion as a private choice between a woman and her doctor, now she herself is depicted as taking charge of her reproductive affairs, erasing the line between contraception and abortion.
The pro-life movement cannot control social forces or pharmaceutical innovations. But it can control its legislative agenda and messaging. In states with expansive pro-abortion statutes, the movement has either sought total bans on elective abortion or gone silent on prohibiting (rather than regulating) them. As a result, it is missing opportunities to build broader, state-by-state coalitions that attract "swing voters" - those who think some elective abortions should be legal but favor pre-viability gestational limits. The movement should aim for incremental progress by identifying, proposing, and enacting the strictest gestational limits that can command majority support in states where banning all elective abortions is politically impossible. Although such laws are "imperfect" because they permit some elective abortions, they are nonetheless "pro-life," because they are less imperfect than the laws they replace.
During Roe's long hegemony, the pro-life movement frequently used "imperfect" legislation to reduce the incidence of legal abortions. In Politics for the Greatest Good: The Case for Prudence in the Public Square, Clarke Forsythe explained why the movement should continue to reject the advice of those who claim that "imperfect" abortion laws are counterproductive and complicit in the evil of abortion. Against the complicity claim, Forsythe invoked Pope John Paul in Evangelium Vitae: "When it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law," proposing a law that only partly abrogates it "does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects."
As to whether a strategy aimed at incremental pro-life progress is counterproductive, Forsythe responded that "pro-life laws have protected important principles (to the extent possible), reduced abortions, kept the issue alive in the states, kept pro-life Americans energized and mobilized in the political and legislative arenas, recorded real votes of legislators on real bills, and demonstrated that the Court has made a mess of the issue (to say the least)." Now that the Court has overruled Roe, the pro-life movement can, in theory, ban all elective abortions in any state through ordinary legislation. Where that is not realistically possible, however, Forsythe's central insight still applies: "A strategy of rejecting 'imperfect legislation' and working only for a perfect prohibition would ... quickly mean[] the end of the abortion debate in legislation and politics." The authority Dobbs restored "to the people and their elected representatives" will stagnate in states where a bill banning all elective abortions is an empty gesture.
Unfortunately, many states fit that description. An assessment of what pro-life legislation can realistically accomplish starts with an unflinching look at the gradual but cumulatively seismic shift in public opinion toward broad abortion rights. The best vehicle for doing so is the Marist national poll, conducted at least annually since 2008 on behalf of the Knights of Columbus. Marist, which is more granular than typical abortion polls, asks voters to choose among six options: three that ban all elective abortions, distinguished by which non-elective abortions they allow (no exceptions, maternal life only, or maternal life and rape or incest), and three that allow some elective abortions (until three months, until six months, or throughout pregnancy). These six groups can be reduced to three: the pro-life base that would ban all elective abortions, the pro-choice base that favors elective abortion until at least six months, and the "swing voters" who would limit elective abortions to three months.
Applying those categories to the 2026 Marist poll, here is the bad news: the pro-life base stood at 60 percent in 2008, gradually dropped to 50 percent by 2018, and fell to 37 percent in January 2026. By contrast, the pro-choice base was a mere 16 percent in 2008, rose to 23 percent in 2018, and soared to 42 percent in 2026. Eight years ago, the pro-life base was still double the pro-choice base. Now the pro-choice base is significantly larger, at 42 percent versus 37. The balance of power, however, still lies with the swing voters, who stood at 20 percent in 2026.
Ominous as they are, these national polling numbers understate the problem for pro-life legislation going forward. The states where the pro-life base is largest have already enacted bans on elective abortions. In a state whose electorate tracks Marist's 2026 poll, the pro-life movement would need the support of roughly two-thirds of "swing voters" to adopt a total ban by referendum. This is unrealistic. "Swing voters" frequently believe that women should have an opportunity to discover they are pregnant and decide whether to abort but support reasonable time limits on that opportunity. If their options are "no opportunity to choose" or "too much time to choose," they are more likely to pick the latter.
The better strategy for attracting sufficient swing voters is to propose pre-viability gestational cutoffs rather than total bans. This approach has already succeeded in enacting six-week limits in Florida, Georgia, Iowa, and South Carolina, and twelve-week limits in Nebraska and North Carolina. Six-week bans will save far more lives than twelve-week ones, but even the latter will prevent some abortions and outlaw the shocking violence of second-trimester surgical abortions.
The remaining thirty states and the District of Columbia, however, currently permit elective abortions up until viability or beyond. Would pre-viability gestational limits have a fair chance of enactment in some of these jurisdictions? Even judging by this year's bleak Marist poll, the answer is clearly yes. Together, the pro-life base (37 percent) and swing voters (20 percent) constitute a nationwide majority of 57 percent opposing laws permitting elective abortions after the first trimester. Yet roughly 62 percent of Americans live in a state that permits elective abortions at least until viability. That disparity strongly suggests that there are ample opportunities to make legislative progress by proposing pre-viability cutoffs that swing voters will support.
To identify those opportunities, the movement should sponsor in-depth polling on public opinion regarding abortion in individual states. Pro-life polling should closely examine what a state's citizens think its abortion law should provide and what reasons they would give to explain their choices. That information can facilitate drafting proposed legislation and fine-tuning arguments for it. When well publicized, better polling can also prompt some voters to reconsider their own views on abortion and educate others about how extreme their current laws are.
While reorienting its legislative efforts in light of rigorous polling, the pro-life movement should also strive to develop genuine solidarity with swing voters. The movement errs when it sends a one-size-fits-all message: human life and personhood begin at conception, so all elective abortions should be banned. In the states that currently permit elective abortions to viability or beyond, most voters clearly disagree. Yet roughly one-third of those who reject a total ban believe nonetheless that the unborn child should be protected from abortion months before viability.
We should propose the earliest gestational cutoff that can win support from swing voters while also insisting that, even though elective abortions at the beginning of pregnancy will remain legal, they are bad for both mother and child. In so doing, we should welcome these voters as "somewhat pro-life" allies, rather than viewing them as morally obtuse people whose unjust demands we are grudgingly accommodating.
Many pro-lifers will reject these recommendations. The movement's leadership and activists have always believed that a new human being is created at conception and is entitled to protection from abortion in almost all circumstances. But pro-life incrementalism does not contradict these beliefs or require concealing them. What it challenges is the movement's not infrequent unwillingness to make common cause with the millions of Americans who believe that a new human person is present well before viability, but who remain unconvinced that a fertilized ovum or a newly-implanted embryo has this status. Millions more would support gestational limits because they weigh what they see as the woman's right to reject motherhood against society's obligation to protect the fetus if she fails to exercise that right within a reasonable time. Despite the gulf between their opinions and the core pro-life view that all elective abortions are homicides, both groups include voters who would support cutting back on the Roe-or-worse abortion rights currently in force in most states.
A more pragmatic objection is that an incrementalist pro-life strategy will eventually result in "compromise" federal legislation that nationalizes a first trimester right to elective abortions but prohibits them thereafter. In fact, however, pro-life incrementalism would oppose this Faustian bargain, because the federal right would preempt existing state laws that ban all elective abortions. And because the pro-choice movement would oppose this compromise as too restrictive, there is little risk that this danger will ever materialize.
A successful pivot to pro-life incrementalism will undoubtedly require overcoming various obstacles. For example, pro-life voters might not be motivated to turn out in favor of a referendum on a twelve-week cutoff, and swing voters might prove apathetic in supporting it. To avoid pitfalls like these, national pro-life leaders must take steps to get the base on board while persuading swing voters. Moreover, enacting "imperfect" legislation will sometimes require difficult judgment calls. If a six-week ban has some chance of enactment, but a twelve-week ban is more likely to pass, reasonable pro-life legislators may initially differ on which bill to propose. But they should unite behind one of them.
Nor is "imperfect" pro-life legislation a panacea. Much of the movement's most important work involves persuading women to forgo legal abortions. With or without incremental legislative initiatives, pro-life activists will pray outside abortion clinics, operate crisis pregnancy centers, and organize pro-life chapters on college campuses. Nevertheless, it surely matters whether the post-Dobbs trend of pro-choice legislative victories can be reversed. Proposing pre-viability gestational cutoffs is, arguably, the most promising strategy for doing so.
Pro-life incrementalism also offers a way to revive public conversations about abortion that can foster pro-life sentiment. In the thirty-one jurisdictions that currently give the unborn virtually no legal protection, proposing a ban on all elective abortions is futile, and oppressive silence about the status of the unborn prevails. "Imperfect" pro-life legislation can spark overdue public debate by proposing gestational cutoffs that are appreciably more restrictive than today's barbaric Roe-or-worse statutes. By re-energizing a state's pro-life base and attracting enough swing voters to tip the scales, the movement can make real, even if "imperfect," progress toward ending elective abortion in America.