Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Abortion, race and the fracturing of the anti-abortion movement

Man holding an anti-abortion sign

The tangled threads of race, religion and power have long defined the anti-abortion movement.

Paul Hennessy/Anadolu via Getty Images

Johnson is a United Methodist pastor, the author of "Holding Up Your Corner: Talking About Race in Your Community" and program director for the Bridge Alliance, which houses The Fulcrum.

The Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision sent shockwaves through the very soul of America, shattering the fragile peace that once existed around the issue of abortion. But amid this upheaval, a quiet reckoning is taking place within the anti-abortion movement itself — a reckoning that lays bare the tangled threads of race, religion and power that have long defined this struggle.

To truly understand this moment, we must first confront the roots of the anti-abortion movement as we know it today. It is a movement born mainly of the white evangelical Christian right, which found its voice in opposition to Roe v. Wade in the tumultuous decades of the 1970s and ‘80s. For many conservative evangelicals, the issue of abortion became a rallying cry, a bulwark against the perceived threats to traditional authority and values.


Yet this history sits in uneasy tension with the movement's professed commitment to the sanctity of all human life. It is a dissonance that grows harder to ignore as the movement itself becomes more multiracial, more multifaith. Today, increasing numbers of Black and Latino Christians stand as anti-abortion witnesses, driven by a potent mix of religious conviction and deep concern over the disproportionate impact of abortion in their communities. These voices are calling the movement to account, forcing a reckoning with its racial blindspots and its often-unexamined alliance with a conservative agenda that has all too often devalued Black and brown lives.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

At the same time, the goals of the anti-abortion movement have grown more politically charged. In the aftermath of Dobbs, many states have enacted near-total abortion bans, with no allowance for rape or incest. These laws have sparked outrage even among some conservatives, who feel the movement has lost sight of its earlier emphasis on finding common ground to reduce abortions through supporting women and families.

This is not merely an academic question. The answer will have real-world consequences for abortion access, for racial justice and for the very health of our democracy. It demands introspection and courageous conversations about some uncomfortable truths that have long divided us. For courageous conversations to happen, curated space is required where the diverse voices within the anti-abortion movement can be truly heard, particularly those from communities of color. This means more than just tokenizing their presence — it means actively centering their stories, perspectives and wisdom.

Second, the movement's fraught history must be faced head-on without recourse to platitudes or evasions. To do so means grappling with how opposition to abortion became intertwined with resistance to racial and gender equality and how this legacy continues to shape the movement's priorities in the present day.

Third, a more expansive definition of "pro-life" encompassing economic justice, racial equity and the inherent dignity of all human life is demanded. A more expanded or nuanced understanding should advocate for policies that support vulnerable families, address the racial disparities that have long plagued us and promote a more just and equitable society for all.

Finally, we must dialogue with those who disagree with us as our human peers, driven by sincere convictions and a shared desire to do what is right. It means listening actively, speaking humbly and seeking common ground wherever possible, even as we stand firm in our principles.

Ironically, in this moment of upheaval lies an opportunity to forge a new path that is more inclusive, more just and more truly committed to the flourishing of all human life. The question is, will we dare have the necessary courageous conversations?

Read More

An illustration of diverse people around a heart with the design of the American flag.
An illustration of diverse people around a heart with the design of the American flag.
Getty Images, wildpixel

The Next Hundred Days: America's Latest Test of Democracy

For decades, we have watched America wrestle with its demons. Sometimes, she has successfully pinned them down. Other times, the demons have slipped beyond her grasp. Yet, America has always remained in the ring. There is no difference right now, and the stakes couldn't be higher.

Across America, from small-town council meetings to state legislatures, there's a coordinated effort to roll back the clock on civil rights, geopolitical relations, and the global economy. It's not subtle, and it's not accidental. The targeting of immigrants and citizens of color has become so normalized that we risk becoming numb to it. For example, what happened in Springfield, Ohio, late last year? When national politicians started pushing rhetoric against Haitian immigrants, it wasn't just local politics at play. It was a test balloon, a preview of talking points soon echoed in halls of government and media outlets nationwide. Thus, this is how discrimination, intolerance, and blatant hate go mainstream or viral—it starts small, tests the waters, and spreads like a virus through our body politic and social system.

Keep ReadingShow less
Future of the National Museum of the American Latino is Uncertain

PRESENTE! A Latino History of the United States

Credit: National Museum of the American Latino

Future of the National Museum of the American Latino is Uncertain

The American Museum of the Latino faces more hurdles after over two decades of advocacy.

Congress passed legislation to allow for the creation of the Museum, along with the American Women’s History Museum, as part of the Smithsonian Institution in an online format. Five years later, new legislation introduced by Nicole Malliotakis (R-N.Y.) wants to build a physical museum for both the Latino and women’s museums but might face pushback due to a new executive order signed by President Donald Trump.

Keep ReadingShow less
Fairness, Not Stigma, for Transgender Athletes

People running.

Getty Images, Pavel1964

Fairness, Not Stigma, for Transgender Athletes

President Trump’s campaign and allies spent $21 million of campaign spending on attack ads against transgender people. With that level of spending, I was shocked to find out it was not a top concern for voters of either party, but it continued to prevail as a campaign priority.

Opponents of transgender participation in sports continue to voice their opinions, three months into the Trump presidency. Just last month, the Trump administration suspended $175 million in federal funding to Penn State over a transgender swimmer. $175 million is a bit dramatic over one swimmer, or in the case of the entire NCAA, fewer than 10 athletes. Even Governor Gavin Newsom was recently under fire for sharing his views on his podcast. Others, like Rep. Nancy Mace, have also caught on to the mediagenic nature of transphobia right now. “You want penises in women's bathrooms, and I'm not going to have it,” she said in a U.S. House hearing last month. I had no clue who Nancy Mace was prior to her notorious views on LGBTQ+ rights. Frankly, her flip from being a supporter of LGBTQ+ rights to shouting “Tr**ny” in a hearing seems less like a change of opinion and more of a cry for attention.

Keep ReadingShow less
Unit Cohesion is a Pretext for Exclusion

The transgender flag on a military uniform.

Getty Images, Cunaplus_M.Faba

Unit Cohesion is a Pretext for Exclusion

In the annals of military history, the desire for uniformity has often been wielded as a sword against inclusion. This tendency resurfaced dramatically when President Donald Trump, shortly after taking office, signed an executive order, purportedly rooted in concerns about unit cohesion, that banned transgender individuals from serving in the armed forces. It was challenged and blocked by a federal judge on March 18, who described the ban as “soaked in animus and dripping with pretext.” On March 27, a second judge issued an injunction on the ban, calling it “unsupported, dramatic and facially unfair exclusionary policy” (the Trump administration asked the 9th Circuit to stay the ruling; they were denied on April 1). It turns out that the argument that introducing any minority into military ranks would disrupt unit cohesion is practically a cliché, with similar claims having been made against integrating black men, women, and then openly gay service members. It is a tale as old as time. But that’s just it–it’s just a tale. Don’t believe it.

The military top brass have, at times, insisted that the integration of minority groups would undermine the effectiveness of our armed forces, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Air Force General Henry Arnold wrote in 1941 that “the use of women pilots serves no military purpose,” only to have “nothing but praise” for them by 1944, after having served with them. Regarding integrating women into combat roles in 1993, Congress members argued that “although logical, such a policy would [erode] the civilizing notion that men should protect…women.” Of course, they also offered the even more convenient cover story that integration would be “disruptive to unit cohesion.” Similarly, although many claimed that “letting gays serve openly would ruin [unit cohesion],” the resistance was found to be “based on nothing” except “our own prejudices and . . . fears.” Dozens of studies conducted by the U.S. military and 25 other nations confirmed the presence of gay soldiers had no impact on unit cohesion. These results were ignored in “the service of an ideology equating heterosexuality with bravery and patriotism.” Unit cohesion is a simple—though thinly veiled—rationale.

Keep ReadingShow less