Critical Common Ground in Medical Tragedies

Ever since Roe was overturned, we’ve seen a number of news stories where women have tragically died due to pregnancy complications or complications from an abortion. Abortion advocacy groups and sympathetic media outlets are quick to blame these deaths on state abortion restrictions, whether or not those restrictions actually had any effect on their care.

We recently had Monica Snyder from Secular Pro-Life on our podcast to discuss these cases. I highly recommend listening to that episode if you haven’t already, as I consider this article to be a companion/response to the podcast. Really, I’m just running a highlighter over a theme that’s been on my mind for many months now: many of these tragedies aren’t the result of abortion restrictions; they’re the result of a broken system that pro-choice liberals already agree is broken.

Estimated reading time: 9 minutes

We Need Better Representatives

It’s our responsibility to hold politicians to a higher standard.

Tomorrow, Vice President JD Vance will be headlining the March for Life rally, and I’m really concerned about what that says about our movement.

You see, the March for Life isn’t like voting. I can understand a pro-life person looking at the two options available in the 2024 presidential election, and making the pragmatic decision to vote for the candidates who had the best chance of protecting prenatal lives. Elections are often a lot like trolley problems, where there are no perfect options that involve no one being hurt.

The March for Life, on the other hand, is our biggest opportunity to represent our cause to the world. We have the opportunity to spotlight our best aspects, while also signaling to an administration that’s been wobbly on core pro-life issues like the Hyde amendment, IVF, and early abortion restrictions that we’re more than just a guaranteed voting block that will give them a rally stage and accolades for doing the bare minimum.

Photo by Gage Skidmore

Estimated reading time: 10 minutes

What We All Have In Common

Charlie Kirk was shot and killed yesterday. His wife, Erika, lost her husband yesterday. His two children, both under the age of five, lost their daddy yesterday. Lord, have mercy.

I was on Twitter yesterday between when he was shot and when he was pronounced dead, looking at how people were responding, and I saw exactly what I expected. There were a few left-leaning people saying really ugly things—celebrating that he got shot, or saying that he deserved it. There were some right-leaning people saying ugly things about left-leaning people as a whole—that they’re all celebrating this, that shooting people for their ideas is what the left does. But the vast majority was left-leaning and right-leaning people both saying that nobody deserves to be a victim of political violence, naming Charlie’s and his family’s humanity, and hoping he would survive.

We have real, weighty disagreements with one another in this country—on abortion, and on any number of other extremely important things. It’s important not to minimize or ignore that. But it’s also vitally important to see what we do have in common. If you lean right politically, hear a fellow conservative say: Left-leaning people abhor shooting people for their political beliefs just like we do. That’s not a left thing or a right thing, that’s a human thing.

There are a few crazy people on the left who like political violence, and a few more who say things that sound like they like it because they want to be edgy and get views. There are also a few crazy people on the right who like political violence, and a few more who say things that sound like they like it because they want to be edgy and get views. Don’t let the crazy people pit the rest of us against one another. We have enough things to be divided over without adding this one vital thing that we’re actually on the same side on.

Get Ready. IVF Confusion is Coming.

On February 18, 2025, President Trump signed the executive order “Expanding Access to In Vitro Fertilization,” setting off a firestorm of comments, criticisms, and confusion among pro-life and pro-choice people alike. “We want to make it easier for mothers and fathers to have babies, not harder, you know that…that includes supporting the availability of fertility treatments like IVF in every state in America,” Trump said on the campaign trail last spring. “I strongly support the availability of IVF for couples who are trying to have a precious, little, beautiful baby.”

It’s not hard to see why Americans overwhelmingly believe access to IVF is a good thing. I mean, Trump is right; IVF means that more couples can have more babies! What’s the problem with that?! So pro-choice people (and even some pro-life people) are incredibly confused why Trump’s Executive Order just 30 days into his presidency didn’t make us pop the champagne. 

By us, I mean Rebecca, Emily, and our awesome ERI Affiliate Groups who researched and brainstormed how to effectively respond to the bewildered looks we’ve been getting on college campuses. Rebecca and I co-wrote this article, but really the credit goes to our awesome Affiliate Group members. The pro-choice train of thought we all thought through together goes something like “Isn’t more babies exactly what pro-lifers want? But they don’t support IVF?! Oh, so it really IS just about controlling women’s bodies and sex lives after all…” Here’s what we found.

Estimated reading time: 16 minutes

Is It Okay to Find Edge Cases Challenging?

Tell me if this story sounds familiar— you’re going about your day, maybe tapping through your friends’ Instagram stories or scrolling through funny cat videos on TikTok, when you see a headline in bold print:

“PRO-LIFE LAW CAUSES HORRIFIC CHAIN OF EVENTS”

You’re strongly pro-life. You’ve taken the Equipped for Life Course, led a pro-life student or church group, or even currently work full time for an anti-abortion organization. But, you read the details, and for at least a moment, everything you believe starts to tilt. You’re no longer sure if you’re on the right side of this issue. 

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes