The front line of the war over abortion has shifted away from the courtroom and toward the ballot box since the fall of Roe v. Wade last summer.

The flimsiness of Roe, which even prominent liberal legal scholars long acknowledged , afforded the pro-life movement an inherent advantage in the legal battle over abortion. But in the court of public opinion, abortion advocates enjoy their own advantage. Indeed, pro-abortion views represent the national default, as they are pumped into the zeitgeist on a loop by every non-religious cultural institution. Even the National Education Association, which is the nation’s largest and most influential teachers’ union, has publicly declared its support for abortion rights on multiple occasions. It remains unclear what abortion has to do with teachers’ unions or education, but suffice it to say: pro-abortion activists have powerful allies in key positions of influence across American life.

Their movement has been on a roll since last summer. Just a month following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, deep red Kansas voted to reject a constitutional amendment that denied the right to abortion in the state. The stunning outcome foreshadowed the electoral potency of abortion access in the 2022 midterm elections for Democrats, who used the issue to reduce the red wave to a gentle ripple. In 2024, Democrats are certain to recycle this strategy and turn the presidential election into a referendum on abortion. Given the dim economic forecast and their aging and unpopular incumbent president, they’d be foolish not to.

One line of attack they'll be sure to use, since it's worked well in the past, is that the pro-life movement is merely pro-birth. Of course, progressives will drastically inflate the intended meaning of the word “life” to make the point. Anything short of adopting leftist positions across the board, from free child care to climate change to drag queen story hour, will be deemed insufficiently “pro-life.”

Regardless, the attack line has real juice with the general public. And, at least with the exorbitant cost of childbirth, its political potency is warranted. Republicans would do well to address this specific issue as a matter of moral urgency and to counter the perception that they are callous and indifferent to the circumstances of low-income pregnant women and their unborn children.

According to Americans United for Life , the average cost of childbirth in the U.S. is $19,000. Even mothers who have private health insurance will pay more than $3,000 for delivery alone, which doesn’t include the cost of household necessities such as diapers, formula, high chairs, and car seats. And while government programs already exist to aid low-income women, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or the Special Supplement Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children , excessive paperwork discourages many women from pursuing these options, particularly those with low levels of education.

Crisis pregnancy centers do heroic work helping mothers acquire the necessary means, but significant cultural barriers still exist that prevent pregnant women from walking through their doors. For instance, search engines such as Google emphasize results that cast doubt over the legitimacy of crisis pregnancy centers, and news coverage from left-leaning media outlets about them is overwhelmingly negative. In this climate, it is understandable that many women believe that abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood are the only option for care.

This isn’t the only way in which our society disincentivizes birth. Appallingly, contraceptives and even abortive procedures are covered for families and individuals with health insurance, but childbirth isn’t. And for those with insurance plans that are Affordable Care Act-compliant, contraceptives are co-pay free, while prenatal care isn’t. If money talks, it’s clear what America is saying to pregnant women: abort your child or pay up — big time.

Given all this, it’s impossible not to conclude that our society has been meticulously structured to discourage women from carrying a pregnancy to term. Having successfully overturned Roe in the courtroom, the pro-life movement must now pivot to reimagining the incentive structures that coerce many women to seek abortions in the first place.

Last week, it was reported that a pilot program will begin offering $1,000 a month to income-eligible pregnant women in Philadelphia. The 18-month experimental program, called the Philly Joy Bank, will assist women from their third month of pregnancy until one year following the birth. Similar initiatives in the past have led to fewer low birth weight births and preterm births. It would be hard to think of something more quintessentially “pro-life” than that.

Now, I'm not an economist, and I won't pretend to be. But I do understand the inherent value of life, especially the most innocent. I challenge others who claim to understand this to put their money where their mouths are, even if that means taking on a greater financial responsibility as an individual or as a nation.

In a confounding and frustrating age, helping poor pregnant women is as close to a slam-dunk moral imperative as you’ll get. It’s also good politics.

Peter Laffin is a contributor at the Washington Examiner and the founder of Crush the College Essay. His work has also appeared in RealClearPolitics, the Catholic Thing, the National Catholic Register, and the American Spectator.