By Chuck Donovan

Without doubt, the last year and more has been a rough patch for the pro-life cause, even outside the realm of ballot questions and electoral politics. The surest sign of difficulty is the sharp division among pro-life forces about what course of action to take to advance the right to life.

On July 9, the movement, already hampered by having few advocates outside the Republican Party, found itself with a national GOP platform in which pro-life policy positions had been sharply curtailed. The debacle led the pro-life former Vice President Mike Pence to say he was “profoundly disappointed” in the outcome.

The sharp contrast between the 2016 and 2024 GOP platforms tells the tale. After 1976, when the GOP first embraced a federal constitutional amendment to protect the unborn, the platform steadily grew in scope and detail. The 2016 platform laid out a string of provisions that covered an array of topics, endorsing federal legislation to protect the unborn under the 14th Amendment, defunding abortion businesses, supporting the Hyde Amendment, nominating pro-life judges, opposing embryo destruction, advocating pregnancy resource centers, and much more.

In contrast, the new 2024 platform’s pro-life provisions were reduced to just over 100 words. The reference to federal constitutional protection was transformed into a reframing of the 14th Amendment as a states’ rights approach, only late-term abortion was mentioned specifically as objectionable, and both birth control and in vitro fertilization were endorsed without qualification.

Moreover, the process by which the platform was approved sparked criticism — the vote in the GOP platform committee was 84-18 and efforts to amend or bolster the platform were quashed in a rushed process. The wide margin suggests that there exists strong support for this substantively diluted platform, and that the prospects for reversing it anytime soon are dim.

But there is evidence to the contrary, and that is the extent to which, despite the weakening at the national level, GOP state party platforms in 2024 continue to reflect a strong party position on the fundamental question of the right to life and related policies on defunding measures, alternatives to abortion, and other subjects. There, as we lay out below, the 2024 outcomes are more encouraging and offer a path back to pro-life commitment for the GOP.

Over nearly half a century, the national GOP added thematic elements to its national platform, reflecting the reality that, while abortion is sometimes framed as a single issue, in reality it involves an array of questions regarding the disabled, the treatment of the elderly, scientific research, genetics, and other compelling topics. Perhaps the peak pro-life platform for the GOP was the one adopted in 2012, which addressed 19 separate life topics and proposals, including legislation outlawing dismemberment abortions and abortions carried out on the grounds of disability, race, or sex.

To analyze the state and territorial GOP platforms for 2024, this research identified party websites online, most of which included the state platform or a link to its text. The list examined included the 50 states, five U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia. Then we developed a list of 11 major topics that might be included in the platforms, including reference to the sanctity of human life/the Declaration of Independence (a common way for the abortion issue to be tied to the nation’s founding); the U.S. Constitution; the state’s constitution; defunding abortion; adoption/alternatives to abortion; assisted suicide/euthanasia; appointment/election of pro-life judges; parental rights; conscience rights; and stem cells/cloning.

We noted if the platform specifically mentioned the application of the platform provision from the time of conception. Finally, we identified those states that, either in addition to or in lieu of a state platform, endorsed the 2024 platform as adopted in Milwaukee at the national convention.

On a few key topics, the majority of the platforms were clear, while on others the frequency of specific mentions varied. A handful of states were silent on life issues, and it appeared that some chose not to update their platform language from prior years. Where state party websites were unclear on the status of their platforms, we called state party officials to confirm our interpretation. Our overall findings suggest that while the state platforms vary in depth and quality of the platform language, most platforms support respect for human life from its beginning to natural death.

Specifically:

• Thirty-six (36) states and one territory (Guam) refer to belief in the sanctity of human life and/or to the words of the Declaration of Independence regarding all men being endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights, among them the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness;
• Twenty-three (23) states use language from “conception to natural death” to describe the scope of protection for the right to life, while only one state (Delaware) refers to the “potential life” of an infant as an object of respect. Interestingly, the Hawaii Republican Party refers to “fertilization,” recognizing, “The sanctity of innocent human life, created in the image of God, which should be equally protected from fertilization to natural death.” Three other states — Georgia, Texas, and Oklahoma — refer to fertilization as well.
• Next in frequency was mention of defunding abortion and/or abortion businesses (21 states), followed by adoption/alternatives to abortion at 20 mentions, opposition to unethical stem cell research and cloning (13 states), and opposition to assisted suicide/euthanasia at 11 states.

Generally, few mentions were specifically made to the U.S. Constitution or state constitutions, and no mentions occurred of a belief that only state constitutions or policymaking should address the right to life. Some issues that remain prominent, including conscience and parental rights, received fewer mentions than one might expect, especially given the expanding potential for shipment of abortion pills to minors across state lines and Biden-Harris administration efforts to erode conscience protections for health care providers.

Conversely, no state appears to have focused on late-term abortions in lieu of more broadly stated objections to abortion. None endorse in vitro fertilization (IVF) or contraception as the new national platform does, though two states (Montana and Oklahoma) mention IVF in the context of protecting the lives of embryos created by this means. Mentions of contraception are seldom made but when they are included, it is in the context of endorsing conscience protections regarding the practice. Seven states accurately mention the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and its application to the adoption of congressional legislation to protect the right to life.

It would also appear that a few states that reference the 2024 national platform and did not adopt their own this year could be considered strongly conservative, though some (e.g., Kentucky, Tennessee, Florida, and Virginia) have national party leadership connections or other reasons why they may not have adopted their own platforms. The District of Columbia GOP, meanwhile, has a detailed platform without any life issue references but has not published support for the national platform on its web pages.

Finally, in terms of comprehensive platforms that approach the detail of the 2012 and 2016 GOP platforms, there are powerful examples like those of Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Idaho. Encouraging in another way are those states like California and Illinois, whose platforms are highly principled on the life issues in states that have traditionally proved inhospitable to the GOP and its candidates.

Irrespective of what happens in the 2024 presidential election and down-ballot races, it is clear that there is new tension within the Republican Party on the direction it will take on the sanctity of life, family definition, sexual values generally, and more. It is equally clear that state parties as a whole have not gone the route of the national party in 2024 by jettisoning their protective language for the unborn. In the wake of this election, battles in the states may swiftly begin over these core principles. If so, texts and ideas exist in these documents that can refortify the commitment of the GOP to issues that transcend any single political moment.

Is the 2024 national GOP platform a harbinger of a party that is no longer deeply committed to the sanctity of human life, or is it an aberration? Time may swiftly tell.

Katie Crain, research and communications intern at Family Research Council, assisted with this project.

Chuck Donovan is a veteran family policy analyst and former Executive Vice President of Family Research Council.