In a newly published essay, Ryan T. Anderson, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, argues that for the pro-life movement to achieve its ultimate goal of ending abortion, it must first promote a significant transformation in societal sexual ethics. Anderson’s essay, titled “The Way Forward After Dobbs,” was published in the Catholic-led ecumenical journal *First Things*.

Anderson contends that abortion will continue to be viewed as necessary by many as long as nonmarital sex is widespread. “So long as nonmarital sex is expected, large numbers of Americans will view abortion as necessary emergency contraception,” he writes. He adds that with declining marriage rates and delayed marriage ages, abortion rates will remain high unless there is a change in societal behavior regarding sex and marriage.

The 2022 overturning of *Roe v. Wade*, Anderson notes, was a landmark victory for the pro-life movement. However, he argues that it came at a time when abortion had become deeply ingrained in American culture. “Generations of Americans were catechized in the beliefs that abortion is a right and that unborn babies have no rights — and that we have no duties to the unborn,” Anderson, a Catholic, writes.

While the *Dobbs* decision worked to repair some of the constitutional damage caused by *Roe*, Anderson asserts it couldn’t undo decades of political and social change. “It doesn’t — couldn’t — erase half a century of political and social corruption,” he says.

One of Anderson’s key points is that the shift in public opinion in favor of abortion in recent years has led to recent electoral defeats for the pro-life movement. While some states have passed legislation restricting abortion, every ballot initiative brought to a direct vote has liberalized abortion laws, sometimes overruling state-level pro-life measures.

“The change in public opinion over the past decade is hard to come to grips with, but the pro-life movement needs to do just that,” Anderson urges.

He suggests that when *Roe v. Wade* was still in effect, it was easier for Americans to affirm the dignity of the unborn because it was an abstract issue that did not directly threaten anyone’s choices. Now, Anderson observes, even those who identify as pro-life often make exceptions for cases like rape, incest, the life of the mother, or personal situations.

“It seems that most Americans, even some who consider themselves pro-life, support four exceptions: rape, incest, life of the mother, and … ‘my case,’” he writes. “Or ‘my daughter’s case,’ or ‘my girlfriend’s case.’”

Anderson also acknowledges that while some people who perform or facilitate abortions know it ends a beating heart, they often do not care or are unwilling to make the personal sacrifices needed to prevent it. Most abortions, he notes, occur when pregnancies happen outside of marriage, reflecting a deeper societal issue rooted in a “sexual culture that incentivizes abortion.”

The Role of the Sexual Revolution
Anderson attributes much of today’s abortion landscape to the sexual revolution of the 1960s, which advocated for social acceptance of sex outside of marriage. This movement coincided with the rise of the women’s liberation movement and the approval of the first birth control pill by the FDA.

Anderson argues that the true root cause of the high abortion rates is the sexual revolution, which conservatives have never effectively countered. “Despite many one-off campaigns and skirmishes, conservatives have never attempted to combat [the sexual revolution] in a sustained way,” he writes.

He believes that convincing people of the humanity of the unborn is no longer the primary challenge. “Anyone who has ever seen an ultrasound knows all about that,” he says. The greater task, he argues, is changing how people approach their sexual lives.

“We have a pro-life movement, but could anyone seriously suggest that we have a pro-marriage or pro-chastity movement?” Anderson asks.

Anderson notes that premarital sex is common not only among secular Americans but also among Christians who regularly attend church. He stresses the importance of beginning efforts within the Christian community before attempting to influence secular society. “Before we try to persuade the secular world of a Christian sexual ethic, we might try persuading Christians,” he advises.

He also calls for greater action from church leaders, encouraging priests and pastors to preach more about life and chastity from the pulpit, a topic he believes is too rarely addressed. Anderson also advocates for the creation of “culture-forming, opinion-shaping organizations,” which he admits will be a “daunting task.”

Anderson points to the need for more sophisticated cultural efforts, suggesting that incremental change can come through broad-spectrum initiatives such as creating new TV shows and movies that are not “hokey after-school specials,” policies to protect children from social media and online pornography, and effective church ministries. He emphasizes the enormity of the task but says the pro-life movement has not yet devoted sufficient time or resources to it.

Politically, Anderson stresses that the movement must organize effectively to help politicians succeed without forcing them into “political suicide missions.” He notes that while pro-life efforts through ballot referendums have failed, many pro-life politicians have still found success in states that have voted to expand abortion access.

Anderson calls for the development of pro-marriage policies and a broader cultural shift. “Policy wonks must devise effective pro-marriage policies,” he concludes. “Cultural entrepreneurs must apply the professionalism of the conservative legal movement across our culture-shaping institutions. Most importantly, the Church must devise ministries that will transform lives, because short of religious revival, none of the changes we need will be possible.”