If the case is as it seems to be and the newest generation of voters is simultaneously more wounded, jaded, and emotionally immature than ever before — then a different pro-life messaging approach is needed — one which might abstract the issue.
America is facing a crisis of empathy.
Perhaps not unrelatedly, the pro-life movement has found itself fighting an uphill battle in its public messaging.
Most pro-life messaging can be broken down into two main approaches. The first approach seeks to appeal to young mothers contemplating having an abortion and to support them in their decision to choose life. The second approach is broader and seeks to address the culture, particularly those of voting age, and represent the pro-life position in a compelling and informative way.
Overall, the first angle of the pro-life message seems to be producing reasonable success. Total rates of surgical abortions are declining — an effect which is likely due in part to a number of states having some manner of restrictions on the practice, as well as the advent of medication-induced abortions, which have gained popularity in recent years. Importantly, though, this decrease in surgical abortions is also attributable in no small part to the messaging efforts and the tremendously impactful interpersonal encounters that pro-life volunteers have with women considering abortion.
However, in respect to the second angle that pro-life messaging must now also confront — messaging to the voting-age population — success has been much harder to come by. Since The Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in the summer of 2022, the number of states that codified pro-abortion legislation by general election proposition is shocking. In 2024, these voters were in Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, Missouri, and Montana. In 2023, it was Ohioans. In 2022, it was residents in California, Michigan, and Vermont who approved pro-abortion legislation, as well as voters in Kansas, Kentucky, and Montana who vetoed pro-life protections.
In a dozen cases across 11 states, a majority of voters rejected the pro-life position and either implicitly or explicitly voted in favor of abortion. Some of these states, like California, are not much of a surprise. However, others, like solid-red Ohio, Missouri, and Montana, are concerning indicators that current pro-life messaging is failing to do its job. Add to that the fact that successful pro-life propositions occurred at barely one-quarter of the rate of losses. Nebraska, South Dakota, and Florida — these are the only successes that pro-lifers have to celebrate in the almost three years since the fall of Roe. For context, even in ruby-red Florida, the 60% threshold to pass pro-abortion legislation was short by only 3 points. In a state that broke for Trump at 56%, 57% of Floridians voting in favor of abortion is an extremely concerning number to consider.
It’s clear that current pro-life messaging is lacking something. But what might this missing ingredient be?
To attempt an initial diagnosis, pro-life apologists must come to terms with the fact that there is a substantive shift that occurred with the newest generation entering today’s polling booths. These generations have been formed by an ethos for which there is no precedent in human history. Thanks to a digital mindscape they’ve grown up in, many are jaded and scarred by what they, too often accurately, perceive as a hostile and indifferent world.
This has the all-too-natural consequence of numbing one’s tendency towards the natural sense of empathy that humans normally would have upon seeing or being told of a vulnerable member of the species. Many, as a result, tend not to respond in the same way to empathy-based pro-life messaging as those in previous generations might have. In fact, some reflexively react to this type of messaging in an emotionally immature way, resenting the emotional appeals that this messaging tends to take, and rejecting the claims out of hand as a result.
This is not the only causality behind this modern phenomenon, though. Correlations between dopamine interruptions and significantly decreased capacities for empathy are emerging in scientific literature — a fact which is sad but expected in a culture with so many men addicted to the digital demon of pornography.
A third order of causality can also be explored when one considers the fact that Americans of both sexes have and are growing up in record numbers in homes where they are the only child or where there are no young children around as they mature. This lack of experiencing the vulnerable incarnationality of an infant as a child or young adult — this, too, leaves empathetic pathways in the mind undeveloped. Add to this yet another angle: more and more of this new voting generation have come of age in broken homes — families where the original parents are unknown, divorced, separated, or unloving. Differences in circumstances abound, but the effect is the same … fewer tend to have positive associations with their parents and the concepts of marriage and parenthood than ever before.
This is the new voting frontier that the pro-life movement must confront. These generalities do not include every member of a group, but they likely encompass more young voters in their applicability than ever before. They are true in the only real sense that generalities can be true — as general claims substantiated by broadly perceived causes and correlations. And, at this moment, the trajectory that America is currently on seems like it will only produce more voters in this same mold.
It’s essential to clarify that what is meant here by empathy is not merely some emotional characterization. No — real empathy is a human response to a human reality. Real empathy is holding an infant in one’s arms and saying this one, this only-just-begun human life must be protected. And I must be the one to do it, for as long as I am in this position — and then extending this approach to life still inside the womb as well.
But how can one communicate this to an increasingly un-empathetic generation? One man, Hadley Arkes, a noted legal commentator and head of the James Wilson Institute, proposed a unique idea. In the lead-up to the November election cycle last year, Arkes suggested that “only natural law can revitalize the pro-life cause.” Perhaps in light of the losses the movement suffered in that election cycle, we should take a closer look at his recommendation and see how it might be applied.
If the case is as it seems to be and the newest generation of voters is simultaneously more wounded, jaded, and emotionally immature than ever before — then a different pro-life messaging approach is needed — one which might abstract the issue. Arguing in favor of life from the standpoint that it is the basis for the continuation of civilization, that this is a noble and honorable thing, and that this is a just cause that is worth fighting for may impact and appeal to the mind on a different, perhaps more appreciable level.
It is true that reasoned appeals such as these are more likely to be persuasive to men than women, and for this reason, they shouldn’t necessarily become the only messaging approach that the pro-life movement takes. But, for too long, pro-life messaging has been very female-centric. Understandably so, to a degree, since until recently, individual encounters, rather than overall vote totals, were of primary concern for pro-life activists. But in a post-Roe landscape, developing majority coalitions will be key, not just for winning elections, but for ensuring the continued coherence and momentum of a movement that is now struggling to assert and define itself in the wake of its almost unexpected success in 2022.
At the end of the day, the pro-life movement needs more people. It needs young, energized voters and activists. And most of all, like any movement that seeks success, it requires men. And men today need a movement, something to fight for that will ennoble them and elevate them from their current state.
As pro-life Americans, let’s begin today to communicate in a compelling way, to develop truly effective coalitions, and finally to build a winning movement.
(This article was originally published in New Guard Press, on April 26th, 2025, and is here reprinted with permission).
