Election night. After weeks of hearing from almost every major pollster that this election would be unprecedently close and maybe wouldn’t be called for days, it just…wasn’t. It wasn’t close at all. Harris supporters are reeling, and it’s probably no surprise to you that college campuses are a rough place to be right now. That’s why we turned to our ERI Affiliate Groups—local pro-life clubs, many on college campuses—to brainstorm: how should we pro-lifers be handling conversations with pro-choice people in the aftermath?
So yes, Rebecca Carlson and Emily Geiger co-wrote this article, but our incredibly thoughtful students deserve to be in the byline too. They’re out there every day, on the front lines engaging directly with thousands of pro-choice people, and this article came out of their experience and ideas.
Photo by The Now Time
Estimated reading time: 19 minutes
Emotions are high
We started our brainstorming session with our Affiliate Group members by thinking about how pro-choice people feel about a Trump victory. And the answers they came up with on one hand aren’t surprising, but on the other hand they’re a huge culture shock. Many pro-choice people are genuinely feeling extremely anxious and deeply grieved. And some pro-life people around them—especially on the internet—are being jerks about it, mocking their very real pain, and rubbing the election outcome in their faces. And that backdrop is going to be present in every conversation pro-choice people have about abortion, at least for the next few weeks, and maybe longer. That means they’re very likely to walk into the conversation either feeling defensive (afraid you’re going to be like the pro-life people they’ve seen being jerks about their pain) or feeling aggressive (looking to vent their anger at those people—and at Trump—on you), or both. That’s…quite the cocktail to try to pull a good dialogue out of.
So the first question we asked our club members was whether to wait a while (and how long) before even trying to have these conversations. And the answer we converged on is, “It depends.” For a traditional ERI-style “Should Abortion Remain Legal?” poll where you’re expecting to get into conversations with strangers about the philosophy of the best pro-life and pro-choice arguments, we recommend waiting around two to three weeks. Wait just long enough that emotions have cooled down a bit, but do it soon enough that people are still passionately motivated to come talk about abortion.
For a conversation with someone you’re close with, or with someone you know who brings up the topic themselves, I think how soon it makes sense to engage in that conversation depends on your relationship with the person, how well you think they’re likely to be able to engage with you, and how prepared you feel to extend genuine empathy to hurting pro-choice people and assertively set boundaries with any aggressive pro-choice people.
But whenever and however you get into the conversation—whether it’s at a tabling event two weeks from now or at a coffee shop with a pro-choice friend two days from now—the conversation itself is going to look different for a while too. Given how a lot of pro-choice people are feeling, we asked our Affiliate Group members to help us brainstorm ways to reduce tensions once we’re actually in the conversation.
Creating clarity
The first group of ideas was basically all the usual dialogue tips ERI talks about for creating clarity, but on steroids:
- Listen actively to the pro-choice person: ask genuine clarification questions as they’re explaining what they think, and then ask if you can summarize their view back to them to see if you got it right. Care deeply about understanding where they’re coming from, and make it clear to them that you care deeply about understanding where they’re coming from.
- Spend some extra time—even beyond what you would spend in a pre-election dialogue—explaining any and all common ground you have with their thoughts, especially with the things that are making them the most concerned and bringing up strong emotions for them.
- Say what you’re not saying. People are more prone to misunderstanding you when they’re feeling emotional, so proactively look for the places they’re most likely to misunderstand and clarify them in advance. “I’m not saying X. I’m saying Y.”
Extending empathy
The second set of ideas the group came up with centered on caring for the pro-choice person. We think it’s important to be even more intentional than usual with your body language and tone of voice. If you feel a pull toward contempt for the pain many pro-choice people are in this week, you have some heart work to do before the conversation so that you can approach them with genuine compassion. If that means it takes a couple weeks before you’re ready to have these conversations, that’s totally fine. It’s worth the wait to be able to approach the conversation with genuine kindness.
It’s important to be able to empathize with and validate pro-choice people’s emotions as real and painful, even if you don’t agree with the perception of facts that’s bringing up those emotions. You probably don’t think Trump will seize totalitarian power and the 2028 election won’t exist. I don’t think so either. But imagine if you did think that. I expect you would feel devastated and terrified. And I expect that no one who contemptuously dismissed your feelings instead of kindly acknowledging them and caring that you’re in pain would have any chance of convincing you of anything.
Responding to bad behavior
And last, we talked about the importance of caring for yourself, especially in conversations where people may be angry at you. We recommend having tighter boundaries than usual around tolerating bad behavior in a dialogue for the next few weeks. It’s totally fine for a pro-choice person to feel upset, but it’s not okay for them to verbally attack you or yell at you. You’re a human being, and you matter too. And it’s not ultimately kind to them to let them use you as a metaphorical punching bag. Sometimes if someone starts the conversation a little heated, responding compassionately with common ground can help them calm down enough to be more productive. Where exactly you draw the line of what you’re willing to tolerate is up to you and depends on a lot of specific factors. But everyone needs to have a line somewhere.
Here are some options you have if someone crosses a line:
- Name what’s happening. “I see that you’re really angry.”
- Ask them what they want from this conversation. “What would you want me to do with your anger at me?” “What is it you want from me in this conversation?”
- Communicate a clear boundary. “I genuinely want to understand more of your thoughts, but I am not okay with being yelled at. Are you open to taking the conversation in a more productive direction?”
- End the conversation
You may need to interrupt them to communicate some of those things. That’s okay. Use their name if you know it, and own that you’re interrupting: “I need to stop you there,” or “I need to interrupt.”
Maybe most importantly, in every outreach but especially during this time of post-election tensions, make sure you have an opportunity to debrief any difficult conversations that happen with another person. If you’re tabling on a college campus, that might look like gathering all the club members there at the end of the event so each person can share about their favorite conversation from the day and their hardest conversation from the day. If that’s not an option, it might look like calling a good friend who you can trust to listen, care, and empathize. But whatever it looks like, don’t skip that step. Your body processes stressful things radically differently when you have an empathetic witness.
I’m in the conversation and it’s going okay. Now what?
While you can learn how to respond to most of the arguments a pro-choice person might bring up in our Equipped for Life Course, our Affiliate Groups realized that there are some questions unique to this moment. We suggest taking time to think through and practice how you’d respond to the following pro-choice questions and arguments, whether that’s with a friend or even in your own head while you’re in the shower! Your conversation is far more likely to go well if you don’t let these questions catch you off guard.
(*Emily here! No joke, practicing an imaginary abortion dialogue in my head in the shower was the very first way I practiced abortion arguments years ago, and it’s super helpful. Highly recommend.)
“Who did you vote for?” (aka “How could you vote for Trump?”)
Regardless of who you voted for, they’re going to assume you voted for Trump. After all, pro-lifers are pretty much synonymous with Trump supporters as far as stereotypes are concerned. And if their assumption is confirmed because you did actually vote for Trump, it would be incredibly easy for them to assume you’re identical to the insane, MAGA, scary person they’ve painted in their head. If you didn’t vote for Trump, they’re going to be majorly confused and probably still upset if you voted for a third-party candidate instead of Harris.
I’d recommend using the following formula to shape your answer: start with common ground, be honest, explain your reasoning, throw in more common ground, and then ask them what motivated their voting choice.
If you did vote for Trump and there’s absolutely anything in the world that you dislike about him or his policies, say so. Or if there’s absolutely anything in the world that you like about Harris or her policies, say so. If you didn’t vote for Trump, the common ground part is probably more obvious, but still wildly important to verbalize. Depending on your thoughts about Trump, you could say something like:
“Yeah, I really don’t care for Trump as a person, he’s done some horrible things in his life. Honestly, what motivated me to vote for him was…”
“I was really concerned about both candidates’ integrity. Trump lies a lot, and it seems like Harris has flip-flopped on so many issues like fracking and the border. I didn’t really feel like I could trust either of them. What ultimately pushed me to vote for (Trump or Harris or other) was…”
“I was horrified by Trump’s behavior on January 6th. Even though I really disagree with Harris on abortion, I decided to vote for her because…”
However you explain your voting choice, don’t skirt around it. Even if the person you’re talking to vehemently disagrees, they will respect you far more if you calmly and honestly tell them what drove your decision instead of awkwardly attempting to avoid the question. End your explanation with another piece of common ground, like:
“It would have been awesome to have our first female president, though; I thought about that a lot…”
“I’m concerned Trump is going to stop helping Ukraine, though. I’m honestly not sure what the solution is there, but some of his comments seriously gave me pause on voting for him…”
Lastly, genuinely ask them about their voting choice. Now that you’ve modeled an honest, thoughtful, and respectful way to respond, they are much more likely to follow suit. Continue to point out any common ground you have with their reasoning, and thank them for sharing so openly.
“Women are going to die because of pro-life laws.”
I think we’ve all heard this one at this point. Fear that abortion bans will cause doctors to refuse or delay treatment for dying women is at an all-time high as the media points to specific cases of women in Texas and Georgia (more on those in a minute). When you’re asked about maternal mortality, it is extremely important to establish right from the jump that you do not think pregnant women should be denied life-saving treatment. This may seem obvious to you, but it’s likely not obvious to the pro-choice person you’re talking to, especially when pro-life people cause unnecessary confusion by using the word “abortion” differently from both pro-choice people and the medical establishment. I’d say something like:
“If a woman’s life is actually at risk from her pregnancy, I absolutely think that she should have the right to take medical action to save her own life. Even if that procedure is medically coded as a type of abortion, the ethics are very different because the intention is life-saving rather than killing. Intervening to save the woman’s life isn’t illegal in any state; every state with an abortion ban has an explicit exception that doctors can provide life-saving treatment. If doctors don’t know or believe that they can provide these treatments, I’m really concerned; pro-life laws and politicians need to make that absurdly clear.”
“But what about Nevaeh Crain, Josseli Barnica, Amber Thurman, and Candi Miller? Women are literally dying right now!”
You may have heard of one or more of these women; they are all truly tragic stories that have made the media rounds in the past few weeks. Nevaeh, Josseli, Amber, and Candi all died 100% preventable deaths, and we must grieve for them, their unborn children, their living children, and their families. But their deaths are the result of medical malpractice, not poorly written abortion laws.
If someone asks you about these cases, here’s how I’d respond. Please note that there is honest grief in my voice as I’m saying this. I’m not asking you to fake compassion. I’m asking you to sit deeply with these stories and express the genuine grief you feel that these women have died.
“I’m extremely concerned by the medical malpractice that’s come to light in these cases. Nevaeh’s death is absolutely tragic. No woman should die because of her pregnancy, miscarriage, or abortion. Ever. If abortion bans are truly causing women to die, pro-life laws absolutely must be revised to make it clear that doctors can provide life-saving treatment. But from what I’ve read, those tragic news stories were cases of absurd medical malpractice that must be stopped, not evidence of poorly written abortion bans.
In the case of Nevaeh Crain, the first ER treated her for strep throat without investigating her abdominal pain or her pregnancy. A second ER noted that she had symptoms of sepsis and the treatments weren’t working, but they discharged her anyway. When she returned, they delayed treatment for hours because they claimed to need an ultrasound and then a second one to confirm there was no fetal heartbeat. Even if those ultrasounds were required by Texas law—which they’re not, since her life was at risk—they were clearly in no hurry to get those ultrasounds completed. She died.
Texas doctors unnecessarily delayed treating Josseli Barnica as well, claiming that the Texas law requires waiting until there is no fetal heartbeat (which again, it doesn’t). But even after they confirmed there was no longer a fetal heartbeat and they finally induced labor, the doctors discharged her and dismissed her concerns about continued bleeding. They completely failed to diagnose and treat her infection, and she died.
Amber Thurman similarly died in Georgia after doctors delayed giving her a D&C. She had taken the abortion pill days earlier, but it had failed to fully expel the now dead bodies of the two twin fetuses inside her, causing acute severe sepsis. It isn’t clear from the medical records why they waited, and further investigation showed that the hospital lacked any policies or procedures to perform a D&C immediately in the case of sepsis, even before Georgia’s abortion law was passed. Not to mention that Georgia’s abortion law makes it extremely clear in at least three places that performing an immediate D&C on Amber when she arrived at the hospital would have been legal.
In the case of Candi Miller, she died in Georgia after lethal complications from mail-order abortion pills. She never even went to a hospital, instead overdosing on fentanyl (potentially in an attempt to manage her pain from the sepsis). ProPublica claims she never attempted to receive medical care because she was afraid of Georgia’s abortion ban, despite that law making it extremely clear (as in the case of Amber Thurman) that treating sepsis with an immediate D&C is legal.
All of these stories are tragic beyond belief. In taking time to sit with them, I’ve realized just how crucial it is that women and doctors alike know without a shadow of doubt that life-saving treatment is legal, and that they can and must act immediately. No woman should die from her pregnancy, miscarriage, or abortion.”
“I’m so sick of men (aka Trump) getting to dictate what women can do with their own bodies.”
It’s a classic. I’m pretty sure the sentiment “no uterus, no opinion” has been around the abortion debate as long as the abortion debate has existed. While we’ve written about the idea before in the form of pro-life men responding to the claim that they shouldn’t have an opinion on abortion, the pro-choice idea morphed a bit during this election cycle as a pro-choice female in Harris ran an abortion-centered campaign against a man she consistently claimed wants a federal abortion ban.
Of course, Trump has publicly distanced himself from the idea, recently maintaining that abortion law should be left up to the states (we’ll talk more about that in a bit). He’s consistently denied the Harris campaign’s claim that he wants a federal abortion ban, saying he’d veto one if Congress passed it, and he posted on Truth Social that his administration “will be great for women and their reproductive rights.”
That comment in particular is disturbingly ironic because Trump has bragged about committing sexual assault. Unless Trump was lying when he said that, he has a history of atrocious violations of women’s bodily autonomy. He was actually convicted of sexual assault civilly, and he also has dozens of allegations of sexual misconduct. If you look at it from a pro-choice person’s point of view—someone who genuinely believes that abortion is a fundamental right for women—it’s no surprise that she wouldn’t trust Trump to protect her rights, regardless of what he’s claimed he’ll do.
Now, if the pro-choice person you’re talking to doesn’t explicitly mention Trump, and they truly are just concerned that a government run by men shouldn’t be writing laws about women’s bodies, then I’d use the Trot Out a Toddler tool to demonstrate why men can and should speak up against abortion. But if they do bring up Trump, ignoring his history of bragging about sexual assault with a more generic “men should be able to talk about abortion” reply could come across as incredibly tone-deaf. Please specifically respond to the pro-choice person’s concerns about violations of bodily autonomy. Here’s what I’d say:
“It absolutely makes sense that you wouldn’t trust Trump to respect women’s bodily autonomy. I mean, he’s bragged about committing sexual assault, and a civil court judged that he did commit sexual assault! That is beyond unacceptable; I was horrified when I learned that. Bodily autonomy is an incredibly important right, and I cannot believe that it’s 2024 and there are still people who take sexual assault so flippantly. People blame the survivor with comments like ‘well if she hadn’t worn that dress’ or ‘if she hadn’t had that drink’—comments that put the blame on the person who had an act of sexual and physical and emotional violence done to them! It’s just…I literally have no words for how horrific it is.
Bodily autonomy is an incredibly important right. I do think that making laws against abortion is a bit different though because, while bodily autonomy is such a crucial right, I don’t think it gives you the right to kill other people. And that’s what I think is happening in an abortion, so that’s why I think abortion should be illegal. What do you think?”
That’s what I’d say, from my perspective. Obviously, if there are parts of it you don’t agree with, then don’t say them. Instead, if you haven’t already done so, think through your own perspective on Trump’s bragging about grabbing women by their genitalia and on the many women who have said that he sexually assaulted them, think through how your perspective squares with taking sexual assault seriously (assuming that it does), and say that. This is a topic where all the usual dialogue tips we talk about are even more important than usual: avoid team thinking, listen actively and open-mindedly to the best arguments on the other side, and engage as an emotionally present human being instead of a debate robot.
Most likely, this conversation will eventually turn to discussing bodily autonomy in more detail, and when it does you can use our bodily autonomy materials to respond. But your first and foremost job—especially if you voted for Trump—is to express your genuine horror at real violations of women’s bodily autonomy. (And just like we teach when it comes to compassion, please don’t fake the horror. If you don’t feel genuine horror about the intense wrong and harm of sexual assault, then you have either a lot of learning about sexual assault or a lot of healing and growing to do (or both) before you’re ready to have conversations about abortion with pro-choice people.)
“Trump says abortion is a state’s rights issue.”
While many pro-choice people are terrified that Trump wants to restrict abortion at the federal level—and fear he might do so even without Congress—others are…just plain confused. Frankly, pretty much no one (pro-life or pro-choice!) thinks abortion rights should just be left up to the individual states. Yes, pro-lifers were happy when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and sent abortion rights back to the states, but that was never the end goal. Overturning Roe was just the first necessary step to being able to restrict abortion access at all. And pro-choice people certainly don’t think abortion access should be different in every state; it makes zero sense for something that’s protected as a fundamental right in one state to be illegal next door. When questioned about Trump’s “abortion is a state’s rights issue” claim, here’s how I suggest you respond:
“Yeah, I feel like pretty much nobody actually agrees with that—pro-choice or pro-life! Pro-choice people are rightfully pointing out that, if they’re correct about what abortion is, abortion bans are a massive human rights violation. They think that abortion access is fundamental to bodily autonomy, and so making abortion illegal is a violation of women’s rights. It’s a human rights issue, and human rights issues are not just up for debate in individual states. That’s how our country once dealt with slavery—just letting each state decide on their own—and we recognize that that was clearly wrong.
And I agree 100%. Human rights issues aren’t the kind of thing that each state should have different rules on. I’m on the same page that abortion is a human rights issue, I just think that for the opposite reason; I think that all humans, born or unborn, have an equal right to be protected from violence. To me, abortion is the unjust killing of humans who should have the same protections you and I do. But regardless of whether pro-life or pro-choice people are right, abortion is a human rights issue, not a state’s rights issue. I majorly disagree with Trump on that.”
The post Now What? Abortion Dialogue After a Trump Victory originally appeared at the Equal Rights Institute blog. Subscribe to our email list with the form below and get a FREE gift. Click here to learn more about our pro-life apologetics course, “Equipped for Life: A Fresh Approach to Conversations About Abortion.”
Please note: The goal of the comments section on this blog is simply and unambiguously to promote productive dialogue. We reserve the right to delete comments that are snarky, disrespectful, flagrantly uncharitable, offensive, or off-topic. If in doubt, read our Comments Policy.