Article adapted from episode content.
The pro-life movement in 2026 finds itself in a paradoxical position. While legal victories have shifted the battlefield to the state level, the intellectual and social climate has grown increasingly volatile. Pro-life advocates no longer face merely reasoned disagreement; they are now subject to what can only be described as “staggering” levels of aggression and personal animosity. These attacks are not limited to secular critics but frequently originate from within evangelical circles and even from within the pro-life movement itself. Navigating this landscape requires more than just a list of facts; it demands a deep understanding of the tactics used to silence the message through the destruction of the messenger.
The Anatomy of the Character Attack
A recurring theme in modern discourse is the attempt to shame pro-life Christians into silence by using “struggle sessions” reminiscent of the Marxist playbook. In a recent incident at Biola University, Dr. Thaddeus Williams, a biblically grounded professor, was subjected to intense character assassination for choosing to speak on the topic of abortion. Critics did not attempt to engage his arguments or refute his biblical worldview; instead, they labeled his focus “ridiculous and foul” because he was not simultaneously leading protests against immigration policies or Border Patrol.
This tactic is designed to shift the focus away from the moral status of the unborn and onto the perceived moral failures of the advocate. By calling a pro-life speaker a “fascist” or a “xenophobe,” the critic aims to make the speaker’s name “shameful” in the eyes of their children and grandchildren. This is a diversionary strategy intended to bypass the actual debate. It mirrors historical intimidation tactics where individuals were shamed for not vocally supporting a specific political revolution, thereby focusing national attention away from the “murderous regime” in power and onto the “awful people” who allegedly ignored social injustice.
The Resilience of the Syllogism
The most effective counter-measure to character assassination is a steadfast return to the pro-life syllogism. Pro-lifers must realize that the truth of their position does not depend on their personal perfection or their involvement in every other social cause. The formal argument remains:
- Premise One: It is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being.
- Premise Two: Abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being.
- Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is wrong.
Even if an advocate were “the worst person on the planet”—someone who truly lacked compassion for refugees or the marginalized—their argument against abortion could still be factually and morally correct. The merits of an argument stand or fall on their own, independent of the person making them. When critics attempt to “muddy the waters” with unrelated social issues, advocates should call their bluff. If a pro-life speaker agreed to join every protest the critic demanded, the critic would still likely refuse to oppose abortion. This exposes the “struggle session” for what it is: a bluff intended to shut down the prolifer rather than a genuine call for social consistency.
Addressing the Myth of Pro-Life Profiteering
Furious attacks are not always external; some of the most destructive “craziness” currently comes from within the pro-life world, specifically from “abolitionists” and “immediatists”. These groups have recently leveled the “insidious” accusation that established pro-life leaders are “profiting off the lives of the unborn” and want abortion to remain legal to protect their livelihoods.
Such claims are described as “flabbergasting” and factually baseless. For example, Life Training Institute (LTI) operates with complete financial transparency, as is required for all 501(c)(3) organizations. The leadership of such organizations often sacrifices significant personal income to remain in the movement; Scott Klusendorf, for instance, has noted that he has not drawn a regular salary from LTI for years, despite his skills being highly marketable in more lucrative fields like life coaching or political punditry.
The history of the movement is not one of wealth, but of sacrifice. Pioneers like Joe Scheidler labored into their 90s and passed away in “near poverty” after a lifetime of closing clinics and saving thousands of lives. To attack these individuals as “profiteers” is a gross reversal of reality. These leaders should be “saluted” for their dedication rather than subjected to “very, very unfair” personal attacks.
Deconstructing Political Propaganda: The Case of Liz Cheney
External attacks frequently involve the dissemination of misinformation by figures who claim to be pro-life. Former Congresswoman Liz Cheney has recently “buying the rhetoric” of abortion advocacy groups, claiming that pro-life laws in red states are “preventing women from getting life-saving care” for miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies.
This is a powerful but ultimately hollow piece of propaganda. When challenged to cite a single piece of state legislation that prohibits life-saving care in medical emergencies, critics cannot do so. The actual language of these statutes typically makes explicit exceptions for medical emergencies and situations where the mother’s life is at risk. The confusion often stems from two sources:
- Broad Definitions of “Health”: Pro-life laws restrict using “health” as a broad justification for elective abortion (which could include economic or social health), but they do not restrict treatment for physical life-threats.
- Medical Malpractice vs. Legal Statute: If a doctor is “reluctant to save a woman’s life” out of a vague fear of prosecution, the problem lies with the doctor’s ignorance of the law, not the law itself.
The tragic cases often cited by critics, such as the death of a young woman in Georgia, frequently involve complications from abortive drugs taken without medical supervision rather than the effects of pro-life legislation. To counter this “hearsay” and “whataboutism,” advocates should point to the actual language of the statutes and utilize resources like the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) to provide factual medical reality.
The Imperative of Intellectual Fortitude
The “ranker” and hate currently directed at pro-life advocates necessitate a new level of intellectual toughness in the rising generation. It is no longer enough to have “pro-life sentiment”; believers must have a “good grounding in the issue” to avoid being “duped” by sophisticated propaganda.
Organizations like Summit Ministries are essential in this regard, as they move beyond simply providing answers to teaching students how to think biblically. Students must be equipped to handle “common objections” and “hard cases” while also understanding the “sophisticated arguments” put forward by secular philosophers like Peter Singer or Michael Tooley. By learning to make a formal case and recognizing the “bad ways people argue about abortion,” the next generation can remain “in charge” of the conversation rather than feeling like they are “in the hot seat”.
Conclusion: Standing Tall in the Hot Seat
When the attacks are furious, the temptation is to either retreat into silence or to compromise the message to appear more “inclusive” or “compassionate” to critics. However, the sources suggest a different path: exposing the bluff of the critic and standing firm on the objective truth of the human person.
Whether the attack is a “struggle session” regarding immigration, an internal smear about “blood money,” or political propaganda regarding medical care, the solution is the same—clarity and tenacity. Advocates must refuse to owe an explanation to “fools” who use shame tactics rather than reason. Instead, they must remain focused on the primary mission: “saving as many lives as we can” in the face of a culture that would rather the issue simply go away. By combining rigorous apologetics with a “tough-minded” and “statesmanlike” demeanor, the pro-life movement can withstand the fury and continue to speak for those who have no voice.