Why result of 2024 election offers opportunities for pro-lifers
On November 5, 2024, Donald J. Trump completed the greatest comeback in American political history by winning the 2024 presidential election and defeating Kamala Harris. Trump becomes only the second president to be elected for non-consecutive terms, the first being Grover Cleveland in 1892. For beleaguered pro-lifers, Trump’s victory offers hope and opportunity.
Although “unprecedented” is an overused word in modern politics, the 2024 election featured a series of events truly without equal in American history. For example, in the June 27 debate between Trump and incumbent President Joe Biden, Biden’s halting and uneven delivery shocked most observers and resulted in many prominent Democrats calling for him to withdraw from the race.
On July 13, just two days before the start of the Republican National Convention, Trump survived an assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania. After an assassin’s bullet grazed his ear, Trump, with blood streaking down his face, clenched his fist and exhorted the crowd, “Fight!” (Trump would survive a second attempt on his life on September 15 outside his golf club in West Palm Beach, Florida.)
Get Our Latest News for FREE
Less than 48 hours after the first assassination attempt, Republicans formally nominated Trump as their nominee. Notably, delegates approved a scaled-back party platform that omitted the robust pro-life language of previous platforms. Although the platform condemned late-term abortion, it noticeably lacked specificity on the subject, a change that was reportedly directed by Trump himself.
Following the GOP convention, calls for Biden to withdraw from the race intensified. On July 21, Biden became the first incumbent to withdraw from a presidential campaign after winning his party’s primary. After stepping aside, Biden endorsed his vice president, Kamala Harris, whom the party quickly coalesced behind. On August 6, Harris announced Minnesota Governor Tim Walz (D) as her running mate. Only a year before, Walz had signed into law an abortion expansion bill that, among other provisions, removed protections for babies who are born alive following an abortion.
At the Democratic National Convention, Democrats unveiled a platform that included a lengthy section on abortion. The abortion messaging at the convention previewed the priorities of the Harris-Walz campaign, which poured tens of millions of dollars into pro-abortion advertisements.
On September 10, during their lone debate, Harris attempted to tie Trump to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, claiming, “Donald Trump hand-selected three members of the United States Supreme Court with the intention that they would undo the protections of Roe v. Wade.” For his part, Trump drew attention to his opponent’s support for late-term abortion. Despite protestations from Harris (and the ABC moderators), Trump doubled down, stating, “The Democrats are radical… her vice-presidential pick says abortion in the ninth month is absolutely fine. He also says execution after birth, its execution, no longer abortion, because the baby is born, is okay. And that’s not okay with me.”
In the final stretch of the campaign, Harris emphasized her support for abortion in interviews, rallies, and campaign statements. On September 19, she told Oprah Winfrey that state pro-life laws constituted a “health care crisis.” Additionally, on October 22, Harris stated that she would not support any “concessions” to pro-lifers, including religious exemptions. Likewise, during an October 25 rally with singer Beyoncé, Harris pledged to “restore reproductive freedom.” Campaigning the next day in Michigan, Harris again blamed the Dobbs decision for triggering “a health care crisis.”
Although the Trump campaign deliberately focused on issues besides abortion, the issue still came up. Notably, on the campaign trail, Trump repeatedly promised to veto what he described as a “national abortion ban.” On October 8, Melania Trump published a memoir in which she expressed strong pro-abortion views, specifically, “A woman’s fundamental right of individual liberty, to her own life, grants her the authority to terminate her own pregnancy if she wishes.” Elsewhere, she argued that the “cultural stigma associated with abortion must be lifted.”
In a disappointing result for pro-lifers, voters in seven states approved pro-abortion ballot measures. Voters in Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, and New York added permissive pro-abortion amendments to their respective state constitutions that essentially allow abortion through all stages of pregnancy. Voters in Nevada also passed a pro-abortion measure that must be passed again in the 2026 general election in order to take effect.
In a positive development, voters in Florida, Nebraska, and South Dakota rejected similar pro-abortion referendums. In Nebraska, voters not only approved a pro-life measure that codified the state’s 12-week protection law into the state’s constitution but rejected a competing pro-abortion measure. The victories in these three states are significant, as they represent the first state-wide pro-life victories since Dobbs. However, the outcome of these ballot measures proves that state-wide referendums will remain a challenge for the pro-life cause in the years to come.
In short, in the first presidential election since the overturning of Roe, abortion played an outsized role. Although the candidate ostensibly committed to protecting life won, Trump’s relative reluctance to speak on the issue, coupled with the Republican Party’s truncated platform, indicates that pro-life policies were considered a political liability by Trump and many Republican operatives.
Overall, pro-lifers have many reasons to be grateful for the outcome of the 2024 election. Kamala Harris campaigned on the most aggressive pro-abortion platform in American history; her commitment to expanding abortion animated her quest for the White House, and her defeat was interpreted by many pro-life Christians as undeserved mercy. Currently, Republicans are also on track to flip control of the Senate and hold the House of Representatives, which means pro-lifers can expect to see a reprieve from the aggressive pro-abortion advocacy of the Biden-Harris administration.
However, as the recent campaign demonstrated, there are those within the GOP who are not committed to the pro-life cause and pro-lifers who supported the president’s campaign need to use their political capital to hold pro-life officials accountable.
In the years since Roe was overturned, Christians have learned that the nation is more pro-abortion than we would have liked to imagine. However, the results of the 2024 election demonstrate that pro-life candidates can still win office and that the pro-life movement is still a significant force in electoral politics. Moving forward, the work of winning hearts and minds must continue in earnest, as it is evident that five decades of Roe coarsened the nation’s conscience more than we realized. Clearly, much work remains to convince our fellow Americans that every unborn child is a gift from God.
In closing, the fight for life continues. Although daunting, the fight must be engaged; the lives of untold millions hang in the balance. Motivated by love for our neighbors, may Christians be faithful in our work as we advocate for babies, their mothers, and their families.
Originally published at The Washington Stand.
David Closson is the Director of Christian Ethics and Biblical Worldview at Family Research Council.
