The Pro-Life Movement Plans for a Future Without Roe

Last week, the Supreme Court heard arguments concerning a Mississippi law that bars abortions after fifteen weeks of pregnancy, in direct defiance of the landmark abortion-rights case Roe v. Wade. At least five of the six conservative Justices on the Court appeared ready to uphold the law and dispense with Roe entirely, allowing states to outlaw abortions to whatever extent they wish. The Court is simultaneously considering a Texas law that prohibits abortion after six weeks, and allows citizens to sue anyone who performs or “aids and abets” an abortion that violates this restriction.

With the pro-life movement on the cusp of achieving its long-held goal of defeating Roe, I spoke by phone with Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the Susan B. Anthony List, a nonprofit supporting pro-life politicians. Dannenfelser, who has led the organization since 1993, has placed a particular emphasis on portraying the pro-life movement as supportive of women. Though initially skeptical of Donald Trump, she supported his campaigns in 2016 and 2020, and served last year as his Pro-Life Coalition leader. During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed her expectations for the Mississippi ruling, the prospect of a national abortion ban if Republicans regain power, and the pro-life movement’s plans to support people who, in many states, may no longer be able to access abortions.

What did you think of the oral arguments last week?

I went in cautiously optimistic, and I went out very hopeful—based on the questions asked, based on what I think were relatively thin arguments coming from the Democrat-appointed Justices. It’s possible that the Mississippi law could be upheld by a 6–3 or 5–4 decision. The reason I’m hopeful is that, if that is the case, they’ve answered the question “Is any pre-viability abortion limit constitutional?” with an answer of yes. That changes the face of abortion law for the first time in forty-eight years, which is something we’ve been working for quite some time.

How would you view the Mississippi law simply being upheld without a more formal or clear statement about Roe?

I know there is much discussion about a middle way—a new test, which is hard to imagine, but I’m not a jurist. If fifteen weeks is upheld and then we’re having to deal with some other new rule for other states, we would of course consider it exactly what it is: a partial success. Either way, whether it’s a partial success or a full overturn, we have our work cut out for us in states all over the country. Every single state, in fact, could have a fifteen-week limit. Now, we’re not going to honestly go to fifty states immediately, because you have to do triage. There are at least thirty states that could conceivably pass a fifteen-week limit, and that would save many lives, and there’ll be many women in need, and who need our help.

How do you think about the Texas law versus the Mississippi law in terms of your goals for the pro-life movement?

I think it will be a moot point pretty soon. The [Texas] enforcement mechanism was born of frustration, out of almost forty-eight years of not being able to enforce anything. It’s hard for me to imagine that in the future, past the Mississippi decision, that same type of law with that type of enforcement mechanism would be necessary. It will be the traditional means of enforcement. Is that what you meant?

I was just curious how you viewed the two laws, and whether you found that one of them was a better law or a worse law.

Far and away, the big win is to have Mississippi upheld, Roe overturned, and then we go back to traditional enforcement. I would never have chosen the heartbeat bill in Texas. I understand how it’s born of frustration. I think it actually saved a lot of lives. It also gave us an unexpected snapshot of what might be ahead. We’ve been in the planning stages for a long time for success. That has been an important trial run.

In what sense?

There are needs of women that we have to meet, and there are more children being born whose needs and their mothers’ needs must be addressed. I think that we have much better preparation if Roe is overturned or a minimum of a fifteen-week limit gets upheld. We have a map. We know what to do.

When you spoke of traditional enforcement mechanisms, what did you mean? If abortion is going to be outlawed after around fifteen weeks, what’s the ideal way to enforce that in terms of doctors and the women involved?

Well, my view, and the view of the entire movement—without any exception that I’m aware of—is that the doctor, the one who has been planning to break the law, is the guilty party. The law is enforced against that person, not the woman.

What if we’re talking about a woman procuring abortion pills?

Well, then the people who are trafficking those pills and getting them to her house are mighty guilty. They’ve obviously planned ahead to break the law.

If a woman goes through with what you believe is ending a human life, do you think she should not be punished because that is politically untenable, or do you think that she doesn’t deserve punishment?

I understand your question. I think she’s in a very difficult place. She’s miserable, staying up all night, doesn’t know the way out, and she needs mercy, and there needs to be justice also. My view is [that] all the mercy that we can give her, we should, and the guy who is profiting from her misery should receive the sharp end of justice. It is also consonant with the suffragists, who really thought of women as being exploited. One of my favorite quotes from Susan B. Anthony’s newspaper, The Revolution, is, “It ,” meaning abortion, “will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; but oh! thrice guilty is he who . . . drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime.”

You could imagine a woman or a man procuring an abortion pill for her or his daughter. How do you see a case like that?

You can ask it a lot of different ways. The third party, in my view, is the people who are creating the pill, not monitoring where it goes, not regulating where it goes, just sending it in the mail.

Putting aside Roe for a moment, is abortion an issue that Congress should be taking up?

The twenty-week limit has been the federal standard—or has been the primary bill that we have lobbied on, and they have voted on, over and over and over again. That same bill has passed all over the country. It’s an academic exercise, because it of course never goes into effect. Wherever there is a legislature that must react to consensus and passes laws to reflect that consensus, that legislature should be acting. That should be states plus the federal government.

Putting the politics aside, what is the ideal abortion law for the federal government to pass?

I can’t put politics aside, because what I know is that a win is the most ambitious law that we could possibly do. I think a fifteen-week limit could pass Congress in a couple of years. Of course, we need a President and majorities in both houses, which we don’t have, but that I see as a reasonable goal. We haven’t announced that anywhere, but you’re asking me what I think. I think, if twenty weeks was where we were before, we’ve done a lot of work on that. Because of the new public education about what fifteen weeks is in terms of the gestation of the child, the pain of the child, and the conversation on the Court, I think it’s reasonable.

Do you think that this should be something that Republicans who want to be a part of the Party should agree to?

Oh, you bet. I also predict that, in a short number of years—if this Mississippi bill is upheld—the Democratic Party will start tracking back to where it was just a few years ago, where they allowed Democrats to take conscience votes, basically saying, “Look, this isn’t political. This is about your conscience. Vote however you want.” I think it will be born for a political reason, because I think it’s impossible for Democrats to continue to stake out no limits on abortion. That is going to shake loose if Roe is overturned, or even if just the fifteen-week limit is upheld.

If the Court overturns Roe, do you think there’s a chance that the Democratic Party becomes less consistently pro-choice?

I do think that. Do I think that they’re going to pass a heartbeat bill right away? Absolutely not. I do think, when people start talking about hard votes—if we’re talking about a twenty-week limit, a fifteen-week limit, even a twenty-four-week limit, even a twenty-nine-week limit—we can’t get Democrats on board. There’s a lot of regret that there’s no ability to vote on any sort of consensus. That’s what this new moment is—it’s a moment of consensus-building, and I think it’s going to be really hard for Democrats to not be a part of that forever.

There has been a debate about how much the pro-life movement should focus on a stronger social safety net and child tax credits—policies that are generally more associated with the Democratic Party. If the G.O.P. and the pro-life movement emerge victorious on Roe, how important is it that the Republican Party adopts policies that are seen as pro-family, especially because the pro-life movement, as I think you’ve made clear in this conversation, has thrown in its lot with the G.O.P.?

Speaking for the pro-life movement, which is obviously attempting to lead Republicans, we absolutely, without question, have a responsibility to serve the needs of women and children as we pass ambitious laws. There’s no question about it. How that looks in each state is going to be very different. We’re going about the work of doing massive inventories in every state that will be the most ambitious in passing laws. That inventory has seven points of need for women and children—triggers for why they have abortions. Where we find gaps, we’ll make sure that those gaps are filled. We raise the money. We make sure there’s child care in the first few years of that child’s life that’s cheap or free. That’s going to look very different in Minnesota than it does in Georgia. In Minnesota, there very well may be a political appetite for passing more state-supported aid for any one of those seven areas.

I think you know this already, but one thing this is not is neat. There is not a one-size-fits-all when it comes to the law in any state or how the needs of women will be met. That is vital work for the pro-life movement, and the Republican Party.

Do you think that that could be complicated, though, because the pro-life movement and the Republican Party are so tied together?

Totally. I mean, it’s all complicated. Nobody said it was going to be simple. To the extent that we’re in disagreement, it depends on what it is. I guess what I’m saying is, look, if we’re talking about paid leave on the federal level, we’re very supportive of that. The Republicans who are considering that come up with a lot of creative ways to make that work. I’ve been involved in some of those conversations. I think there’s more will than you might think, but where there is no will then we figure out a different way. We’re very much involved in Georgia in mapping out this pro-life social safety net—the churches and voluntary organizations and pregnancy-care centers of all different stripes. When we become aware of those, it’s our job sometimes to use existing state funds, but also to create our own community-based solutions to where those gaps are. I guess what I’m saying is, it’s not a Party project. To the extent that the Party is willing and we can get their help, we will absolutely get it. Where they are not, we’ll fill in.

The pro-life movement’s embrace of President Trump is often talked about very cynically. I know you initially were not a supporter of the former President, and then you came around. The phrase people like to use is “devil’s bargain.” Was this done for utilitarian reasons, and it turned out to work in your favor, or was this done because you have some sincere belief in him and his vision for the Republican Party?

I wish I could answer that in one sentence, because it would be really, really good, but I’m going to try to be succinct. Then and now, I have no idea. I don’t know what’s in anybody’s heart. I don’t know what’s in his. I know exactly what he has done. I know the fruits of it today, and for that I am very, very grateful. If you’re asking, did I, in 2016, when he signed commitments, know whether he was sincere or not? I don’t know, and it didn’t matter to me that much. If I was going to be really succinct, I guess I would just say yes—it was a deal that was really vital. For a deal like that, to require complete understanding about the heart, soul, essence of where he stands other than the solid commitment is not nearly as important as the solid commitment.

I’ve interviewed a lot of Trump supporters and conservatives in the past five years, and it’s striking to me how few of them admit up front what you just said.

I’m being honest. I don’t know another way.

I am curious what you’ve made of the fact that a large chunk of the conservative movement in the United States has essentially adopted, often literally, a “my body, my choice” message about a virus that has now killed eight hundred thousand Americans.

I don’t make anything of it. I don’t. I really don’t. I’m not part of the anti-vax movement. I’m not a part of that at all.

I wasn’t trying to imply that you were an anti-vaxxer.

Yeah. I know you weren’t. That’s why I haven’t put a lot of thought into it. I will just say this one thing: in an abortion, there are two people, there are two humans, who both have great needs. “My body, my choice” only makes sense if there’s only one body involved. If there are two bodies involved, it’s just a slogan. That really is what we think. If there are two people involved, we have two vital projects.

The whole country’s involved in a pandemic, though, because we can infect other people.

I guess when it comes down to a specific decision—that you might have to facilitate the death of another person, and you choose to go ahead and do it, even if you don’t realize what you’re doing—that’s different. Honestly, I really don’t have an opinion that much about that. I’m sorry to not be helpful on that, but I just don’t.

You were at the Coney Barrett White House ceremony, right?

Yeah.

I think a lot of pro-choice people say, “Well, look, people talk about pro-life and how much life matters to them. And the same political coalition doesn’t seem that concerned about eight hundred thousand people dying, and so abortion is really about wanting to control women and wanting to control women’s bodies.” I certainly have been struck and surprised that this political coalition you are part of has had such a different attitude to life and death in the pandemic.

I don’t think that, in showing up to Amy Coney Barrett’s swearing-in, there was an intent to kill. Quality-of-life arguments are very compelling, but they are not life and death. With opposing mask or vaccine mandates, there is not an intent to kill. I’m only saying that there are a lot of tests posed by people who disagree with pro-life people. Their tests are very often off base, because they simply don’t acknowledge the fundamentals of what we are saying. Making a decision about a fifteen-week-old baby is . . . [Trails off.]

I wasn’t trying to say that the two things are identical. I know that there are people who care a lot about life, and they think every life is God’s creation and should be protected. Whether you think that applies in abortion or not, I have been surprised to see so many of those people in the United States not seem as concerned and upset about what’s happened with COVID. That’s the only point I was making.

Yeah. Yeah, definitely beyond my depth. [Laughs.]

You said earlier that the people who dispense abortion pills should face the “sharp end of justice.” Should the government be treating people who play a role in abortion the same way that they treat people who play a role in ending other human lives? Is there a difference there in your mind?

I don’t know. We have to look at the context each time. It depends upon exactly the facts, but when you are trafficking in pills or you’re trafficking in abortion you are making a decision. “I will circumvent the law, and I will put the instrument inside her, and I will kill the baby.” The pill-maker is the one that is making it possible for her to be alone and have an abortion alone, with no help and no medical support and no follow-up and no friends, and then she’s supposed to move on, like nothing happened.

In answer to your question, I guess I would just say that, because of the need for mercy and justice moving into a new era, I don’t think that there’s any comparison with any other type of law. Because of the delicacy of wanting to take care of women and children, and then wanting to stop the people who circumvent the law, I think it’s going to be really important for each state to balance all of those interests. I will tell you this: I am absolutely committed to shutting down those companies and making sure that their C.E.O.s go to jail when they circumvent the law and continue to send pills into lonely bathrooms with desperate women.

“Mercy and justice” refers to what?

The mercy for women, and the justice for those who are feeding on her misery.