Many pro-lifers put their hopes in a simple formula. They would work toward electing presidents who would appoint the right Supreme Court justices. Those justices would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the decisions establishing a right to abortion .

These hopes were finally fulfilled in 2022 when the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to reverse Roe and Casey in the earthquake-making case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization . Former President Donald Trump deserves great credit for the justices he nominated to the court, who comprised three of the five votes to overturn Roe. It set him up as a hero for the movement.

Then came his interview on NBC’s Meet the Press . In it, he called early abortion bans such as those passed in Florida “a terrible thing and a terrible mistake.” He also said, “Both sides are going to come together and … for the first time in 52 years, you’ll have an issue that we can put behind us.”

We must feel the full force of these comments. Trump did not argue for prudence — that we must only go as far in legislating as political majorities will permit. Instead, he made a moral judgment against laws that protect unborn children. Pro-life laws were a “terrible thing” to do, he said. And his argument about getting both sides together was either naive or deceitful. Anyone paying attention to the Democratic Party’s stance on abortion knows it approves no compromise on its policy of abortion on demand for any reason at any time.

Trump’s “clarification” later on social media really should not give pro-lifers peace of mind. Taken with his interview, they convey an attitude that is, at best, transactional rather than principled. They show someone who seems to have seen the end of political benefit for his alignment with the pro-life movement.

Transactional may have cut it pre-Dobbs. A president could argue he only sought to nominate judges who would faithfully interpret the Constitution as its text reads and its framers intended. Astute and observant people may rightly have understood those words to entail overturning Roe. But this approach maintained some protection against political blowback so long as the actual consequences on abortion remained aspirational.

In the wake of the electoral losses suffered since then, transactional players have little incentive to stick their necks out to further the cause of the unborn. Pro-choicers have succeeded at the polls from purple Michigan to ruby-red Kansas and Kentucky. A part of the GOP’s underperformance in the 2022 midterm elections certainly came as a result of blowback to Dobbs as well.

At this point, supporting pro-life laws comes with risk and possibly devastating electoral costs. They present a bad deal, it seems, to the writer of The Art of the Deal. 

Yet this is no time for such cold, self-serving calculation. As electoral risks have risen for pro-life advocacy, so has the need for that advocacy. Dobbs changed the needs for the pro-life movement. Rather than persuading judges, we must persuade the public. Rather than tight legal arguments, we must have rhetoric that makes the case for life. This rhetoric will take Lincolnian skill, combining appeals to head and heart, uniting unflinching conviction with deft perception of the politically possible.

Despite the triumph of Dobbs, the cause of life has far from won. It will take nothing short of statesmanship to complete the task. And it will take that statesmanship up and down the ticket. A presidential candidate is the de facto leader of a party. Thus, even state legislation will hinge in part on his leadership.

Trump’s comments must leave pro-lifers wondering if he truly will join us in the task of protecting unborn life. We must not waver in our commitment. And we must demand the same of those seeking our vote.

Adam Carrington is an assistant professor of politics at Hillsdale College.