When thinking about pro-life movement, it is common to picture conservatives who are pushing hard for abortion bans. Often, it seems the pro-life voter is the model single-issue voter. I myself have been guilty of this assumption, and, because of it, I was reluctant to label myself pro-life, even though I generally opposed abortion. However, the situation is changing. In the recently passed health care bill, H.R. 3962, the pro-life movement scored a major victory in the addition of the Stupak Amendment, taking it out of irrelevance. This amendment requires plans in the federally subsidized health insurance exchange to not directly cover abortion and makes anyone with one of these plans, whether subsidized or not, purchase an extra rider if they want abortion coverage. Without this amendment, the healthcare bill would only follow the existing rules in the Hyde Amendment, which prevents public funding from going to abortion, but wouldn’t stop public funding from subsidizing private plans that cover abortion. Many have called this amendment the biggest pro-life legislation in decades.

There is a simple reason this passed in a Democratically controlled House of Representatives, in spite of the failure of several years of complete Republican control of the three government branches to pass meaningful abortion legislation. The pro-life movement decided to engage democrats and liberals to get this amendment passed, which advances their cause substantially. Instead of telling voters to vote Republican because of abortion alone, or merely complaining about the lack of an abortion ban, the movement backed a feasible method of abortion reduction. As such, traditionally pro-choice Democratic members of Congress, such as Repsentatives Joe Baca (CA-43), Zach Space (OH-18), and Ciro Rodriguez (TX-23), all of whom have 100 ratings from Planned Parenthood and zero ratings from National Right to Life, backed this legislation. There are many lessons abortion foes can take from this. When they stop alienating liberals, they can accomplish pragmatic abortion reduction measures. One of the greatest mistakes abortion opponents made was to affiliate themselves with conservatism and the Republican Party; the Stupak Amendment shows they are finally learning from their mistakes.

Of course, pro-choice groups have pushed back hard. The president of the National Organization of Women, in regards to Obama’s goal of passing health reform stated to ABC news that, “it is not acceptable for him to achieve that goal by pushing women back into the back alleys to die.” This is ridiculous. Under the Stupak Amendment, in cases where abortion is a life or death matter, abortion is still funded. In other cases, it simply isn’t health care. This dangerous idea emerges from the belief that there is a fundamental “right to choose,” which often becomes misinterpreted as a right to access. The government is not required to ensure that everyone can pay for an abortion. If they want one, they should find the funding for it themselves. What the government should do, however, is reduce the cost of not having an abortion. This can be done by funding the health needs of pregnant women, ensuring that they can provide for their children, and making the adoption process as streamlined as possible.

There is great potential for anti-abortion measures in the future. If the core goal of the pro-life movement shifts from the complete abolition of abortion to the dramatic reduction of occurrences of abortion, much more is in store. First, the Stupak Amendment passed. Next, we will accomplish other things, like mandatory ultrasound laws, abolishing the restrictions on peaceful anti-abortion protesters, or parental notification laws in all states. Eventually, we can work towards government funding of anti-abortion education to be given to anyone that wants to have one. By these measures, we will accomplish much more than we would by calling for a ban. Not only will an abortion ban never pass, it also will not work. If abortion is banned, it will just lead to black market abortions that are much less safe. Also, calling for a ban will alienate many people opposed to abortion, making it impossible to accomplish anything.

However, there is a long way to go on the road to a pragmatic pro-life movement. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops, which was key to the passage of Stupak, remains the only pro-life organization to come out in support of healthcare reform. Many Democrats who voted for the Stupak Amendment still voted against the final bill; over in the Senate, Ben Nelson, one of the most conservative Democrats, and a major public option skeptic, is one of the two proponents of the Senate version of the Stupak Amendment (the Casey-Nelson Amendment). There’s still much work to be done before abortion stops being an issue split on liberal-conservative lines, but the framework exists. I hope that someday many others will join me in stating that they are pro-life liberals, and proud of it. I am afraid that I’ll be waiting a long time.