As for candidates \u2013 over the decades, they go back and forth on which party predominates. We have to work with what we have. At the grassroots, we always have.<\/p>\n
Learn a Lesson: Missouri<\/strong><\/h3>\nI vote in Missouri, so I watched Amendment 3 develop. It was to overturn the Amendment 3 of 2024, which made abortion a state constitutional right. It passed with only 52%. Since the original\u2019s advertising kept saying Missouri\u2019s abortion ban went too far, many didn\u2019t understand how extreme the 2024 amendment was in the other direction.<\/p>\n
So it was reasonable to think with a little tweaking, the normal adding of the rape and incest exception, perhaps getting it on the ballot could get this repealed.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/Missouri-bird.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nUnfortunately, they took a page from the pro-abortion playbook with a \u201cballot candy\u201d technique. They added a provision they thought would be popular and get it over the finish line:<\/strong> banning transgender surgeries for minors.<\/p>\nThis does something against Missouri law \u2013 having two topics in one measure. But a court decided they were the same topic:<\/strong> reproductive medicine. That looks ridiculous to me. Neither<\/em> has anything to do with actual reproduction. I suppose the judge was thinking of medicine involving private body parts. This is a common problem in the abortion debate.<\/p>\nEarly on, the court also changed the ballot language to be more accurate. I was relieved, since being put in a position of being expected to defend deliberately deceptive language was a position I didn\u2019t want to be in. The best I could do is to say that the original pro-abortion amendment had also used deceptive language. That\u2019s not much of a defense.<\/p>\n
Then I watched the ads. The pro-3 group offered an ad advocating how important the ban on transgender surgery for minors was, as if that were what the measure was about. That made it simple for the anti-3 side: they just pointed out such surgery was already illegal in Missouri, so saying this was what it was about was a trick. This measure was really about an abortion ban. I watched painfully a surreal scene:<\/strong> the pro-abortion side was actually being more accurate.<\/p>\nThen abortion advocates did the onslaught of ads with predictable content. I could easily have refuted what they said, but of course I don\u2019t have that kind of money. The people who did let them get away with it, unrefuted.<\/p>\n
They not only lost with only 45% of the vote, but they spent so much work only to show slippage of support for the pro-life cause. Given all the people who stayed home in this political environment,<\/a> there may not have been much help for it.<\/p>\nBut they didn\u2019t even use this as a public education opportunity, so that even if we lost the election in the short term, we still could have gained a more educated public for the long term.<\/p>\n
Friends, please learn these lessons:<\/strong><\/p>\n1) Abortion advocates may have money and know how to win politically, but that doesn\u2019t make them good role models.<\/p>\n
because<\/p>\n
2) Deception in service<\/a> of a goal of promoting<\/em> violence can be efficient, but deception with an eye to preventing<\/em> violence just doesn\u2019t work so well.<\/p>\nCharacter matters.<\/p>\n
Democrats Take Over Congress<\/strong><\/h3>\nBeing ever the person looking for signs of hope, I offer:<\/strong><\/p>\nA common perception was that a major issue was the war in Iran. Even those who don\u2019t oppose war for the reason we do \u2013 namely, it kills people \u2013 think it shouldn\u2019t happen just because one man says so. Especially a man who promised as a candidate he wouldn\u2019t do that kind of thing. But some speculated the \u201cwag-the-dog\u201d<\/a> scenario of using a war to distract from a sex scandal, namely the Epstein files, was the actual motivation here. Whether or not this is so, the tactic has probably lost its potency. Perhaps in the future this especially despicable reason for going to war has lost its ability to be a temptation.<\/p>\nI think a case can be made that repudiation of Trump is better for the pro-life movement. He\u2019s a lip-service pro-lifer, but functionally pro-abortion. Single-issue voters point out he wasn\u2019t nearly as bad as Clinton or Harris would have been on abortion, and of course appointing the judges that finally overturned Roe v. Wade<\/em> is a major achievement. But it\u2019s now achieved. Now some conservatives make the case that Trump is sabotaging the pro-life movement<\/a>. Positive actions to help on abortion-prevention public policy are things the Republicans mainly didn\u2019t do in the past two years when they had the chance (or in the case of Planned Parenthood defunding, they allowed it to lapse). There\u2019s no reason to think they would have done better had they remained in control.<\/p>\nA prime illustration:<\/strong> the Talarico-Paxton Senate race in Texas. From a cold-hearted paperwork point of view, Paxton as state attorney general took action on some good abortion policy in Texas. But his corruption was so bad, it turned off many who always vote Republican but couldn\u2019t stomach voting for him<\/em>. He would vote against abortion when bills come up, but it would give a stench hard to recuperate from.<\/p>\nTalarico, on the other hand, can pretty well be counted on to vote the wrong way on abortion. \u00a0But in a respectful conversation<\/a> with a pro-lifer, when he claimed the Bible was silent on abortion, she pointed out the Ten Commandments say \u201cthou shalt not kill.\u201d The pro-lifers I saw commenting on this were disgusted with his approach, of course. But the point is, he was listening to her and being respectful.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/1-blog-Talarico.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nI have a sense that if he could ever give me just 15 minutes to explain out the problems, he\u2019d actually listen. \u00a0And he\u2019s among the kind of people who would find the consistent-life approach more persuasive than some other arguments that could be made to him.<\/p>\n
So he\u2019s not a fanatic. Being a non-fanatic that can listen is an awfully low bar, but it\u2019s better than a whole lot of Democrats do. So I\u2019m ever hopeful.<\/p>\n
Lobbying<\/strong><\/h3>\nThe positive is that we may get better funding back to social services and health care, which in addition to their poverty-prevention aspects help pregnant women choose life<\/a>, and help targets of \u201caid in dying\u201d to avoid the practice. Some of the states may become better on the death penalty; the governor of California commuted all death sentences, a quarter of death row in the United States, just after the election.<\/p>\nOne major negative, of course, is that abortion policy could deteriorate badly.<\/p>\n
The grassroots parts of the pro-life movement remain as strong as ever, and if Democrats over-reach, as is the custom of politicians, some more people may get angry enough to be active.<\/p>\n
But I do feel for the lobbying arm of the movement. Prospects seem to be to spend time keeping bad things from happening rather than promoting good things to happen. This is exacerbated by how all the work pro-lifers had put into getting better policy outcomes was mainly being ignored by officeholders who claimed to be with us.<\/p>\n
But here we are on federal legislation:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n- Nationally \u201ccodifying Roe,<\/em>\u201d reinstating the nation-wide ban on abortion-regulating or banning legislation. Democrats have in the past discussed getting rid of the filibuster to do it. It may happen, but I haven\u2019t seen it discussed in the mainstream punditry after the election. There\u2019s discussion about how much Democrats want to try to actually pass things that can get enough Republicans to be veto-proof, or to avoid vetoes.<\/li>\n
- Since the Hyde Amendment has been a rider every year and Republicans did nothing to make it more permanent when they had the chance, there\u2019s a very real danger here. See our post on how Hyde helps low-income women<\/a>.<\/li>\n
- The one-year defunding of Planned Parenthood ending last July never got renewed, and it certainly won\u2019t for the time being.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/1-blog-Grassroots.jpg\")
<\/a>Rachel MacNair at literature table<\/p><\/div>\n
But again, we have grassroots. The Consistent Life Network has a project website called Grassroots Defunding: Finding Alternatives to Planned Parenthood.<\/a> This isn\u2019t merely getting women away from abortions, which the pro-life movement does well, but getting women at Planned Parenthood for other things away from the institution. We have community health centers nearby each individual Planned Parenthood center listed, plus other resources.<\/p>\nAlso, the Problems at Planned Parenthood Committee runs a facts-based documentation website on Problems at Planned Parenthood<\/a>, designed especially for people who refer or donate to Planned Parenthood, along with journalists and other researchers.<\/p>\n===============<\/p>\n
See also:<\/em><\/p>\nScandals with Mirror Images<\/a><\/p>\nWhat History Shows: The Consistent Life Ethic Works for Pro-life Referendums<\/a><\/p>\nHow Consistent-life Advocacy Would Benefit from Ranked-Choice Voting<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nUnfortunately, they took a page from the pro-abortion playbook with a \u201cballot candy\u201d technique. They added a provision they thought would be popular and get it over the finish line:<\/strong> banning transgender surgeries for minors.<\/p>\n This does something against Missouri law \u2013 having two topics in one measure. But a court decided they were the same topic:<\/strong> reproductive medicine. That looks ridiculous to me. Neither<\/em> has anything to do with actual reproduction. I suppose the judge was thinking of medicine involving private body parts. This is a common problem in the abortion debate.<\/p>\n Early on, the court also changed the ballot language to be more accurate. I was relieved, since being put in a position of being expected to defend deliberately deceptive language was a position I didn\u2019t want to be in. The best I could do is to say that the original pro-abortion amendment had also used deceptive language. That\u2019s not much of a defense.<\/p>\n Then I watched the ads. The pro-3 group offered an ad advocating how important the ban on transgender surgery for minors was, as if that were what the measure was about. That made it simple for the anti-3 side: they just pointed out such surgery was already illegal in Missouri, so saying this was what it was about was a trick. This measure was really about an abortion ban. I watched painfully a surreal scene:<\/strong> the pro-abortion side was actually being more accurate.<\/p>\n Then abortion advocates did the onslaught of ads with predictable content. I could easily have refuted what they said, but of course I don\u2019t have that kind of money. The people who did let them get away with it, unrefuted.<\/p>\n They not only lost with only 45% of the vote, but they spent so much work only to show slippage of support for the pro-life cause. Given all the people who stayed home in this political environment,<\/a> there may not have been much help for it.<\/p>\n But they didn\u2019t even use this as a public education opportunity, so that even if we lost the election in the short term, we still could have gained a more educated public for the long term.<\/p>\n Friends, please learn these lessons:<\/strong><\/p>\n 1) Abortion advocates may have money and know how to win politically, but that doesn\u2019t make them good role models.<\/p>\n because<\/p>\n 2) Deception in service<\/a> of a goal of promoting<\/em> violence can be efficient, but deception with an eye to preventing<\/em> violence just doesn\u2019t work so well.<\/p>\n Character matters.<\/p>\n Being ever the person looking for signs of hope, I offer:<\/strong><\/p>\n A common perception was that a major issue was the war in Iran. Even those who don\u2019t oppose war for the reason we do \u2013 namely, it kills people \u2013 think it shouldn\u2019t happen just because one man says so. Especially a man who promised as a candidate he wouldn\u2019t do that kind of thing. But some speculated the \u201cwag-the-dog\u201d<\/a> scenario of using a war to distract from a sex scandal, namely the Epstein files, was the actual motivation here. Whether or not this is so, the tactic has probably lost its potency. Perhaps in the future this especially despicable reason for going to war has lost its ability to be a temptation.<\/p>\n I think a case can be made that repudiation of Trump is better for the pro-life movement. He\u2019s a lip-service pro-lifer, but functionally pro-abortion. Single-issue voters point out he wasn\u2019t nearly as bad as Clinton or Harris would have been on abortion, and of course appointing the judges that finally overturned Roe v. Wade<\/em> is a major achievement. But it\u2019s now achieved. Now some conservatives make the case that Trump is sabotaging the pro-life movement<\/a>. Positive actions to help on abortion-prevention public policy are things the Republicans mainly didn\u2019t do in the past two years when they had the chance (or in the case of Planned Parenthood defunding, they allowed it to lapse). There\u2019s no reason to think they would have done better had they remained in control.<\/p>\n A prime illustration:<\/strong> the Talarico-Paxton Senate race in Texas. From a cold-hearted paperwork point of view, Paxton as state attorney general took action on some good abortion policy in Texas. But his corruption was so bad, it turned off many who always vote Republican but couldn\u2019t stomach voting for him<\/em>. He would vote against abortion when bills come up, but it would give a stench hard to recuperate from.<\/p>\n Talarico, on the other hand, can pretty well be counted on to vote the wrong way on abortion. \u00a0But in a respectful conversation<\/a> with a pro-lifer, when he claimed the Bible was silent on abortion, she pointed out the Ten Commandments say \u201cthou shalt not kill.\u201d The pro-lifers I saw commenting on this were disgusted with his approach, of course. But the point is, he was listening to her and being respectful.<\/p>\n I have a sense that if he could ever give me just 15 minutes to explain out the problems, he\u2019d actually listen. \u00a0And he\u2019s among the kind of people who would find the consistent-life approach more persuasive than some other arguments that could be made to him.<\/p>\n So he\u2019s not a fanatic. Being a non-fanatic that can listen is an awfully low bar, but it\u2019s better than a whole lot of Democrats do. So I\u2019m ever hopeful.<\/p>\n The positive is that we may get better funding back to social services and health care, which in addition to their poverty-prevention aspects help pregnant women choose life<\/a>, and help targets of \u201caid in dying\u201d to avoid the practice. Some of the states may become better on the death penalty; the governor of California commuted all death sentences, a quarter of death row in the United States, just after the election.<\/p>\n One major negative, of course, is that abortion policy could deteriorate badly.<\/p>\n The grassroots parts of the pro-life movement remain as strong as ever, and if Democrats over-reach, as is the custom of politicians, some more people may get angry enough to be active.<\/p>\n But I do feel for the lobbying arm of the movement. Prospects seem to be to spend time keeping bad things from happening rather than promoting good things to happen. This is exacerbated by how all the work pro-lifers had put into getting better policy outcomes was mainly being ignored by officeholders who claimed to be with us.<\/p>\n But here we are on federal legislation:<\/strong><\/p>\n Rachel MacNair at literature table<\/p><\/div>\n But again, we have grassroots. The Consistent Life Network has a project website called Grassroots Defunding: Finding Alternatives to Planned Parenthood.<\/a> This isn\u2019t merely getting women away from abortions, which the pro-life movement does well, but getting women at Planned Parenthood for other things away from the institution. We have community health centers nearby each individual Planned Parenthood center listed, plus other resources.<\/p>\n Also, the Problems at Planned Parenthood Committee runs a facts-based documentation website on Problems at Planned Parenthood<\/a>, designed especially for people who refer or donate to Planned Parenthood, along with journalists and other researchers.<\/p>\n ===============<\/p>\n See also:<\/em><\/p>\n Scandals with Mirror Images<\/a><\/p>\n What History Shows: The Consistent Life Ethic Works for Pro-life Referendums<\/a><\/p>\n How Consistent-life Advocacy Would Benefit from Ranked-Choice Voting<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\nDemocrats Take Over Congress<\/strong><\/h3>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nLobbying<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n
<\/a>