Pro-abortion corporate activists aren’t going away with the fall of Roe v. Wade. As a corporate analyst, I have an inside window into one of ESG activists’ favorite strategies: changing the argument over time to fit the cultural milieu and perceived urgency of the moment.
Activists focused on marshaling corporate support for abortion are all in on this strategy, particularly in the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, but how is the corporate abortion push actually faring? The answer might be better for pro-lifers than many realize.
Since the fall of Roe, the dominant narrative of the pro-abortion movement has been that the majority of people view abortion access as a net positive. But before Dobbs, activists’ focus was far different.
In 2021 (remember, the 2021 corporate proxy season focused on issues from the year before), pro-abortion activists were focused on subtly laying the groundwork for incorporating support for abortion. This subtlety took the form of “political expenditure congruency” proposals, in which activists pushed a vague notion of corporate congruency as a subtle nod to defunding pro-life organizations and politicians.
One proposal, on JPMorgan’s 2021 proxy, scolded the company for donating $185,000 to political organizations “work[ing] to undermine women’s reproductive rights” and “contribut[ing] … at least $2.8 million to anti-choice candidates and political committees.” That proposal, amazingly, pulled 30% shareholder support. It was a tactical setting of goalposts.
In the 2022 season, the tone changed. Activists now saw an overturn of Roe as a distinct possibility, and their corporate asks reflected this anxiety. Proposals, including one at Lowe’s 2022 annual meeting, were no longer about vague congruence. Protecting access to abortion, in this ESG-informed framework, was a direct corporate responsibility.
Yet, the pendulum had begun to swing. My colleagues and I engaged with proxy advisory services to sway them against such proposals, and they dropped their recommendations. Whereas proposals in the 2021 season pulled as high as 45% support, the Lowe’s proposal pulled 12%. Activists saw their support collapsing and realized they had to try yet another tactic.
Come 2023, the first proxy season after the overturn of Roe. This time, the narrative went, the question was emergency abortions. Even in a post-Roe world, activists argued, it was vitally important that companies protect their employees’ ability to kill their unborn children if it was serious enough.
At UPS, for example, activists argued the company “has significant operations in states where reproductive rights are severely limited” and that “a majority of Americans wanted to keep the Roe v. Wade framework intact.” Yet, between the innately political ask of pressuring companies to support abortion on demand and a lack of shareholder interest in using corporate time and money to oppose laws on the books, corporate support for abortion proposals flatlined and has been doing so ever since. The goalposts had been moved too far this time.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
What does the future look like for pro-life America in the corporate space? Pro-lifers have to realize the extent of the opposition. Although shareholder proposals may be dropping off in efficacy, pro-abortion activists seem to be having more success in backroom deals. Shortly before Google’s annual meeting this year, in which shareholders heard a Planned Parenthood-backed proposal that would allow the company to censor crisis pregnancy centers in its algorithm, we uncovered evidence that Google already censors pro-lifers in keeping with activist demands.
Conservatives are having to retake lost ground in the battle for fiduciary duty and corporate protections on a plethora of matters, abortion included. In many ways, the fight is just beginning.
Isaac Willour is an award-winning journalist focusing on race, culture, and American conservatism and a corporate relations analyst at Bowyer Research. He can be found on X @IsaacWillour.