The pro-life movement’s focus on political solutions has caused minds to darken and hearts to harden towards the vulnerable in our society. More women and more babies are suffering because of prominent and public Catholics and institutions who claim to be Catholic continue to serve the Political Bully who gets things done rather than the Faith.
There are now more abortions than ever. Overturning Roe was not a win for babies in the womb, nor their moms, because Republicans know nothing about winning hearts nor growing spines. Their love of money and power is, indeed, the root of all evil, and when challenged they repeat the sin of Adam — blame the other guy. They are made in the image and likeness of DJT.
It’s time for the Pro-life movement to focus on helping babies by helping mothers!
Agreed on the last point, but do not discount that much of the movement has been doing that work already! It would be awesome to see the number of pregnancy crisis/care centers double!
Unfortunately, the nation is still divided on abortion. You might consider that making overturning abortion a main issue for the first Trump admin was considered a risky move politically. After making the overturning of Roe v Wade a priority, what was the response of the Catholic hierarchy? Unjust criticism of the administration on immigration control, a policy that is supported by most Ameicans and even Catholic catechism. Furthermore, we have a cardinal who wants to give a prize to a staunch abortionist senator flying in the face of our supposed beliefs. So, what do we expect? If the Church cannot provide a small amount of gratitude to those that help their cause and also demonstrate moral consistency, we lose our credibility and our voice at the table.
"The pro-life movement has clearly lost influence in the Trump Administration. Its remaining political power lies in its voice of moral authority and its dedicated activists and voters."
Any remaining moral authority of the prolife "movement" was lost when they threw in their lot with Trump in 2016 in the first place.
For what shall it profit a man to gain Dobbs but lose his soul?
Genuine policy that advances human dignity should no longer be pursued under the politically noxious and compromised term "prolife."
Having had the opportunity lately to take some courses on the Old Testament, multiple parallels with Israel hitching their wagons to corrupt kings and foolish alliances—and how those moves backfired, getting them the opposite of what they were after in the end—spring quickly to mind.
Abortions are significantly up since 2016, and are edging back up post-Dobbs. I am almost as unsurprised as I am heartbroken.
My goodness, how wonderful would it be if America could adopt a robust family policy to support families, mothers, and children for years to come? People don’t realize that so much more is possible.
The Church is opposed to socialism, but it is admirable that they pursue that! Some European countries have family policies and I don’t know that all of them are socialist. Would be interesting to look into.
If socialists are getting it done with policies that support human dignity and the "pull yourselves up by your bootstraps but hands off my kleptocracy" crowd are doing the opposite, I think a simple "Church opposes socialism" is outdated and overly simplistic.
It's an interesting question! The Pius XI encyclical Quadragesimo Anno actually directly addresses this, where it describes that even when socialism is tempered and aligns itself in concrete policy points with Catholic teaching, it is still impossible to be a true socialist and a true Catholic simultaneously--not because of the policy points, but because of the fundamental, underlying anthropology. QA also gives a full-throated condemnation of unregulated capitalism and it's anthropological evils.
Worth a read if you haven't read it! I mention this because I'm very sympathetic to the argument you're making, Madeleine: QA helped me hone my arguments as to what we have to learn from the socialist platform, as well as what poisons we drank from the capitalist platform, whilst also being very clear why we can't hitch our wagon to either the capitalists or the socialists. Highly recommend!
Thanks for this thoughtful response, and I agree it is worth reading. But given the document will turn 100 in 5 years and is speaking about socialism as it was theorized before the second world war, it may also be ripe for an update.
No, President Trump did what he promised. A number of other candidates for President were prolife but did not accomplish anything. It was a lip service issue. The problem is what was the response of the Church? It was almost silence at the time of the overturning of Roe v Wade. Instead, we focused on criticism of other admin policies and later tried to give an award to a pro-choice senator -- to say nothing of the abortionist democrats we give communion. In the end, the issue was turned to over to the states: what did we do there? That is why abortion numbers did not change, why we lost our voice at the table, and why the pro-choice side is inching back.
The real issue is that many Catholics still love the Democrat party, but the party has become too evil to support publicly. However, we do not really try to support those that take up the abortion cause on the Republican side. We hold it out as a safe issue to preach against so as to avoid other topics. It is like the Baptist preacher who only focuses on the Catholic church across town.
I agree with Lipinski on this. Republicans like me absolutely need to be willing to criticize the administration on failing to support pro-life policies - noting that the other party is even worse isn't enough.
That doesn't mean we need to join the shrill anti-Trump cacophony, and we won't (or at least I won't - I'm just a rando on the internet who doesn't speak for anyone else. But I don't know anyone among my conservative friends who doesn't feel the same way.)
There's a caveat ... the article talks about laws and taxpayer funding, but says nothing about crisis pregnancy centers. I've personally long felt that passing laws against abortion was unlikely to be a winning strategy. Reversing Roe after half a century was a good thing in its way, but too little too late. So I've preferred to direct my own pro-life efforts to supporting pregnancy centers that assist women, often in pretty dire straits, in keeping their babies, rather than political battles. (I respect those who do fight those battles, they have stronger stomachs than me.)
Sadly, the Democrats are so bat--- crazy that they even go after these, e.g., Hochul in NY and Pritzker in IL. One center that I support has been forced to spend large amounts in legal fees to fight off requirements that they provide abortion information to women, which obviously in conscience they cannot do. I at least don't expect this kind of malice from Trump/Vance.
One question to the author ... you call yourself "one of the last pro-life Democrats", as of 2020. Are there any left today? Genuinely curious, as I'm not aware of any.
It would be ironic, and welcome, if Trump's drift away from pro-life principles were to become the catalyst for the Democratic party's return to sanity.
I feel very similarly to pretty much everything you wrote here. (While I'm not registered with a party, I've historically generally fell more sympathetically towards Republicans.)
I believe that Dan Lipinski was the last elected Democrat in the House, and he was hounded out in the beginning of this decade. There still are folks in the party who are pro-life, namely Democrats for Life: DFLA - Pro-Life for the Whole Life - Democrats For Life of America https://share.google/sRkxk5YYUZ5JTmRr3
You mean pro-life Democrat. He was. I was a charter member of DFLA but they have absolutely no power in the party now. The Democrats have gone completely pro-abortion.
You’re well rid of Congress, Mr. Lipinski—how much better it must be for your family especially—but many people miss having you in the House.
The extinction of pro-life Democrats—a process that entered its final phase with the shunning of the elder Bob Casey—is an awful shame and has been bad for both major parties, as well as the country as a whole. (And the unborn most of all of course.)
I would say they died on Palm Sunday 2010. If I remember correctly it was roll call 166 and 21 Democrats joined the Republicans to remove abortion from Obamacare. They lost and so did most of the sell outs in the next election.
I would say not. There is no abortion in Obamacare, but it was the largest expansion in American history of abortion free health insurance. Nevertheless, the House had added even more pro-life protections than were in the Senate bill. However, sadly Senator Ted Kennedy died and was replaced by Republican Scott Brown. Speaker Pelosi asked that the House bill with additional pro-life provisions be allowed a Senate vote. With Brown, the GOP had the votes to filibuster and turned Pelosi down. The House was then left with the option of passing the Senate bill or getting nothing. Nevertheless, Obamacare has resulted in over a million unborn lives saved.
I can't seem to access House vote 166 of 2010 at the moment but in fact Obamacare allowed riders that covered abortion. I am well aware that the Senate lost its filibuster proof majority and therefore the House was left to either approve the greatly inferior Senate bill or wait until they could again come up with an acceptable bill. My understanding is that the Republicans are once again trying to get abortion out of Obamacare. May they succeed this time.
Yes. They could either allow it to go forward without any abortion restrictions, restrictions which Mr. Obama said his administration would put into effect even though they weren't in the law itself, or they could force the Senate to decide whether or not to pass the bill with abortion restrictions. His word was as good as the paper it was (not) written on.
I don't disagree with this article, but as I noted in another article's comments today the total number of times I have ever seen anyone in the pro-life movement criticize Trump (or Vance) is miniscule. When he and Vance publicly spoke out in favor of mifepristone and expanding IVF during the campaign there was almost no coverage in the pro-life press, and even less condemnation. Even within the conservative Christian movement, there is way more energy towards defending the Greenland stuff or ICE in Minneapolis than any kind of abortion issue.
It is interesting that MAGA supporters have thrown former Vice President Mike Pence into the gutter for certifying the 2020 elections (right or wrong), but I think it was Pence all along who kept Trump's judicial agenda pro-life in his first term, along with the use of the Heritage Foundation which found for Trump the right pro-life judges to pick for the federal bench. Like Pence or not, he was firmly pro-life not just in his politics, but in his personal beliefs (as Governor of Indiana he is the one who pushed through a wonderful law banning abortion of disabled children, which was the most anyone could do with Roe vs Wade in place at the time). His choice for VP by Trump made me change my mind on Trump in 2016, though now I see Trump never left his liberal New York Rockefeller Republican roots.
However, pro-lifers should not be too enthusiastic about the Trump choices for Supreme Court justices either. The only truly and completely pro-life and pro-marriage justices are Bush Senior nominee Clarence Thomas and Bush Junior nominee Samuel Alito. Thomas and Alito were willing to go beyond Roe vs. Wade and hinted at banning abortion altogether in the United States. The wishy washy pro-life Trump nominees for the Supreme Court have been a disappointment overall, with Neil Gorsuch even helping enshrine homosexual marriage as a Constitutional right based on the legal ban on sexual discrimination, though I doubt any legal scholar in the 1960's or before thought sexual discrimination referred to homosexuals, instead of just women.
It was mostly to the Federalist Society's credit, not Heritage, that the first-term nominees were so competent and sound, with good judicial smarts and temperaments.
(The president swore he wouldn't make that mistake again if he was returned to office...and with nominees like Bove on the 3rd Circuit, you'd have to say he's been true to his word. That's where the Thing That Used To Be Heritage has really come into play, providing all the cover they can for most every hard turn away from Reagan-descended conservatism and into kakistocratic wannabe-authoritarian excess in this exhausting new term.)
Bostock may have been a significant misstep--not in the same league as a Roe in terms of preposterousness and judicial activism though, and it's too early to tell what the full consequences will be. (Depends a lot on the other branches' choices honestly. Which it probably should.)
There's been much to like from the Trump-nominated Justices; and as fond as I've been of Thomas over the years, they've certainly been more effective than he and Alito have been in steering things in the right direction. And Barrett seems stellar to me.
Thanks for this piece. Totally agree. I didn’t see you mention it but the administration’s stance on IVF is also abhorrent (and not pro-life at all, despite the optics). God bless!
We live near DC and attend most years. I was unable to attend last year, and my teenaged chlld did. The teen told me today, as we reserved our seats for tomorrow: "Last year, it was a bit too Trumpish for me."
So - What should my hand-held sign say? "I'm here for babies, not for Trump"? I am serious - I am still (charitably?) fuming over the idiotic "We're going to take Greenland" not-very-pro-life blustering.
This article would be more credible if Mr. Lipinski hadn't surrendered to the LGBTQ+ lobby when he was in a tough re-election battle in 2019. It's always easier to speak truth when out of office or not running. I must admit, I was once respected him a lot, but, that diminished when he collapsed on a major moral issue. Has he repented for that?
I supported Mr. Lipinski and applauded him, even shook his hand, when he spoke at one of our daughter's graduation from Ave Maria University, where he was commencement speaker. Then, he flip flopped on legistation pushed by the LGBTQ lobby. The so-called Equality Act would have amended the 1964 Civil Rights Act to explicitly include sexual orientation and gender identity. I, many others and many of the Ave Maria University community were deeply disappointed. Mr. Lipinski is right, Mr. Vance should be sent a strong message. Yet, does he propose sending strong messages to Governor Newsom (running for president) or Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Biden (when they were in or running for office) or other Catholic office holders and candidates? If so, he should be all inclusive.
Lipinski, a Democrat politician criticizing Vance, a Republican politician, with no apparent self-criticism or criticism of his own party seems to be not forthcoming and a double-standard. It's always easier to criticize from the sidelines rather than when still in the "game," so to speak. ("So to speak" only because these important issues are not games. Marriage is marriage and life is life.)
FYI I was a Democrat for a number of years, as were my parents and grandparents (some immigrants). I was a member of Democrats for Life for a number of years and was a third-generation Union member when still in the secular vocation from which I retired.
I've been fighting for life since Roe v. Wade was imposed on the nation when I was high school.
Some of the content of Mr. Lipinski's piece is true. But, is there another, hidden, agenda, for taking a verbal shot at Vance and remaining silent about his own record and those of other fellow Catholic Democrats?
Also, I know of no one who is prolife who believes "being pro-life first-and-foremost means supporting J.D. Vance and Donald Trump no matter what they do" or that "support for access to mifepriston... must be 'pro-life,' or in some way compatible with being pro-life." Those who value the lives of preborn babies and their mothers are not that naive or ignorant.
Whether or not there many pro-lifers who actually consciously believe that "being pro-life first-and-foremost means supporting J.D. Vance and Donald Trump no matter what they do"...there are very, very, very many whose political choices and arguments would hardly be any different if they did.
Mr. James, there simply are not many pro-lifers who believe that being pro-life means supporting Mr. Trump or Mr. Vance "no matter what they do." This is a fact. Can you name even a small number who do? As I said, I know none and I've been involved in this fight for life for over half a century. We should be Christians first, not partisans. Truth should be spoken to all in power or running for office, regardless of their political party.
Yes, I could name people I know personally whose political loyalties, and how they express them, would look no different from the outside if that were what they believed.
(Please do note that that's how I phrased it, and I did so purposefully. Few people wake up in the morning and ask themselves, "how can I be a blindly partisan advocate for the leaders of my party today?" Or at least, few people outside the greater D.C. area.)
Giving names would of course not be at all fitting in a public forum, even if I also took pains to describe the various ways in which they are more accomplished and more virtuous human beings than I am.
For each of them are, in assorted ways. I am smarter than they are about some things, dumber than they are about some other things, and superior to none of them.
Let me turn this around: Can you name anyone in the prolife movement who have criticized this Administration for its support of IVF, chemical abortion and the like? How many people have been arrested protesting at Mar-a-Lago or attempting to crash the State of the Union address? Go to Frank Pavone's Facebook page and see his full support of Donald Trump and "IVF and mifepriston is just a distraction."
SPM, in answer to your question, in addition to those Tony mentioned:
Marjorie Dannenfelser of the Susan B. Anthony List, Judie Brown of the American Life League, others and the US bishops have criticized the Trump administration. After Mr. Trump indicated support for IVF, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) voiced strong objections, stating that "IVF subverts the dignity of parents as well as the lives of unborn children."
A significant number, it seems a vast majority, of prolife leaders have been critical of Mr. Trump and his backpedaling on the issues of life.
Pray for Mr. Pavone. His thoughts are really irrelevant at this time.
At a certain level, we operate in a 2 party system. Should we support the Democrats instead? Just yesterday, the Trump admin did away, by regulation, research conducted with aborted fetal tissue. I almost never see here acknowledgement of the things that admin gets right such as this. My general impression here is that most are looking for some reason to justify their anti-Trump view. It's as if we are saying "see he's not good anyway, now I can go back to loving social justice Democrats"
I do think some form of the splintering of the pro-life movement post Dobbs has always been inevitable, and is separate from the Trump phenomena. The "anti-Roe" movement papered over differences among what people actually meant when they called themselves pro-life -- some were more coming from the "abortion is wrong because we want people to have more children" perspective (hence the acceptance of IVF); some viewed abortion as a serious-choice-but-not-intrinsically-murder (hence the acceptance of hardship cases), and the Catholic position - that a true human child with inviolable rights exists from the moment of conception - was always a minority group within the pro-life movement.
My guess is that much of what we are seeing is greater visibility of those pre-existing differences; and only a minority is people who were previously "Catholic pro-life" becoming something else.
"I know of no one who is prolife who believes "being pro-life first-and-foremost means supporting J.D. Vance and Donald Trump no matter what they do" or that "support for access to mifepriston... must be 'pro-life,' or in some way compatible with being pro-life."
I can easily list over 200 in my "middle America" parish right now who meet that description. I dropped our parish support for our local "pro life" organization since they supported IVF and mifepriston. Literally, at the annual banquet last fall all the speakers said "if Trump says it is ok it is a good thing and automatically pro life."
It is virtually impossible to find anyone who has not adopted this administration's anti-life viewpoints. How many have been arrested protesting at Mar-a-Lago? There has been complete silence from pro-life organizations.
-------------
EDIT: Let me clarify a bit. There are certainly many very strong pro-life people who are clearly focused on that. Of that, there is no doubt. However, there are also far more who are "pro-life" only so far as it provides cover for their other beliefs.
Ten plus years ago I was a frequent commenter on "Father Z's" blog and this included Trump's first primary run. It was amazing to see people shift from "it is absolutely impossible to vote for someone who isn't 100% pro-life" to when it came to Trump, "Well, abortion isn't that big a deal; abortion really isn't a federal issue; it should really be left up to the person." It would be a mistake to believe that viewpoint is not common.
We have an element that thinks it should be legally to fire an employee just because they are gay but have no problem with a twice divorced philanderer giving the biggest job in the country.
I am confused by the responses to this article. Trying to compare the failures of the Republican Party to be steadfastly pro-life and the Democrat Party which promotes and celebrates death for the child in the womb from conception to the moment of a desired birth is disingenuous and ridiculous. The Democratic Party also promotes euthanasia and assisted suicide for the elderly, sick, depressed and disabled. This ugly sin, with it's false understanding of mercy and love is quickly spreading.
What is needed is not more government involvement in family life, but a strengthening of the value of the the family; father, mother and children all sacrificing and working together out of a shared goal fueled by faith and love.
These values are totally missing in the platform of the democratic party.
"He sounded interested and even concerned. I thought he had been touched by what the doctor and advocates in the meeting had just shared about their journey with their patients and their own family members. But I was wrong.
“Those people . . . ” Donald said, trailing off. “The shape they’re in, all the expenses, maybe those kinds of people should just die.”
I truly did not know what to say. He was talking about expenses. We were talking about human lives. For Donald, I think it really was about the expenses, even though we were there to talk about efficiencies, smarter investments, and human dignity."
You also have to stand for something. Sitting back and simply saying, "they are both bad", doesn't work. The Democrats promote open evil such as trans therapy for kids, lgbt agenda, and racist BLM philosophy. Meanwhile, much of the Republican side is against this, and the data is showing that their economics are actually helping lower wage workers. One has to take a stand and support those on the better side, voicing disagreement when necessary.
Agree, furthermore, many here are looking for more consistency out of the Republican party than the Church itself is providing. When we have hierarchy who say abortion is just one prolife issue among many, and, btw, we should give an award to a pro-choice senator -- what message does that send to the political class? We have now had two popes who criticized the Trump administration. Were any popes as critical of the last few Democrat presidents -- despite actions such as suing the Little Sisters of the Poor? I can't remember that.
Are you ever planning an article in which you address the pressures politicians have which results in them voting against their own conscience?
"Lipinski tried to walk a middle ground on gay rights, saying he supports same-sex marriage “because it has been declared the law of the land,” then adding: “Personally, I don’t support it, but that doesn’t matter in how I vote.”"
Please pray for those at the National March for Life today. Pope Leo addressed them with this message:
"I send warm greetings to those of you participating in the 2026 March for Life. I likewise express heartfelt appreciation, and assure you of my spiritual closeness as you gather for this eloquent public witness to affirm that “the protection of the right to life constitutes the indispensable foundation of every other human right” (Address to Members of the Diplomatic Corps Accredited to the Holy See, 9 January 2026).
Indeed, “a society is healthy and truly progresses only when it safeguards the sanctity of human life and works actively to promote it” (ibid.). In this regard, I would encourage you, especially the young people, to continue striving to ensure that life is respected in all of its stages through appropriate efforts at every level of society, including dialogue with civil and political leaders.
May Jesus, who promised to be with us always (cf. Mt 28:20), accompany you today as you courageously and peacefully march on behalf of unborn children. By advocating for them, please know that you are fulfilling the Lord’s command to serve him in the least of our brothers and sisters (cf. Mt 25:31-46)."
The pro-life movement’s focus on political solutions has caused minds to darken and hearts to harden towards the vulnerable in our society. More women and more babies are suffering because of prominent and public Catholics and institutions who claim to be Catholic continue to serve the Political Bully who gets things done rather than the Faith.
There are now more abortions than ever. Overturning Roe was not a win for babies in the womb, nor their moms, because Republicans know nothing about winning hearts nor growing spines. Their love of money and power is, indeed, the root of all evil, and when challenged they repeat the sin of Adam — blame the other guy. They are made in the image and likeness of DJT.
It’s time for the Pro-life movement to focus on helping babies by helping mothers!
Agreed on the last point, but do not discount that much of the movement has been doing that work already! It would be awesome to see the number of pregnancy crisis/care centers double!
Unfortunately, the nation is still divided on abortion. You might consider that making overturning abortion a main issue for the first Trump admin was considered a risky move politically. After making the overturning of Roe v Wade a priority, what was the response of the Catholic hierarchy? Unjust criticism of the administration on immigration control, a policy that is supported by most Ameicans and even Catholic catechism. Furthermore, we have a cardinal who wants to give a prize to a staunch abortionist senator flying in the face of our supposed beliefs. So, what do we expect? If the Church cannot provide a small amount of gratitude to those that help their cause and also demonstrate moral consistency, we lose our credibility and our voice at the table.
Thanks for your public and personal efforts over the years, and for penning this piece! God bless.
Could not agree more. It frankly makes me sick to see sincere Catholics continuing to cling to a party and administration that has become indefensible
"The pro-life movement has clearly lost influence in the Trump Administration. Its remaining political power lies in its voice of moral authority and its dedicated activists and voters."
Any remaining moral authority of the prolife "movement" was lost when they threw in their lot with Trump in 2016 in the first place.
For what shall it profit a man to gain Dobbs but lose his soul?
Genuine policy that advances human dignity should no longer be pursued under the politically noxious and compromised term "prolife."
Having had the opportunity lately to take some courses on the Old Testament, multiple parallels with Israel hitching their wagons to corrupt kings and foolish alliances—and how those moves backfired, getting them the opposite of what they were after in the end—spring quickly to mind.
Abortions are significantly up since 2016, and are edging back up post-Dobbs. I am almost as unsurprised as I am heartbroken.
Couldn't agree more.
My goodness, how wonderful would it be if America could adopt a robust family policy to support families, mothers, and children for years to come? People don’t realize that so much more is possible.
Apparently some do, and they're socialists in NYC. A thought worth pondering.
The Church is opposed to socialism, but it is admirable that they pursue that! Some European countries have family policies and I don’t know that all of them are socialist. Would be interesting to look into.
If socialists are getting it done with policies that support human dignity and the "pull yourselves up by your bootstraps but hands off my kleptocracy" crowd are doing the opposite, I think a simple "Church opposes socialism" is outdated and overly simplistic.
It's an interesting question! The Pius XI encyclical Quadragesimo Anno actually directly addresses this, where it describes that even when socialism is tempered and aligns itself in concrete policy points with Catholic teaching, it is still impossible to be a true socialist and a true Catholic simultaneously--not because of the policy points, but because of the fundamental, underlying anthropology. QA also gives a full-throated condemnation of unregulated capitalism and it's anthropological evils.
Worth a read if you haven't read it! I mention this because I'm very sympathetic to the argument you're making, Madeleine: QA helped me hone my arguments as to what we have to learn from the socialist platform, as well as what poisons we drank from the capitalist platform, whilst also being very clear why we can't hitch our wagon to either the capitalists or the socialists. Highly recommend!
Thanks for this thoughtful response, and I agree it is worth reading. But given the document will turn 100 in 5 years and is speaking about socialism as it was theorized before the second world war, it may also be ripe for an update.
No, President Trump did what he promised. A number of other candidates for President were prolife but did not accomplish anything. It was a lip service issue. The problem is what was the response of the Church? It was almost silence at the time of the overturning of Roe v Wade. Instead, we focused on criticism of other admin policies and later tried to give an award to a pro-choice senator -- to say nothing of the abortionist democrats we give communion. In the end, the issue was turned to over to the states: what did we do there? That is why abortion numbers did not change, why we lost our voice at the table, and why the pro-choice side is inching back.
The real issue is that many Catholics still love the Democrat party, but the party has become too evil to support publicly. However, we do not really try to support those that take up the abortion cause on the Republican side. We hold it out as a safe issue to preach against so as to avoid other topics. It is like the Baptist preacher who only focuses on the Catholic church across town.
I agree with Lipinski on this. Republicans like me absolutely need to be willing to criticize the administration on failing to support pro-life policies - noting that the other party is even worse isn't enough.
That doesn't mean we need to join the shrill anti-Trump cacophony, and we won't (or at least I won't - I'm just a rando on the internet who doesn't speak for anyone else. But I don't know anyone among my conservative friends who doesn't feel the same way.)
There's a caveat ... the article talks about laws and taxpayer funding, but says nothing about crisis pregnancy centers. I've personally long felt that passing laws against abortion was unlikely to be a winning strategy. Reversing Roe after half a century was a good thing in its way, but too little too late. So I've preferred to direct my own pro-life efforts to supporting pregnancy centers that assist women, often in pretty dire straits, in keeping their babies, rather than political battles. (I respect those who do fight those battles, they have stronger stomachs than me.)
Sadly, the Democrats are so bat--- crazy that they even go after these, e.g., Hochul in NY and Pritzker in IL. One center that I support has been forced to spend large amounts in legal fees to fight off requirements that they provide abortion information to women, which obviously in conscience they cannot do. I at least don't expect this kind of malice from Trump/Vance.
One question to the author ... you call yourself "one of the last pro-life Democrats", as of 2020. Are there any left today? Genuinely curious, as I'm not aware of any.
It would be ironic, and welcome, if Trump's drift away from pro-life principles were to become the catalyst for the Democratic party's return to sanity.
I feel very similarly to pretty much everything you wrote here. (While I'm not registered with a party, I've historically generally fell more sympathetically towards Republicans.)
I believe that Dan Lipinski was the last elected Democrat in the House, and he was hounded out in the beginning of this decade. There still are folks in the party who are pro-life, namely Democrats for Life: DFLA - Pro-Life for the Whole Life - Democrats For Life of America https://share.google/sRkxk5YYUZ5JTmRr3
You mean pro-life Democrat. He was. I was a charter member of DFLA but they have absolutely no power in the party now. The Democrats have gone completely pro-abortion.
You’re well rid of Congress, Mr. Lipinski—how much better it must be for your family especially—but many people miss having you in the House.
The extinction of pro-life Democrats—a process that entered its final phase with the shunning of the elder Bob Casey—is an awful shame and has been bad for both major parties, as well as the country as a whole. (And the unborn most of all of course.)
I would say they died on Palm Sunday 2010. If I remember correctly it was roll call 166 and 21 Democrats joined the Republicans to remove abortion from Obamacare. They lost and so did most of the sell outs in the next election.
I would say not. There is no abortion in Obamacare, but it was the largest expansion in American history of abortion free health insurance. Nevertheless, the House had added even more pro-life protections than were in the Senate bill. However, sadly Senator Ted Kennedy died and was replaced by Republican Scott Brown. Speaker Pelosi asked that the House bill with additional pro-life provisions be allowed a Senate vote. With Brown, the GOP had the votes to filibuster and turned Pelosi down. The House was then left with the option of passing the Senate bill or getting nothing. Nevertheless, Obamacare has resulted in over a million unborn lives saved.
I can't seem to access House vote 166 of 2010 at the moment but in fact Obamacare allowed riders that covered abortion. I am well aware that the Senate lost its filibuster proof majority and therefore the House was left to either approve the greatly inferior Senate bill or wait until they could again come up with an acceptable bill. My understanding is that the Republicans are once again trying to get abortion out of Obamacare. May they succeed this time.
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2010166?RollCallNum=166
yes. Motion to recommit with instructions. But the Senate GOP would not allow a vote. So that was a vote to kill the bill.
Yes. They could either allow it to go forward without any abortion restrictions, restrictions which Mr. Obama said his administration would put into effect even though they weren't in the law itself, or they could force the Senate to decide whether or not to pass the bill with abortion restrictions. His word was as good as the paper it was (not) written on.
I don't disagree with this article, but as I noted in another article's comments today the total number of times I have ever seen anyone in the pro-life movement criticize Trump (or Vance) is miniscule. When he and Vance publicly spoke out in favor of mifepristone and expanding IVF during the campaign there was almost no coverage in the pro-life press, and even less condemnation. Even within the conservative Christian movement, there is way more energy towards defending the Greenland stuff or ICE in Minneapolis than any kind of abortion issue.
It is interesting that MAGA supporters have thrown former Vice President Mike Pence into the gutter for certifying the 2020 elections (right or wrong), but I think it was Pence all along who kept Trump's judicial agenda pro-life in his first term, along with the use of the Heritage Foundation which found for Trump the right pro-life judges to pick for the federal bench. Like Pence or not, he was firmly pro-life not just in his politics, but in his personal beliefs (as Governor of Indiana he is the one who pushed through a wonderful law banning abortion of disabled children, which was the most anyone could do with Roe vs Wade in place at the time). His choice for VP by Trump made me change my mind on Trump in 2016, though now I see Trump never left his liberal New York Rockefeller Republican roots.
However, pro-lifers should not be too enthusiastic about the Trump choices for Supreme Court justices either. The only truly and completely pro-life and pro-marriage justices are Bush Senior nominee Clarence Thomas and Bush Junior nominee Samuel Alito. Thomas and Alito were willing to go beyond Roe vs. Wade and hinted at banning abortion altogether in the United States. The wishy washy pro-life Trump nominees for the Supreme Court have been a disappointment overall, with Neil Gorsuch even helping enshrine homosexual marriage as a Constitutional right based on the legal ban on sexual discrimination, though I doubt any legal scholar in the 1960's or before thought sexual discrimination referred to homosexuals, instead of just women.
It was mostly to the Federalist Society's credit, not Heritage, that the first-term nominees were so competent and sound, with good judicial smarts and temperaments.
(The president swore he wouldn't make that mistake again if he was returned to office...and with nominees like Bove on the 3rd Circuit, you'd have to say he's been true to his word. That's where the Thing That Used To Be Heritage has really come into play, providing all the cover they can for most every hard turn away from Reagan-descended conservatism and into kakistocratic wannabe-authoritarian excess in this exhausting new term.)
Bostock may have been a significant misstep--not in the same league as a Roe in terms of preposterousness and judicial activism though, and it's too early to tell what the full consequences will be. (Depends a lot on the other branches' choices honestly. Which it probably should.)
There's been much to like from the Trump-nominated Justices; and as fond as I've been of Thomas over the years, they've certainly been more effective than he and Alito have been in steering things in the right direction. And Barrett seems stellar to me.
I agree. Barrett is amazing! She is one of my heroes!
Thanks for this piece. Totally agree. I didn’t see you mention it but the administration’s stance on IVF is also abhorrent (and not pro-life at all, despite the optics). God bless!
Yup. I wholeheartedly agree.
We live near DC and attend most years. I was unable to attend last year, and my teenaged chlld did. The teen told me today, as we reserved our seats for tomorrow: "Last year, it was a bit too Trumpish for me."
So - What should my hand-held sign say? "I'm here for babies, not for Trump"? I am serious - I am still (charitably?) fuming over the idiotic "We're going to take Greenland" not-very-pro-life blustering.
This article would be more credible if Mr. Lipinski hadn't surrendered to the LGBTQ+ lobby when he was in a tough re-election battle in 2019. It's always easier to speak truth when out of office or not running. I must admit, I was once respected him a lot, but, that diminished when he collapsed on a major moral issue. Has he repented for that?
In what way did he surrender? (Genuine question, I don't know enough about US politics)
I supported Mr. Lipinski and applauded him, even shook his hand, when he spoke at one of our daughter's graduation from Ave Maria University, where he was commencement speaker. Then, he flip flopped on legistation pushed by the LGBTQ lobby. The so-called Equality Act would have amended the 1964 Civil Rights Act to explicitly include sexual orientation and gender identity. I, many others and many of the Ave Maria University community were deeply disappointed. Mr. Lipinski is right, Mr. Vance should be sent a strong message. Yet, does he propose sending strong messages to Governor Newsom (running for president) or Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Biden (when they were in or running for office) or other Catholic office holders and candidates? If so, he should be all inclusive.
Lipinski, a Democrat politician criticizing Vance, a Republican politician, with no apparent self-criticism or criticism of his own party seems to be not forthcoming and a double-standard. It's always easier to criticize from the sidelines rather than when still in the "game," so to speak. ("So to speak" only because these important issues are not games. Marriage is marriage and life is life.)
FYI I was a Democrat for a number of years, as were my parents and grandparents (some immigrants). I was a member of Democrats for Life for a number of years and was a third-generation Union member when still in the secular vocation from which I retired.
I've been fighting for life since Roe v. Wade was imposed on the nation when I was high school.
Some of the content of Mr. Lipinski's piece is true. But, is there another, hidden, agenda, for taking a verbal shot at Vance and remaining silent about his own record and those of other fellow Catholic Democrats?
Also, I know of no one who is prolife who believes "being pro-life first-and-foremost means supporting J.D. Vance and Donald Trump no matter what they do" or that "support for access to mifepriston... must be 'pro-life,' or in some way compatible with being pro-life." Those who value the lives of preborn babies and their mothers are not that naive or ignorant.
Whether or not there many pro-lifers who actually consciously believe that "being pro-life first-and-foremost means supporting J.D. Vance and Donald Trump no matter what they do"...there are very, very, very many whose political choices and arguments would hardly be any different if they did.
Mr. James, there simply are not many pro-lifers who believe that being pro-life means supporting Mr. Trump or Mr. Vance "no matter what they do." This is a fact. Can you name even a small number who do? As I said, I know none and I've been involved in this fight for life for over half a century. We should be Christians first, not partisans. Truth should be spoken to all in power or running for office, regardless of their political party.
Yes, I could name people I know personally whose political loyalties, and how they express them, would look no different from the outside if that were what they believed.
(Please do note that that's how I phrased it, and I did so purposefully. Few people wake up in the morning and ask themselves, "how can I be a blindly partisan advocate for the leaders of my party today?" Or at least, few people outside the greater D.C. area.)
Giving names would of course not be at all fitting in a public forum, even if I also took pains to describe the various ways in which they are more accomplished and more virtuous human beings than I am.
For each of them are, in assorted ways. I am smarter than they are about some things, dumber than they are about some other things, and superior to none of them.
Let me turn this around: Can you name anyone in the prolife movement who have criticized this Administration for its support of IVF, chemical abortion and the like? How many people have been arrested protesting at Mar-a-Lago or attempting to crash the State of the Union address? Go to Frank Pavone's Facebook page and see his full support of Donald Trump and "IVF and mifepriston is just a distraction."
All the ones I'm aware of have, the ones coming to mind being Lila Rose, Michael Knowles, Students for Life, and the Virginia Catholic Conference.
Being arrested for public disturbance is typically a sign you've done something wrong...so isn't that litmus test a false one?
Frank Pavone was laicized for good cause, we should pray for his spiritual and mental health!
SPM, in answer to your question, in addition to those Tony mentioned:
Marjorie Dannenfelser of the Susan B. Anthony List, Judie Brown of the American Life League, others and the US bishops have criticized the Trump administration. After Mr. Trump indicated support for IVF, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) voiced strong objections, stating that "IVF subverts the dignity of parents as well as the lives of unborn children."
A significant number, it seems a vast majority, of prolife leaders have been critical of Mr. Trump and his backpedaling on the issues of life.
Pray for Mr. Pavone. His thoughts are really irrelevant at this time.
At a certain level, we operate in a 2 party system. Should we support the Democrats instead? Just yesterday, the Trump admin did away, by regulation, research conducted with aborted fetal tissue. I almost never see here acknowledgement of the things that admin gets right such as this. My general impression here is that most are looking for some reason to justify their anti-Trump view. It's as if we are saying "see he's not good anyway, now I can go back to loving social justice Democrats"
I do think some form of the splintering of the pro-life movement post Dobbs has always been inevitable, and is separate from the Trump phenomena. The "anti-Roe" movement papered over differences among what people actually meant when they called themselves pro-life -- some were more coming from the "abortion is wrong because we want people to have more children" perspective (hence the acceptance of IVF); some viewed abortion as a serious-choice-but-not-intrinsically-murder (hence the acceptance of hardship cases), and the Catholic position - that a true human child with inviolable rights exists from the moment of conception - was always a minority group within the pro-life movement.
My guess is that much of what we are seeing is greater visibility of those pre-existing differences; and only a minority is people who were previously "Catholic pro-life" becoming something else.
My experience is the exact opposite,
"I know of no one who is prolife who believes "being pro-life first-and-foremost means supporting J.D. Vance and Donald Trump no matter what they do" or that "support for access to mifepriston... must be 'pro-life,' or in some way compatible with being pro-life."
I can easily list over 200 in my "middle America" parish right now who meet that description. I dropped our parish support for our local "pro life" organization since they supported IVF and mifepriston. Literally, at the annual banquet last fall all the speakers said "if Trump says it is ok it is a good thing and automatically pro life."
It is virtually impossible to find anyone who has not adopted this administration's anti-life viewpoints. How many have been arrested protesting at Mar-a-Lago? There has been complete silence from pro-life organizations.
-------------
EDIT: Let me clarify a bit. There are certainly many very strong pro-life people who are clearly focused on that. Of that, there is no doubt. However, there are also far more who are "pro-life" only so far as it provides cover for their other beliefs.
Ten plus years ago I was a frequent commenter on "Father Z's" blog and this included Trump's first primary run. It was amazing to see people shift from "it is absolutely impossible to vote for someone who isn't 100% pro-life" to when it came to Trump, "Well, abortion isn't that big a deal; abortion really isn't a federal issue; it should really be left up to the person." It would be a mistake to believe that viewpoint is not common.
What's the name of your local pro-life organization that supports IVF and mifepristone?
They are not pro-life and should not be supported.
And, who said at a public banquet, "if Trump says it is ok it is a good thing and automatically pro life"?
You don't need to cover for them. These things should be brought into the light. No need for anonymity and secrecy.
We have an element that thinks it should be legally to fire an employee just because they are gay but have no problem with a twice divorced philanderer giving the biggest job in the country.
Or a multiple adulterer whose paramours have conveniently (for him and the perverticrats) “died” ????
I am confused by the responses to this article. Trying to compare the failures of the Republican Party to be steadfastly pro-life and the Democrat Party which promotes and celebrates death for the child in the womb from conception to the moment of a desired birth is disingenuous and ridiculous. The Democratic Party also promotes euthanasia and assisted suicide for the elderly, sick, depressed and disabled. This ugly sin, with it's false understanding of mercy and love is quickly spreading.
What is needed is not more government involvement in family life, but a strengthening of the value of the the family; father, mother and children all sacrificing and working together out of a shared goal fueled by faith and love.
These values are totally missing in the platform of the democratic party.
"He sounded interested and even concerned. I thought he had been touched by what the doctor and advocates in the meeting had just shared about their journey with their patients and their own family members. But I was wrong.
“Those people . . . ” Donald said, trailing off. “The shape they’re in, all the expenses, maybe those kinds of people should just die.”
I truly did not know what to say. He was talking about expenses. We were talking about human lives. For Donald, I think it really was about the expenses, even though we were there to talk about efficiencies, smarter investments, and human dignity."
https://time.com/7002003/donald-trump-disabled-americans-all-in-the-family/
One party being wrong does not make the other party not-wrong.
You also have to stand for something. Sitting back and simply saying, "they are both bad", doesn't work. The Democrats promote open evil such as trans therapy for kids, lgbt agenda, and racist BLM philosophy. Meanwhile, much of the Republican side is against this, and the data is showing that their economics are actually helping lower wage workers. One has to take a stand and support those on the better side, voicing disagreement when necessary.
If there’s anything this administration could possibly do to l
Agree, furthermore, many here are looking for more consistency out of the Republican party than the Church itself is providing. When we have hierarchy who say abortion is just one prolife issue among many, and, btw, we should give an award to a pro-choice senator -- what message does that send to the political class? We have now had two popes who criticized the Trump administration. Were any popes as critical of the last few Democrat presidents -- despite actions such as suing the Little Sisters of the Poor? I can't remember that.
Solid targeted article; weird scattershot comments. Such is politics, even amongst The Pillar folk.
Mr. Lipinski,
Are you ever planning an article in which you address the pressures politicians have which results in them voting against their own conscience?
"Lipinski tried to walk a middle ground on gay rights, saying he supports same-sex marriage “because it has been declared the law of the land,” then adding: “Personally, I don’t support it, but that doesn’t matter in how I vote.”"
Given we have in the White House a man who does not conform to Christian teaching on marriage, it would not be hard to write.
Name a recent President who has.
And name a Conservative who is not just anti gay but supports making all marriages contrary to Church teaching illegal.
That'd be cool, sign me up!
defund the office of the "First Lady"
Please pray for those at the National March for Life today. Pope Leo addressed them with this message:
"I send warm greetings to those of you participating in the 2026 March for Life. I likewise express heartfelt appreciation, and assure you of my spiritual closeness as you gather for this eloquent public witness to affirm that “the protection of the right to life constitutes the indispensable foundation of every other human right” (Address to Members of the Diplomatic Corps Accredited to the Holy See, 9 January 2026).
Indeed, “a society is healthy and truly progresses only when it safeguards the sanctity of human life and works actively to promote it” (ibid.). In this regard, I would encourage you, especially the young people, to continue striving to ensure that life is respected in all of its stages through appropriate efforts at every level of society, including dialogue with civil and political leaders.
May Jesus, who promised to be with us always (cf. Mt 28:20), accompany you today as you courageously and peacefully march on behalf of unborn children. By advocating for them, please know that you are fulfilling the Lord’s command to serve him in the least of our brothers and sisters (cf. Mt 25:31-46)."