Several Republican politicians, including former President Donald Trump, have come out against all-out bans on abortion and have favored still giving a time period in which abortion would be allowed. Moreover, many GOP leaders have opposed the idea of instituting a federal abortion ban.

“The Republican Party has rejected our point of view,” the author writes, also noting that “those who believe that protecting vulnerable and unborn life should be a primary policy priority—now do not fit in either major political party.”

Camosy highlighted a recent post on Truth Social from Trump declaring that his administration would be “great for women and their reproductive rights,” a talking point that is often parroted by pro-abortion Democrats. The former president has also said he does not support the six-week abortion ban in Florida.

On the other hand, Democrats have been even more pro-abortion than they have in days past.

But today, Democrats are so antagonistic toward pro-lifers that they will work hard to keep us out of the party. A paltry 12 percent of Democrats identify as pro-life, and when Joe Manchin switched his party affiliation to independent, the Senate lost its last pro-life Democrat (and hardly any are left in the House). If current party leadership took a moderate position, supporting, say, European-style abortion restrictions (somewhere in the 12-to-16-week range), they could shift U.S. political structures in ways that would give them generational power. But so beholden is the current Democratic Party to the orthodoxy enforcers that it prioritizes the excommunication of dissenters over creating a winning coalition that could bring in millions of pro-life votes.

So what’s the solution?

Camosy argues that “Pro-lifers ought therefore to return to our foundation and fundamentals, going back to the movement’s approach before Roe v. Wade” and “focus on the hard, decades-long cultural work that will be necessary to shift the consumerist West.”

I’m not arguing against legislation limiting or banning abortion. Unborn children are living human beings, which means they have natural rights. Terminating a pregnancy is a violation of these rights, therefore, the government should have a role to play in protecting them.

However, it seems clear that neither party is willing to go as far as we would prefer when it comes to having the state protect the rights of the unborn. Still, the government is rarely the best solution for America’s societal ills.

Even if Republicans in government were willing to go further, it would not fully address the problem. Pro-lifers focusing on changing hearts and minds on the abortion issue while also pursuing community solutions could do far more to save unborn lives, as Camosy suggests.

For starters, pregnancy resource centers have already done wonders when it comes to persuading mothers to keep their children. By providing free services such as ultrasounds, parenting classes, counseling, baby supplies, housing assistance, and others, they offer tangible support for mothers in need. These organizations can empower women to choose life instead of aborting their babies.

These groups have proven to be so effective that Democrats ramped up attacks against them after Roe was overturned.

Those who are adamant about life can volunteer at or financially support their local pregnancy resource centers. This ensures that mothers in their communities are not without support and forced to seek help from those who would persuade them to terminate their pregnancies.

Many women who face unplanned pregnancies often feel scared, unsupported, or overwhelmed. When the community steps up to help them navigate their situation and offer alternatives to abortion, they can make a meaningful impact.

Adoption is another solution. Unfortunately, in many ways, the process to adopt a child is often complicated and expensive. Helping mothers to see the wisdom in birthing their children and allowing a family to take care of them is a wonderful solution – but only if the process is not set up in a way that discourages would-be parents from adopting them. In this vein, pro-lifers should focus on pushing legislation aimed at making it easier for people to adopt children instead of making it cost-prohibitive to do so.

The people often unmentioned in this discussion are fathers, who play a crucial role in whether a woman decides to carry her child to term or abort. In many instances, women might choose abortion because of the lack of support coming from the father. Communities should focus on raising and shaping men who will take responsibility for their children – even when they are unexpected. This is not a feat government can accomplish. Communities must be responsible for showing young men and women the right way to navigate these situations.

Pro-lifers should not only continue efforts to educate and engage in outreach but should drastically expand them. The key is to change hearts and minds so that fewer people will want to have or support abortion in the first place.

Organizing speaking events, podcasts, social media campaigns, and employing other forms of media can make a tremendous difference.

Stopping abortion requires more mobilization at the community level. Pro-lifers have to become more engaged not only in the political process but also on the ground. This is how we can successfully oppose abortion and those peddling death for unborn children.