The Movement Got What It Wanted. Abortions Increased Anyway.

One year ago, JD Vance spoke at the March for Life like a conquering hero. Trump had just been inaugurated. Roe was overturned. The movement was jubilant.

This year, he had to address his detractors from the stage. Something had shifted.

What They Won
The anti-abortion movement got what it wanted: Dobbs overturned Roe. And yet abortions in America have actually risen since the decision fell.

Nearly two-thirds of those abortions now happen through medication. Mifepristone gets prescribed via telehealth. It’s accessible even in states with bans. The Trump administration made it clear they’re not touching it.

The “Prudential” Problem
From the stage, Vance defended that position. He called it a “prudential” decision—strategically and politically wise.

On social media, people were furious at the word.

In the crowd, one man told RNS reporter Aleja Hertzler-McCain: “I think we are in a difficult political moment. JD Vance’s heart is in the right place. I was worried the Trump administration wanted to compromise on abortion. But I think that’s just their good negotiating skills.”

Then he started crying.

The Tension
This is the collision: a movement with profound spiritual conviction confronting political calculation.
What happens when you win the legal battle but lose the ground war? When the political party you backed won’t give you what you expected?

Transcript
March for Life 2026: When Victory Feels Like Defeat

This transcript was generated using AI tools and may contain minor transcription errors.

Host: Amanda Henderson
Guest: Aleja Hertzler-McCain

Amanda Henderson 0:00
From RNS and the Institute for Religion, Politics and Culture. This is Complexified, a podcast for the religiously curious and politically frustrated. I’m Amanda Henderson. One year ago, JD Vance spoke at the March for Life like a conquering hero. Trump had just been inaugurated. Roe was overturned. The movement was jubilant. This year, he had to address his detractors from the stage. Protest signs were up during his speech, and when Trump appeared on video, the applause was muted. Something had shifted. The pro-life movement got what it wanted. Dobbs overturned Roe, and yet abortions in America have actually risen since Dobbs fell. The FDA approved a new generic mifepristone, the abortion pill that’s become the movement’s new fixation. And the Trump administration has made it very clear they’re not touching it. Today, Religion News Service reporter Aleja Hertzler-McCain takes us inside this year’s March for Life, where the energy was different. We’re talking about what the movement wants versus what it’s getting, why mifepristone became a line in the sand, and why in a crowd of thousands rallying for a culture of life, only one person brought up immigration. Aleja Hertzler-McCain, welcome back to Complexified.

Aleja Hertzler-McCain 1:43
I’m glad to be here.

Amanda Henderson 1:44
So last year, I recall you saying that the March for Life felt like a rock concert. You had to wait in line to get in. The energy was vibrant. Tell me about the change in atmosphere at this year’s March for Life.

Aleja Hertzler-McCain 1:58
Yeah. So there was still plenty of excitement, but I definitely think specifically around the speakers and JD Vance, it was very noticeable. There were still some hardcore fans. There’s a guy next to me who’s just yelling, “I love you, JD!” when he was talking.

Amanda Henderson 2:11
Throwing his bra on the stage?

Aleja Hertzler-McCain 2:14
I mean, not quite, but same energy. You know, it wasn’t that there were no MAGA hats or anything, but it was definitely significantly different. Like, when Trump came on video, it almost seemed like any of the other videos they were playing in terms of reaction. Like, people didn’t really seem very hyped up. And then repeatedly, when you were talking with people in the crowd, they either weren’t super politically attuned, or if they were following the news, they had concerns about the Trump administration. And this was the crowd that JD Vance chose to go to in his first speaking appearance as vice president, because they would be so on his side. So the fact that he had to address the idea that his administration wasn’t making progress on abortion issues from the stage—like, that’s really significant.

Amanda Henderson 2:49
Yeah, tell me about his speech. What did JD Vance say this year?

Aleja Hertzler-McCain 2:54
In the lead-up to the March for Life, he and his wife Usha announced that they were expecting a fourth child, and that was supposed to be a big applause line in the speech. And it got that. So he talked about how last year he had said he wanted more babies in America—or it could have also been the woman introducing him. And he was like, JD Vance, you know, walks the talk. And it was funny—the way he talked about having a fourth kid, he kind of made a joke about, or probably a joke, I don’t know, about the Trump administration making life financially more affordable for families, and that kind of factoring into the decision. So he said this, and, you know, that was kind of a funny way to put it, because normally in Catholic teaching, you’re not really making decisions about whether to have children based on finances. And in general, aside from deciding whether you’re using natural family planning, you’re not really making decisions about whether to have children at all. That’s God’s choice, right? So it was an interesting line from the stage, for sure. And yeah, I think revealing.

Amanda Henderson 4:03
How did he frame the culture war aspect of abortion?

Aleja Hertzler-McCain 4:08
Yeah, you know, he went on this tangent about dead infant skeletons in pagan places and outside brothels. That was pretty memorable. I think we can play a little clip from that.

JD Vance (clip) 4:18
From the skeletons in brothels to the child sacrifice of the Mayans, the mark of barbarism is that we treat babies like inconveniences to be discarded, rather than the blessings to cherish that they are.

Aleja Hertzler-McCain 4:33
We hear him kind of make this historical, archeological connection, and then he makes the argument that this is really like an existential issue for the United States in this moment about—he says—whether we will remain a civilization under God. And we’ll play that clip too.

JD Vance (clip) 4:48
The March for Life, my friends, it’s not just about a political issue, as important as all this politics stuff is. It is about whether we will remain a civilization under God, or whether we will ultimately return to the paganism that dominated the past.

Aleja Hertzler-McCain 5:04
And so ultimately, you know, he’s really making a religious point about the importance of this movement, even as he’s on stage not really giving them what a lot of people in the crowd say they want.

Amanda Henderson 5:15
Yeah, what is it that people in the crowd want? I mean, this does seem like he’s making this impassioned, existential, spiritual battle. But that’s not exactly what the administration has done when it comes to legislating around abortion rights, right?

Aleja Hertzler-McCain 5:33
I think the most common theme—and there were definitely lots of different things people said—but the most common theme that people said they wanted out of the administration that they weren’t getting was action on mifepristone, which is a drug that’s largely used in abortions, but also can be used to treat high blood sugar in some cases. And actually, you know, in recent years, it’s become even more prevalent because of telehealth and because there’s some restrictions on abortion in certain places, like in person, so people are able to get it prescribed through telehealth and use it even in states with abortion bans. So it’s risen to almost two-thirds of abortions use medication, and abortions have risen since Dobbs.

Amanda Henderson 6:12
Let’s come back to that. This is so wild that abortions have increased post-Dobbs decision. You would think after—what’s the total of states who have banned abortion at this point? Thirteen completely, and then more have other restrictions. And so with that, common sense would tell us that abortions would decrease, but that’s not what has happened.

Aleja Hertzler-McCain 6:32
What’s happened? Yeah, we’ve seen an increase in abortions, and almost two-thirds of those are through medication. And so people have attributed this increase in abortions to the fact that telehealth is really making abortion appointments and getting that abortion medication more accessible, and that it’s lowered costs, and that people, even in these states that have bans, have access.

Amanda Henderson 6:55
So it seems like that is really what the anti-abortion movement, the pro-life movement, is really focused on at this point—you know, this hasn’t had the result that they expected. So what kind of legal changes could happen to actually reduce abortions, right?

Aleja Hertzler-McCain 7:11
Yeah, it’s been a—I think, you know, just from logic, like, if their ultimate goal is to reduce the number of abortions in the US, this is like a key way to do it. And certainly they have other gripes with the Trump administration. But this was really a touchstone for them, and all the way back in the campaign, JD Vance said they weren’t interested in restricting access to mifepristone. Like you said in your intro, the FDA approved a new generic this past year. Like people were really frustrated that they see that the Trump administration is not taking action on this.

Amanda Henderson 7:42
How are the movement groups putting pressure on the Trump administration in this time?

Aleja Hertzler-McCain 7:47
Yeah, I mean, so there definitely are organized groups that were penning op-eds in the days leading up, that were tweeting and speaking out. Then also in the crowd, you had people saying things like that. You actually even had a member of Congress who speaks pretty frequently at the March for Life calling for it from the stage after JD Vance spoke. So there’s, you know, conversation, signs in the crowd. Like, you know, people are pushing. But whether the Trump administration makes the political calculation that it’s worth taking this on, given that some of their previous action on abortion was unpopular, you know, I don’t know whether we know where they’re going to land on that political calculation, or whether their political calculation is going to change based on this pressure.

Amanda Henderson 8:36
How did the crowd respond to this being a political calculation, especially for so many of them that see this as the most important issue that they’re looking at?

Aleja Hertzler-McCain 8:44
Yeah, there was definitely on X people were quite upset with JD Vance’s choice to use the word “prudential” in making these decisions. You know, he said from the stage, like, “I know some of y’all are worried. Like, we all have the same goals, but the way to get there is like a prudential or like a wise-in-the-moment type decision we all need to make.” And people felt that that was patronizing and not okay. But, you know, when I talked to people after his speech, I talked to one man who said, “You know, I think we are in a difficult political moment, and JD Vance’s heart is in the right place. And I was worried that the Trump administration wanted to compromise on abortion, but I think that’s just their good negotiating skills.” And then he starts crying when he’s talking to me.

Amanda Henderson 9:37
Oh, wow.

Aleja Hertzler-McCain 9:38
And this is a man who told me, you know, he prays every Monday outside the abortion clinic. And he said, “You know, I just really know, and I can see a future where abortions don’t happen and it’s unthinkable.” And so I think people have this really profound commitment to these goals, and they also recognize—like, you know, I think there’s a mix. There’s some that think push for legal change no matter what, and there’s others who recognize that they need to persuade people and change hearts and minds to really make progress.

Amanda Henderson 10:06
Fascinating. Let’s take a break.

Amanda Henderson 10:10
It sounds like there are these two approaches within the pro-life movement or anti-abortion movement. One focuses on culture change and winning hearts and minds as the effective way to actually end abortion, and the other follows a political route that is a more absolutist position, that lobbies for fetal personhood laws and banning medication abortion. How is the movement navigating these divergent paths?

Aleja Hertzler-McCain 10:38
Yeah. I mean, I think most people are a bit of a mix of the two, but there are definitely people on both ends. You know, I talked to one woman who said, “The states have to make their decisions, and we have to change hearts and minds.” And then, you know, there was a priest in the crowd who’s part of what they call an abolitionist movement, who believes that they should draw on the 14th Amendment—protections should extend from conception—and that once the Supreme Court steps in and says the 14th Amendment applies from conception onward, that, you know, there can be no abortion in that case.

Amanda Henderson 11:14
Explain the 14th Amendment to people in our audience who might not understand why this approach is used around the anti-abortion movement.

Aleja Hertzler-McCain 11:22
Sure, yeah. And, you know, it’s still definitely a fringe position, but there was a robust Catholic group at the March calling for this. And the 14th Amendment was passed in the wake of the Civil War to guarantee equal rights to formerly enslaved people. It’s been the basis for all sorts of civil rights law, all sorts of equal rights law. So, you know, the argument they’re making is that at the moment of conception, those are people—equal protection should apply. And they’re actually bringing back kind of language related to slavery, right? So they’re calling themselves abolitionists. One of the key priest speakers for it was telling me that we’re in this pre-Civil War Dred Scott moment, where, you know, this massive civil rights change is coming for the US. So that’s, you know, absolutely a position a little bit more on the fringe. A lot of people are more in the “we need to change hearts and minds. We’d like to see restrictions on mifepristone, or we’d like to see states make restrictions”—kind of more in that middle ground. And it seems like JD Vance was way more on the “need to change hearts and minds” than “we need new legal restrictions that might be unpopular.”

Amanda Henderson 12:34
Okay, the other big sticking point that I’ve heard a lot about is the Hyde Amendment. Can you speak a little bit about what the Hyde Amendment is and why that has become such an argument and a tension between the people in the movement and the Trump administration?

Aleja Hertzler-McCain 12:49
Right. So the Hyde Amendment is a policy that bans federal funding from going to pay for abortions. And for a lot of people in the anti-abortion, pro-life movement, it was seen as like, kind of bare minimum. Like, you know, if you’re truly on our side, you support this. It’s not in question. So the fact that, you know, it came out that Trump had said to House Republicans that they should be, quote, “flexible” on the Hyde Amendment—that made waves.

Amanda Henderson 13:15
Yeah, I bet. Just to point out, like, part of why the Hyde Amendment is controversial is because when you say the government can’t pay for abortions, that means that Medicaid can’t cover. So those who are most impacted by this are people who are on Medicaid, right?

Aleja Hertzler-McCain 13:35
Yeah. No, it definitely has very real-life implications. Sometimes these things get talked about, and we struggle to connect them to what that looks like in the clinic. But this is a policy that has very real implications. But, you know, for people who were there, like I spoke to one Presbyterian Church in America couple from Orlando who had handmade their own sign that kind of looked like a tweet at Trump saying, “We will not be flexible on the Hyde Amendment. Abortion is murder.” As I said earlier, there might be some, like, occasionally some people have some “Oh, how do we convince people?” But I think a lot of people have this just complete certainty that this is murder, and therefore, you know, we’re not going to have a discussion about this, because either you’re with us or you’re for this. And that couple certainly felt like they were drawing on Scripture.

Amanda Henderson 14:25
And is the tension brought up within—and it sounds like the culture of life position does pay attention to kind of the different ways that it’s not just around abortion issues that life issues come out. We can talk about euthanasia, the death penalty, immigration issues. How is that talked about within the movement and at the March for Life?

Aleja Hertzler-McCain 14:46
Yeah, it’s always interesting to see what non-abortion life issues get brought up in conversations or even from the stage. Last year, I was the one having to kind of bring up IVF. And among the real intellectual parts of the movement, when we look at the largest number of what they perceive to be deaths of embryos, right? You’re looking at probably mifepristone and then IVF, because of the embryos created that are not used. And so, you know, in terms of a numbers game, IVF is actually pretty big. But I was the one often last year having to bring up the fact that generally, this crowd would have felt a certain way about IVF, but the Trump administration hadn’t been on board. And this year, IVF did come up, I think once or twice. Euthanasia came up once or twice. But, you know, people were pretty squarely focused on abortion or a broader position around the idea of being pro-life, you know, that was less political issue-focused. So I talked to a Franciscan Sister of the Eucharist who was there with young people. She’s a director of youth ministry at a parish in Virginia, and she just talked about how she’d long been bringing youth to this, and that she felt like it was a spiritual pilgrimage, that, you know, they had to endure discomfort. You know, it’s really cold, and they might not have a good sleep if they’re coming in from somewhere else. And that in, you know, the prayer and the discomfort of the experience, that there was a real deepening in spiritual commitment to the idea of being pro-life, which, for her, when she was talking about it, was about being willing to be inconvenienced to promote the dignity of other people. Yeah, I think that’s a good way to sum up kind of what she talked about. But it was this idea of really being willing to make space for others, even when it’s hard—less connected to a specific agenda on stage. And, you know, even so, this stage is full of politicians. And yet, for her, this is an experience of prayer and conversion for the youth.

Amanda Henderson 16:43
Yeah, it’s very deeply felt. How about immigration? I mean, this is such a key topic right now, and was immigration brought up? And how are people in the March for Life community thinking about the conflicts that are happening right now and the life that’s being lost around immigration issues?

Aleja Hertzler-McCain 17:02
So I think important context here is that the March for Life happened on the Friday before Álex Pretell was shot, so we know, right, that voices on the right have actually weighed in since his death and kind of taken a more strong stand against the current ways immigration enforcement is being carried out. But that had not happened yet.

Amanda Henderson 17:25
Okay.

Aleja Hertzler-McCain 17:26
So in general, that part of the conversation was pretty marginal. I think it’s always important to note that white nationalist groups do have a presence at the March for Life. So you’ll see extremist groups like Patriot Front, the New Columbia Movement. I even saw what—you know, Patriot Front, it seemed to be attempting to recruit Catholic University of America students while I was there. So absolutely a context that’s going on. But there was a man who was holding up a sign, and he’s part of a group called Rehumanize International. And he was holding up a sign that said, “ICE cruelty kills the unborn too.” Then it said, “Abolish ICE.” And so there are, you know, a small group of people who show up from this contingent. And I spoke with him, and, you know, he was very committed to his anti-abortion stance. He’s a Mennonite from LMC, which used to be Lancaster Mennonite Conference. Now just called that. So it’s a more conservative, non-LGBTQ-affirming group. He, you know, also felt deeply convicted in the idea that ICE was both allowing abortions, but also in the mistreatment of pregnant people, creating miscarriages, and that ICE needed to be abolished. And, you know, was holding that sign right as the politicians were speaking up there. So it wasn’t completely absent, but about as fringe in that space as the man wanting the 14th Amendment protections from conception.

Amanda Henderson 18:53
Well, it sounds like a diverse and eclectic group of people who share some common goals and also have a lot of different perspectives on how to achieve those goals. Aleja, thank you so much for being there year after year and bringing us these stories and helping us understand the tensions and the nuances within this movement.

Aleja Hertzler-McCain 19:08
Yeah, glad to chat.

Amanda Henderson 19:10
Complexified comes to you from the Institute for Religion, Politics and Culture at Iliff School of Theology, in partnership with Religion News Service. I’m Amanda Henderson. Our producer is Jonathan Woodward. Our editor is Julia Windham. Consulting producer is Paul O’Donnell. The world still needs us. We need more thinking, more nuance, more questions and curiosity, more complexified. So share this episode with a friend who needs a little bit more complexity to their understanding of the world, and email me right now at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. That’s complexified at I-L-I-F-F dot E-D-U.

TRANSCRIPT COMPLETE