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.

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

White Books and Curriculum Damage Black Children

The rise of book bans and erasure of Black history from classrooms emotionally and systematically harms Black children. It's critical that we urge educators to represent Black experiences and stories in class.

Getty Images, Klaus Vedfelt

White Books and Curriculum Damage Black Children

When my son, Jonathan, was born, one of the first children’s books I bought was "So Much" by Trish Cooke. I was captivated by its joyful depiction of a Black family loving their baby boy. I read it to him often, wanting him to know that he was deeply loved, seen, and valued. In an era when politicians are banning books, sanitizing curricula, and policing the teaching of Black history, the idea of affirming Black children’s identities is miscast as divisive and wrong. Forty-two states have proposed or passed legislation restricting how race and history can be taught, including Black history. PEN America reported that nearly 16,000 books (many featuring Black stories) were banned from schools within the last three years across 43 states. These prohibitive policies and bans are presented as protecting the ‘feelings’ of White children, while at the same time ignoring and invalidating the feelings of Black children who live daily with the pain of erasure, distortion, and disregard in schools.

When I hear and see the ongoing devaluation of Black children in schools and public life, I, and other Black parents, recognize this pain firsthand. For instance, recently, my teenage granddaughter, Jaliyah, texted me, asking to visit the National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington, D.C., because she had heard that the President planned to close it. For what felt like the millionth time, my heart broke with the understanding that too many people fail to rally on behalf of Black children. Jaliyah’s question revealed what so many Black children intuitively understand—that their histories, their feelings, and their futures are often treated as expendable.

Keep ReadingShow less
Pluralism or DEI - or Both - or None?

equity, inclusion, diversity

AI generated

Pluralism or DEI - or Both - or None?

Even before Trump’s actions against DEI, many in the academic community and elsewhere felt for some time that DEI had taken an unintended turn.

What was meant to provide support—in jobs, education, grants, and other ways—to those groups who historically and currently have suffered from discrimination became for others a sign of exclusion because all attention was placed on how these groups were faring, with little attention to others. Those left out were assumed not to need any help, but that was mistaken. They did need help and are angry.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two people in business attire walking into an office.

Dr. Valentina Greco reflects on how accent bias, internalized gatekeeping, and hidden prejudices shape academia—and how true change begins by confronting our own discomfort.

Getty Images, Marco VDM

How Do We Become the Gatekeepers?

“Do you have a moment?”

I turned and saw my senior colleague, Paul (not his real name), a mentor and sponsor, at my office door.

Keep ReadingShow less
So DEI doesn’t work. OK, what would be better?

Conceptual image of multiple human face shapes in a variety of colors illustrating different races

Getty Images

So DEI doesn’t work. OK, what would be better?

It is no secret that diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs are under attack in our country. They have been blamed for undermining free speech, meritocracy, and America itself. The University of Virginia is the latest to settle with the government and walk away from its DEI initiatives rather than defend its programs or find a new solution.

Those who decry DEI say they do so in the name of meritocracy. They argue that those who benefit from DEI programs do so at the expense of other, more qualified individuals, and that these programs are weakening professions such as our military, science, education, and healthcare. But these arguments have it exactly backwards. DEI programs were never designed to give privilege to underrepresented people. They were put in place to chip away at discrimination and nepotism, both concepts that are antithetical to meritocracy.

Keep ReadingShow less