The blueprint for pro-life wins

Pro-lifers entered this year with a 0-7 record on abortion referendums since Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision in 2022, including losses in red states like Kansas and Kentucky. With 11 more referendums on the ballot two weeks ago, there was concern that another goose egg could lead to the pro-life movement’s already precarious political position eroding further. While it’s hard to call going 4-7 a great night for the pro-life movement—and there is still much work to be done to create a culture of life—pro-lifers avoided complete disaster and retained the opportunity to learn key lessons moving forward.

The four pro-life victories came in South Dakota, Florida, and two in Nebraska (a pro-life referendum won and a pro-abortion referendum lost). South Dakota and Nebraska took one path to a pro-life win, while Florida took another. Both paths offer insight for future referendums.

In South Dakota and Nebraska, pro-lifers created better structural conditions to win. Most importantly, they reached fundraising parity for the first time since the Dobbs decision. In Kentucky, pro-abortion supporters outraised pro-lifers 6-to-1, in Missouri, perhaps the most disappointing result this year, the margin was 15-to-1. In Montana, the difference was about 90-to-1. But in Nebraska and South Dakota, the numbers were roughly even. South Dakota and Montana are relatively similar states, and yet pro-lifers did about 17 percentage points better in the former, largely due to closing the usually colossal financial gap. Pro-abortion sides are highly reliant on dominating the airwaves with fearmongering and smears. When they are unable to maintain an iron grip on the narrative, they have far less success. That said, Nebraska and South Dakota are relatively small states. To be financially competitive in larger states, the pro-life movement must do a better job engaging both big and small donors. Showing those donors that pro-life causes can win at the ballot box will be a helpful first step.

In Florida, however, the story was different. Pro-abortion advocates outraised pro-lifers 11-to-1, with the pro-abortion side raising more than $117 million and pushing for a win much harder than in the two smaller Great Plains states. It looked like a repeat of what has played out several times, with institutional forces getting the pro-abortion side over the line, even while Republicans win statewide victories. But pro-lifers had an ace in the hole: Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis.

Despite little political upside and a clear uphill battle, DeSantis pulled out all the stops to defeat the pro-abortion Amendment 4 (and Amendment 3, which concerned marijuana legalization). What DeSantis did took an incredible combination of principle and articulateness. While many in the Republican Party have run from the abortion issue, DeSantis took it on and actively made the case for life while casting the Democrats as the true abortion extremists. Especially on a night when Republicans romped to victory, this stand on principle will be largely forgotten. But it shouldn’t be. Someone had to stand in the breach and take on the pro-abortionists and their piles of cash, and DeSantis became the first to do so successfully.

The pro-life movement was caught flat-footed in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision and has been marred by unforced errors and internal squabbling. DeSantis largely avoided those pitfalls and did what he has been doing in Florida for six years: articulate a vision and deliver a result. His effectiveness as an executive and the trust he has earned on a variety of issues helped him retain credibility as he made an unpopular stand. (Amendment 4 only failed because it required 60% to pass, as opposed to a bare majority.)

This raises the question of whether this formula can be repeated in states that do not have a conservative leader as respected and trusted as DeSantis to anchor the campaign. The answer will vary depending on the state’s partisan lean, fundraising, and other factors, but it’s at least worth trying. If Sen. Mitch McConnell had unleashed his fundraising machine while Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Thomas Massie barnstormed the state, Kentucky may have gone differently.

Abortion referendums are likely to continue for the foreseeable future, and while pro-lifers were better prepared and better funded in South Dakota and Nebraska, these are small red states where the effort was relatively easy. In more populous states, the fundraising shellacking continued, and even red states like Missouri and Montana were lost. Many Republicans also lacked the courage to consistently and vocally oppose the amendments like DeSantis did in Florida. An optimal approach to future referendums involves combining the fundraising parity reached in South Dakota and Nebraska with the strong leadership from elected conservatives, as seen in Florida. While one or the other may be enough to win in deep red states or states with a 60% threshold, both will be needed to make meaningful inroads toward building a culture of life across the nation.