Two Pro-Life Goals for 2026

The second Trump administration has been marked by wins on what we might dub “cultural” conservatism—ending DEI in the federal government, cracking down on immigration, protecting women’s sports, rolling back “wokeness.” But “social” conservatism—the collection of principles and causes associated with the right’s long-standing commitment to the institution of the family and the cause of human dignity—has had a rougher go. 

Yes, the administration has been ostentatious about performing aspects of religiosity. But its top policy priorities have tended not to display any real commitment to the concerns raised by people of faith. Old-guard concerns about the institution of marriage, single parenthood, drug use, gambling, vice, and, yes, abortion have all tended to be back-burnered.

Put aside prudential concerns raised by some about the White House’s application of just war theory, the expansion of marijuana availability, or its chaotic foreign aid cuts. On the issue of life alone, the second Trump administration has defended Biden-era regulations around the abortion pill, expanded federal support for fertility technology that destroys embryos, and approved a generic version of the abortion pill. Now, just this week, the president directed Congressional Republicans to be more “flexible” in allowing taxpayer funding to partially subsidize insurance coverage of abortion. 

To be sure, the pro-life segment of the coalition has not been left empty-handed: The traditional reinstatement of the Mexico City policy, the pardons issued to imprisoned pro-life activists, and Congress’ temporary defunding of Planned Parenthood should all be counted as positives. But overall, the policy wins have mostly stacked up on the “cultural”—or, if you prefer, “secular”—side of the ledger, compared to conservatism’s more socially traditionalist or religious wing. 

Politics will always require some measure of strategic alliances. The ultimate goal for pro-lifers remains convincing more Americans that we have the best interests of pregnant women and the children they carry at heart and can be trusted to enact laws that take seriously both of their claims on justice. That work won’t be accomplished according to the timetable of a midterm election cycle. As EPPC president (and my boss) Ryan Anderson wrote for First Things in the heat of the 2024 election, “we are all incrementalists now.” 

The problem, as Ross Douthat replied in his New York Times newsletter, is that “nobody can yet fully agree on what incrementalism means.” Talk to pro-life leaders about the right priority for the next three years and you’ll get a half-dozen ideas: We should investigate abortion pill residue in the groundwater; push to make birth free; double down on preventing Planned Parenthood from ever receiving any federal dollars; fund a national abortion pill reversal hotline; focus on making state laws ever-more restrictive.

These ideas, and more, have at least some merit. But if everything is a priority, nothing is. And without the galvanizing goal of overturning Roe, or pushing for a signature federal piece of legislation, the pro-life movement runs the risk of having too many targets at which to shoot, and too little coherence to do so effectively. 

So what, then, should be the focus of federal energies during the remaining years of President Trump’s second term in office? I propose pro-life organizations and actors train their fire on two goals.

Above all else, pro-lifers should be uncompromising in continually upping the pressure on the Trump administration around the abortion pill. The Biden administration’s decision during the pandemic to allow women to receive a prescription without meeting with a doctor in-person dramatically expanded access to abortion pills. Not only has that led to an uptick in abortions post-Dobbs, it has also produced horrifying cases of men mail-ordering abortion drugs and covertly administering them to wives or girlfriends. At a bare minimum, a nominally pro-life White House should restore the in-person requirement. Anything other than a reversal of the Biden administration’s mifepristone regulations should be seen as rank political cowardice and a betrayal of the movement that helped get the president elected. 

The next goal will require a little bit more of a stretch—but it’s far from outside the realm of political reality. Pro-life groups should put their energies behind a concerted push to get cash assistance into the hands of new parents shortly after childbirth, commonly known as a “baby bonus.” 

In its ideal form, a “baby bonus” would arrive right around the same time as the child’s Social Security Card, either via direct deposit or as a physical check. A $2,000 or $4,000 upfront payment to new parents would not be intended as a way of lifting America’s birth rates or improving maternal and infant health outcomes—though those may be happy side effects. It would, however, be intended to recognize the costs associated with having kids, in terms of both new expenses and income foregone, and a visible signal that America proudly stands with new parents who choose to bring their child to term. 

Ideally, such a provision would recognize the importance of having two married parents in the household, and give both mom and dad more flexibility to take time off of work around the birth of a child. This could easily be done by ensuring a “baby bonus” provides a baseline of support for single parents (who are most at risk of choosing abortion) while doubling the amount for married parents. Crucially, it would need to be salient and accessible—not tucked in to the next tax filing season, or a savings plan that won’t provide assistance for decades hence. There are plenty of other policy goals that could fit into a pro-life policy schema, but none are as compelling as up-front cash assistance for new parents. 

Standing staunchly against pro-abortion moves, whether from the other political side or within one’s own party, will require tenacity and courage. But concentrating the financial power, political engagement, and prophetic witness of the pro-life movement on two discrete goals could give the movement some much-needed definition during the waning years of a lame duck administration. 

Pro-lifers must be prudent. But prudence should not excuse cowardice. Plenty of governors have signed pro-life legislation in red and red-purple states and paid no political price. The lesson is not that pro-life moves are popular across the board, but that acting on pro-life convictions need not be an albatross if a governing coalition is also delivering wins on economy, inflation, and the border. If a political party is failing on pocketbook issues, however, no amount of social issues fecklessness will save them.

Perhaps a future Republican president will be more willing to expend political capital on the pro-life cause. For now, many within the GOP, including the current president, would prefer the issue fade quietly from view. If the pro-life movement can agree on an intra-squad compact around two goals—one offensive, one more defensive—it has a better chance of ensuring its victory in Dobbs was merely the end of a chapter, and not the beginning of the end of its story.