The anti-abortion movement in the United States has long been a contentious and divisive issue, with passionate advocates on both sides of the debate. However, recent events have highlighted a growing divide within the movement itself.
Traditionally, the anti-abortion movement has been united in its goal to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide in 1973. But in recent years, a new faction has emerged within the movement, advocating for a more incremental approach to restricting abortion access.
This divide was on full display at the annual March for Life rally in Washington, D.C. on January 22nd. While the event typically draws tens of thousands of anti-abortion activists, this year’s attendance was noticeably lower. This was due in part to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, but also because of a split in the movement over the strategy for achieving their shared goal.
On one side are those who believe in a more aggressive approach, pushing for immediate and total bans on abortion. This group, often referred to as “abolitionists,” sees any compromise as a betrayal of their cause. They argue that incremental measures, such as restrictions on late-term abortions or defunding Planned Parenthood, are not enough and only serve to legitimize the practice of abortion.
On the other side are those who advocate for a more pragmatic approach, recognizing the political realities and limitations of the current landscape. This group, known as “incrementalists,” believes that small victories, such as passing laws that require waiting periods or parental consent for minors seeking abortions, can eventually lead to the ultimate goal of overturning Roe v. Wade.
The divide between these two factions has become increasingly apparent in recent years, with tensions coming to a head during the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. While both were seen as conservative and potentially sympathetic to the anti-abortion cause, some in the movement opposed their nominations due to their perceived lack of commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade.
This divide has also played out in state legislatures, with some states passing strict abortion bans while others focus on more incremental measures. This has led to a patchwork of laws across the country, further highlighting the divide within the movement.
Despite these differences, both sides of the anti-abortion movement remain committed to their ultimate goal of ending legal abortion in the United States. And while the divide may cause some tension and disagreement, it also reflects the diversity of opinions and approaches within the movement.
As the debate over abortion continues to rage on, it is clear that the anti-abortion movement is not a monolithic entity, but rather a complex and multifaceted movement with differing perspectives and strategies. Only time will tell which approach will ultimately prove successful in achieving their shared goal.
