There have been eight presidential elections since Roe, and five of them have been won by Republicans who opposed the decision and ran as pro-life candidates. They held out the prospect of appointing conservative judges to the Supreme Court who would reverse the decision. Pro-life marchers make their annual pilgrimage to the Supreme Court. Nothing changes. Some conservatives are beginning to recognize that the pro-life movement needs a new approach. Doug Kmiec, a law professor at Pepperdine University who served in both the Reagan and first Bush administrations, is leading the charge. Kmiec endorsed Obama in February and caught all manner of flak from fellow conservatives precisely because of Obama’s support for abortion rights. But, as Kmiec noted recently, voters have to make a prudential choice between more of the same and trying something new. While Obama’s position on abortion is far from what it could be, Kmiec notes that his focus on preventing pregnancy by encouraging responsible behavior might actually do more to lower the number of abortions in America. It should also be obvious that if Roe were overturned tomorrow, many if not most states would enact legislation to codify Roe. It might be more difficult to procure an abortion in a few southern or Midwestern states, and some states might introduce some kinds of restrictions on third trimester abortions. But if the pro-life movement really wants to reduce the number of abortions, it needs to find ways to get to the women procuring them and offer them a better way. The pro-life movement can set aside the placards and the protests and volunteer at the local crisis pregnancy center. This is where the decision is made. “As anyone who’s ever had a conversation with a pregnant woman thinking about abortion knows,” Professor Kmiec argues, “good, evenhanded information and genuine empathy and love save more children than hypothetical legal limits – which, as best as I can tell, have saved: well, zero.” It is beyond refreshing to see someone in the pro-life movement recognize the lip service to their cause the GOP has been doling out these many years. In Obama, Kmiec perceives an alternative: “working with a new president who honestly concedes the abortion decision poses serious moral issues which he argues can only be fully and successfully resolved by the mother facing it with the primary obligation of the community seeing to it that she is as well informed as possible in the making of it.” Again, Kmiec’s conservative credentials are not in dispute. This is not a leftie, latte-sipping Obamaniac who has drunk the Kool-Aid. It remains to be seen how many other conservatives will reach the same conclusion: betting the house on overturning Roe has accomplished nothing for the pro-life movement. Today, almost 35 years after Roe was handed down, it is imperative that we in the pro-life movement focus less on the law and more on the culture, less on the courts and more on the women facing crisis pregnancies, less on protest marches and more on volunteering. Whatever your thoughts on Obama, Kmiec’s argument on abortion is the most sane thing I have read in years. Michael Sean Winters