Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Evangelical
Why the Pro-Life Movement Lost Its Black Supporters

Why the Pro-Life Movement Lost Its Black Supporters

Last updated on: August 12, 2020 at 1:55 am by Daniel K. Williams

Why the Pro-Life Movement Lost Its Black Supporters 2020-08-10T12:03:22-04:00 Daniel K. Williams

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

In the mid-1970s, Blacks were more likely than any other group of Americans to oppose abortion, according to public opinion surveys. Overwhelmingly Democratic and far more liberal than almost all other Americans in their view of the government’s responsibility to protect the health and economic well-being of the poor and the marginalized, Blacks were also more strongly pro-life than even white Catholics (let alone white evangelicals, who were only just beginning to mobilize on the abortion issue). This was the decade when the National Right to Life Committee was led by Dr. Mildred Jefferson, a Boston surgeon who had been the first African American woman to graduate from Harvard Medical School, and when contributors to the National Right to Life News included civil rights activist Jesse Jackson.

silhouette, woman, holding, baby, person, human, hair, tree, CC0 ... But after the 1970s, Black support for the pro-life cause fell dramatically. Today surveys show that the majority of Black Americans – including churchgoing Black evangelical Protestants – support keeping abortion legal, even if they are personally opposed to abortion. Indeed, Blacks are now more likely than white Americans generally – and far more likely than white evangelical Protestants – to support abortion rights.

How did the pro-life movement lose the support of most African Americans? For a Christian like myself who affirms the value of divinely created human life from the moment of conception, this is a soul-searching question that goes beyond merely the desire to enlarge the pro-life coalition and make it as racially diverse as possible. It touches on the heart of what the pro-life movement claims to be. If the pro-life movement really is a civil rights movement for the unborn, as it has often portrayed itself, why is it that the most consistent advocates of civil rights for those already born are so reluctant to join the movement?

The fact that the pro-life cause once had such strong appeal to African Americans suggests to me that it’s probably not the cause itself that is problematic; instead, it’s the pro-life movement’s strategy. Sometime during the late 1970s or shortly thereafter, the white-dominated pro-life movement made tactical decisions that alienated Black supporters. Thanks to Mary Ziegler’s newly published book Abortion and the Law in America: Roe v. Wade to the Present (Cambridge University Press, 2020), I now have a clearer idea of what those disastrous decisions were. (N.B.: Although I’m highlighting this book as a source of this idea, I should note that Ziegler, a law professor at Florida State University who is arguably the nation’s leading historian of the modern legal debate over abortion, did not intend her book to be a piece of advice to the pro-life movement, and indeed, her point about African American views of the pro-life cause was a side note rather than a central aspect of her thesis. There’s much more to Ziegler’s book than I am presenting here.)

Before I read Ziegler’s book, I probably would have said that the white-dominated pro-life movement lost the support of most African Americans when it allied itself with the Republican Party’s judicial strategy to support conservative Supreme Court nominees or when it collided with the second-wave feminist movement and, by extension, the Democratic Party. Both of those factors were important, but Abortion and the Law in America highlights another cause that perhaps I overlooked in my earlier work: the pro-life movement’s shift from seeking constitutional protection for the unborn (which many Blacks were willing to support) to limiting abortion access (which most were not). This shift had enormous repercussions for low-income women, a disproportionate share of whom were Black.

The shift began in 1976, with the passage of the Hyde Amendment, which restricted Medicaid funding for abortion. In 1976, one-quarter of abortions were funded through Medicaid. And though the two states with the highest number of abortions – New York and California – continued to fund abortions for low-income women, most states did not. The result was the beginning of a long decline in the nation’s abortion rate – but at a high cost for low-income women.

For pro-lifers who still hoped to pass a Human Life Amendment, the Hyde Amendment was not what they really wanted, but it was the best they could get. As Ziegler points out, the tactic of restricting funding or access to abortion rather than banning it outright became, after the 1980s, the only viable legal strategy for the movement. Having failed to secure an antiabortion constitutional amendment or the reversal of Roe v. Wade through the Supreme Court, the legal wing of the pro-life movement focused on the one thing it could accomplish: making abortions more difficult to obtain. In this area, it was quite successful. In the wake of new regulations such as parental notification laws, mandatory waiting periods, required hospital visiting privileges for abortion doctors, and a host of other stipulations, hundreds of abortion clinics closed, and today pro-life pregnancy resource centers outnumber abortion clinics by three to one. The annual number of abortions in the United States is now lower than it has been at any point since 1973. While other factors were certainly involved in the decline in the abortion rate, abortion regulations played at least some role.

But the pro-life movement’s strategy of reducing abortion rates not by protecting the unborn in constitutional law but by making abortion more expensive or more difficult to obtain was remarkably unpopular among most African Americans, even among those who were personally opposed to abortion. According to a 2019 PRRI poll, 58 percent of Blacks believe that abortion should be legal in most or all circumstances, and 56 percent believe that government health insurance plans for low-income women should include abortion coverage – which means that nearly every African American who supports abortion legalization also supports federal funding for abortion for low-income women. In the view of most Black Americans, if a health service can legally be provided to anyone, it should, in fairness, be equally accessible to everyone – which is why the pro-life movement’s willingness to settle for legislation that would keep abortion available to those who could afford it while making it more burdensome for the poor to obtain alienated many Blacks (including Jesse Jackson, who came out in support of the Hyde Amendment in 1983, despite his earlier strong support for the pro-life movement).

This is not necessarily the way that whites see the matter; today only 45 percent of whites say that government health insurance should cover abortions, while 55 percent want abortion to be legal in most or all circumstances. And for much of the late twentieth century, this divide was even sharper; large numbers of libertarian-minded pro-choice whites saw no reason why the government should pay for abortions. Pro-life Republicans capitalized on this division in the pro-choice movement to restrict abortion funding with the support of a sizeable number of white pro-choice members of both parties who would never have voted for constitutional protections on unborn life but who could agree that Americans’ federal tax dollars should not be used to fund abortions in most circumstances. By making this alliance, pro-lifers lost their chance to secure a sizeable degree of African American support for their cause, and they also made it easier for African American advocates of reproductive rights to portray the pro-life campaign as unconcerned about the poor – and, in turn, to push the pro-choice movement toward making abortion funding a central priority.

The solution, I think, is not to seek the reversal of the Hyde Amendment nor to seek other measures to make abortion coverage a part of national health care plans. After all, if we really believe that human life begins at conception and that abortion takes the life of someone made in God’s image, we shouldn’t want to do anything to subsidize abortions. But neither should we look away from the negative effect that the pro-life movement’s political strategy has had on poor people and people of color. We need to remember what many of the liberal pro-lifers of the early 1970s recognized, which is that while abortion is a matter of human life, it is also inextricably linked to the social justice issues of poverty and health care.

Most women who have abortions today are poor. This is even more true today than it was a generation or two ago, when the Hyde Amendment was passed. In 1994, only 25 percent of women who obtained abortions were below the poverty line, but today 50 percent are – and another 25 percent are low-income. Most women who have abortions today are already mothers. In most cases, they are unmarried, low-income or impoverished women in their twenties who are often in unstable (and sometimes abusive) relationships, and who are desperately trying to care for the needs of their existing children.

The pro-choice movement and the Democratic Party would like to offer these women free abortion and free contraception. Republican legislators would like to make it prohibitively difficult for these women to obtain an abortion. I think that a genuinely pro-life, pro-child, and pro-human movement would seek something different: It would try to offer a path forward for these women while protecting both their well-being and the lives of their children – both the ones already born and any who are still in the womb.

What if instead of focusing so heavily on limiting access to abortion for the poor, the pro-life movement made it a top priority to expand healthcare coverage so that low-income women would have access to affordable healthcare for themselves and their children? Healthcare is an extremely important issue for many low-income voters and African Americans. While a majority of African Americans want the state to provide free abortions for low-income women, an even higher majority favors making all health care affordable, especially for low-income women. A 2019 Harvard study showed that 85 percent of Blacks (but only 53 percent of whites) favored either a universal Medicare-for-all plan (along the lines of what Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren supported) or an expanded Obamacare plan (which Joe Biden offered). A 2012 poll found that 94 percent of Blacks (including 92 percent of those who attend church weekly) support publicly-funded contraception distribution for low-income women and 94 percent also agreed that “care for pregnant women” is part of “basic health care services for women.” In other words, while support for abortion coverage may be high among Blacks, support for affordable comprehensive healthcare is even higher – which means that the pro-life movement could probably start to win back some of its lost support among Blacks if it began using its lobbying power to push for expanded prenatal and pediatric healthcare coverage instead of focusing so narrowly on restricting abortion access. Doing so would probably reduce the abortion rate while also improving the health of the children who escape abortion and are born into the world.

What if the pro-life movement also supported measures to make childcare more affordable for single mothers, so that low-income women experiencing crisis pregnancies would not be forced to choose between a child and a job? Eighty-four percent of Black women support “congressional action to increase childcare assistance and expand early education,” according to a 2018 poll.

In essence, the type of political strategy that the pro-life movement would likely need to adopt to bring itself into closer alignment with Black political priorities would bear a much closer resemblance to the social vision of the liberal pro-lifers of the early 1970s than it would to the political vision of most white Republican pro-life activists today. In the early 1970s, many of the leaders of the pro-life movement were politically liberal Catholics or left-of-center Protestants who were guided by the comprehensive social justice vision of twentieth-century Catholic social teaching. This social justice teaching was based on the principle of social obligations rooted in the ethic of human dignity. To recover this vision, the pro-life movement would need to ask not merely how it can make abortion less accessible but how it can protect the lives and dignity of all of the women, children, and other people involved. It would ask what our social obligation might be to the women facing crisis pregnancies – not only at the moment that they might be seeking an abortion, but during the next few years and even decades of their lives.

If the pro-life movement accompanied every restrictive abortion policy it currently supports with a measure to expand financial help for the low-income women, could it win back African American support? It’s impossible to say for certain. But one thing is clear: This approach would bring the movement into closer alignment with the political priorities of most Black voters. More importantly, it would also offer a more effective way to protect human life and recover the historic vision of the pro-life movement, which never wanted to settle merely for restrictions on abortion access but always wanted to promote a social vision that respected all human life.

After all, if it is politically impossible for the pro-life movement to pass constitutional protections for the unborn, which approach would best defend human life – passing additional regulations that make abortions more expensive for the poor or creating a social safety net that gives the poor the economic resources they need to care for their children and protect their health? It’s possible, of course, that the first approach would reduce the abortion rate, at least marginally. But the second approach would not only reduce the abortion rate but would also improve the health and economic security of the children who are brought into the world. And that, it seems to me, is the type of pro-life strategy that could appeal to many people – including maybe even a few more African Americans.

Abortion

African American Religion

Previous Post

August 11, 2020

4 Things I Want My Students to Know about This Fall

Next Post

August 12, 2020 Jesus and John Wayne: A Guide for Biblical Manhood

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category abolitionism Abortion Abraham Joshua Heschel Abraham Kuyper Abraham Lincoln Academia Activism Adam Renberg Advent Adventist africa African American Religion Agnes Howard Albert Camus American History American Religious History American Revolution American West Anabaptists Ancient History Andrea Turpin Andrei Tarkovsky Anglicanism Annales Ansley Lillian Quiros anti-Catholicism Antisemitism Anxious Bench apologetics Apparitions Arash Azizi Archaeology archives art Artificial Intelligence Asia Asian Americans Augustine Authors Bad Bunny Baptism Baptists Barack Obama Battle of Hastings Benjamin Franklin Bernard-Henri Levy Beth Allison Barr Beth Moore Bethany Mannon Bible Bill Cunningham Billy Graham Black Music Bob Dylan Body Boenhoffer Books Breastfeeding Bruce Springsteen C.S. Lewis Calvinism Cancel Culture Capitalism Carmelites Catholicism Cedric Robinson Cesar Chavez Charismaticism charity Charles Dickens Charles Lindbergh Che Guevara Chicago Children Chinese Christianity Chris Gehrz Christ Christian death Christian Higher Education Christian life Christian Nation Christian Nationalism Christianity Today Christmas Church life Church Practice cinema Civil Religion Civil Rights Movement Civil War civility Classics Climate Change Cold War Colonial Mexico colonialism Comer Communism community complementarianism Conference on Faith and History Congregationalism Conspiracies Conspiracy Conversion Narratives Coronavirus Costa Rica Council of Nicaea Covid-19 Creation Critical Race Theory Crusades Culture culture wars Daniel K. Williams David Barton David Swartz Death Ways death with dignity DEI democracy Democratic Party Devotion Digital Age Diplomacy discipleship diversity Donald Trump Drama Dua Lipa Early Church early modern Early modern Catholicism Easter Eastern Christianity economic exploitation Education elections Elie Wiesel Elizabeth II Elizabeth Taylor emotions Empire Engineering England enslavement Entertainment Episcopal Church Erica Ramirez eschatology Eurocentrism Evangelicalism Evangelicals Exegesis Family Feminism Film Flannery O'Connor folk music Food Foreign Policy founding fathers Franciscans Franciscus Junius fundamentalism Funerals G.K. Chesterton Gender Genocide genre geography George W. Bush George Washington George Whitefield Global Christianity Global church Grief Guadalupe guest post Guest Post gun control gun violence Gustavo Gutierrez Hamid Dabashi Harold John Ockenga Harvest Hate Hawaiian Christianity Healing health care Heather Cox Richardson Hell Heresy Hermeneutics Higher Education Hinduism Hippocratic oath Historical Fiction Historical Methodology Historical Profession Historical Profession Historical Theology Historical Thinking historiography Holidays Holocaust horror movies Human rights Humanitarian Work humanities Hummingbirds Hungary hymns Imago Dei Immigration Injustice Interviews Iran Islam Islamophobia Israel Ivan's Childhood Jacob Randolph James Bratt Janine Giordano Drake Japanese history Japanese Literature Jean Paul Sartre Jesse Miranda Jesus Jesus Christ Jimmy Carter Joan Baez Joan Didion Joanne Freeman João B. Chaves Joao Chaves Joey Cochran John Calvin John Fea John Tillotson John Turner Johnny Cash Jonathan Edwards Jonathan Tran Joseph Smith Josh Howerton Journalism Jr. Judaism Jürgen Moltmann Just War Justice Justin Brierley Karl Barth Katelyn Beaty koi ponds Kris Kristofferson Kristin Kobes Du Mez Latin American Religious History Latino Americans Lectio Divina Leisure Lent Leonard Cohen liberal arts liberalism Liberation Theology Linda Ronstadt Lisa Clark Diller Literature Lou Reed Lynchings Lynneth Miller Renberg Mainline Protestantism Malcolm Foley Marilyn Monroe Maritime history Mark Noll Marriage Martin Luther Martin Luther King Martyrdom Marxism Mary Masih Alinejad mass shootings material culture medieval Christianity Medieval Ethiopia Melissa Borja memory Mennonites Mental Health Mental Illness Methodism Mexican Americans Mexicans Mike Madrid Miles Mullin Min Jin Lee Miscarriage Missionaries Mister Rogers Mitt Romney modernity Monasticism Mormonism Motherhood Mothers of the Church Moving Music Musicals Nadya Williams Nahua Christianity Native Americans Natsume Sōseki New Contributor New England New Year New York Nico Non-Violent Protest Orthodoxy pacifism Paleo Evangelicals Palestinians Parenting Patti Smith Paul Kingsnorth Pedro Calderón de la Barca Pentecostalism Philip Jenkins Phillis Wheatley physician-assisted suicide pilgrimage Pilgrims pluralism Plutocracy Poetry Politics Pope Francis Pope Leo XIV post-modernism prayer preaching Presbyterians prosperity gospel Protest Public history Publishing Puritans purity culture Quakers race Race Massacres Racial Capitalism racial reconciliation racialization Racism Raha Bahloulipour Re-Enchantment reading Reformation Refugees religion and the university religion and war Religious Freedom Religious Nones Religious Pluralism Religious Symbols religious violence Republican Party Revival Rita Coolidge Ritual Roger Williams Roman Catholic church Royalty Russell Moore same-sex marriage Sarah Irving-Stonebraker Scandinavia Science Science and Technology Scopes trial Scriptural Interpretation secularism Selena Quintanilla seminary Seventh-Day Adventists sexual morality Sexuality Sikhs Silence slaveholders theology Slavery Slavoj Zizek social justice Social Media Southern Baptist Convention Southern Religion Spain Spiritual Autobiography Spiritual but not religious Spiritual Discipline Sports Stanley Hauerwas Suffering Summer Camps Sunday Night Odds and Ends Supernatural Supreme Court Syriac Christianity Tal Howard Taylor Swift Teaching Technology Television Thanksgiving The Beatles The Mission theater TheoBros Theology Thomas Dixon Thomas Jefferson Thomas Kidd Thomas Merton Tim Gloege Tim Walz Tom Holland Tourism tradition Tragedy Translation Transnationalism Travel Trump Ukraine Uncategorized Unitarians United Methodist Church US History Vanessa Chan Velvet Underground Verónica A. Gutiérrez Veronica Gutierrez Vikings Violence Virgin Mary Virtue Virtue ethics Visions Voting War WCTU Wendell Berry Westminster Assembly White Evangelicalism Wildfires Winnie the Pooh Witches women Women in Ministry Women's and Gender Studies Work Worship writing Yasunari Kawabata Zena Hitz

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who prayed in a den of lions?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Elijah David Daniel Noah