In politics, prudence trumps purity: A lesson for pro-lifers
It often seems that the American right is less a coherent movement than it is a battlefield for warring factions: neocons versus paleocons, libertarians versus Christian nationalists, MAGA versus NeverTrump. This week, another group entered the fray. Call them the anti-abortion absolutists. Making political choices almost never means making perfect choices. In response to a video of vice presidential candidate JD Vance affirming that Trump would veto a national ban on abortion, the head of leading anti-abortion activist group Live Action encouraged pro-life voters to withhold support for the Republican candidate. “If you don’t stand for pro-life principles, you don’t get pro-life votes,” said Live Action CEO Lila Rose. Other conservatives were quick to fire back. In a post on X, influencer Ashley St. Clair seemed to accuse Rose of exploiting her position for personal gain: Lila Rose, the most prominent voice in the pro-life movement, is telling you not to vote because Trump isn’t “principled enough” while she pays herself over a quarter million A YEAR & uses $14 million in pro-life donations to throw luxury galas + pay for her podcast appearances. St. Clair subsequently shared another user’s screenshots of Live Action’s 990 tax form, noting that while the organization brought in $14 million in donations in 2022, it only showed $24,000 in grants and donations. Meanwhile, Rose’s salary increased by 45% in the years between 2021 and 2024, from $161,712 to $234,794. St. Clair’s followers soon joined the pile-on, echoing her insinuations that Rose is enriching herself from the plight of pregnant women in need, with some even suggesting that Rose has a vested professional interest in keeping abortion legal indefinitely. Whether or not you agree with her, Rose is making a mostly coherent argument: The only way to ensure a truly pro-life regime in the long term is to reject any half-measures in the short term, even if it means a temporary setback for the movement. This is the argument that needs answering. To drag Rose’s personal finances into it is to muddle an already complicated issue. First, the question of Lila Rose’s political calculus: It seems utterly counterproductive to sabotage Trump, a man who, despite his recent communication blunders, did indeed deliver the Supreme Court that overturned Roe v. Wade, the pro-life movement’s first real political victory in its history. Single-issue voters like Rose ignore the crucial role prudence plays in good statesmanship. Making political choices almost never means making perfect choices. Trump’s refusal to countenance a federal abortion ban certainly doesn’t preclude incremental policy changes on the state level. Allegations that Rose is in this for the money are unconvincing. The finances of nonprofits are complicated, which is why people pay accountants well to handle their 990s. St. Clair’s uninformed reference to these documents as proof of Rose’s bad intentions reveals both economic illiteracy and a deep-seated resentment (a loser mentality) more commonly found on the left. St. Clair’s big “gotcha” here — that Live Action takes in far more money than it dispenses — would only land if Live Action’s primary activity were charitable giving. This is not the case. The group’s explicitly stated mission is to change hearts and minds by producing pro-life media. Among other expenses, this requires a sizable staff of professionals, all of whom are entitled to fair compensation for their work. Rose’s salary of almost $230,000 a year is relatively low for the head of a large media organization, especially considering how effective she is at her job. If anyone else in the pro-life movement is producing content of equal quality, Rose’s critics haven’t mentioned it. Liberals are seldom so stingy with their own. When was the last time you heard one complaining about salaries at the Southern Poverty Law Center? Perhaps in this instance, conservatives could learn from the people they routinely label as communists. Rose’s stubborn political idealism is fair game, but should her desire to make a decent living count against her? It’s no secret that conservatives lag behind liberals when it comes to representation in the media. Given this obvious reality, it is perverse to begrudge creatives like Rose a fair market rate for her work.
It often seems that the American right is less a coherent movement than it is a battlefield for warring factions: neocons versus paleocons, libertarians versus Christian nationalists, MAGA versus NeverTrump.
This week, another group entered the fray. Call them the anti-abortion absolutists.
Making political choices almost never means making perfect choices.
In response to a video of vice presidential candidate JD Vance affirming that Trump would veto a national ban on abortion, the head of leading anti-abortion activist group Live Action encouraged pro-life voters to withhold support for the Republican candidate.
“If you don’t stand for pro-life principles, you don’t get pro-life votes,” said Live Action CEO Lila Rose.
Other conservatives were quick to fire back. In a post on X, influencer Ashley St. Clair seemed to accuse Rose of exploiting her position for personal gain:
Lila Rose, the most prominent voice in the pro-life movement, is telling you not to vote because Trump isn’t “principled enough” while she pays herself over a quarter million A YEAR & uses $14 million in pro-life donations to throw luxury galas + pay for her podcast appearances.
St. Clair subsequently shared another user’s screenshots of Live Action’s 990 tax form, noting that while the organization brought in $14 million in donations in 2022, it only showed $24,000 in grants and donations. Meanwhile, Rose’s salary increased by 45% in the years between 2021 and 2024, from $161,712 to $234,794.
St. Clair’s followers soon joined the pile-on, echoing her insinuations that Rose is enriching herself from the plight of pregnant women in need, with some even suggesting that Rose has a vested professional interest in keeping abortion legal indefinitely.
Whether or not you agree with her, Rose is making a mostly coherent argument: The only way to ensure a truly pro-life regime in the long term is to reject any half-measures in the short term, even if it means a temporary setback for the movement.
This is the argument that needs answering. To drag Rose’s personal finances into it is to muddle an already complicated issue.
First, the question of Lila Rose’s political calculus: It seems utterly counterproductive to sabotage Trump, a man who, despite his recent communication blunders, did indeed deliver the Supreme Court that overturned Roe v. Wade, the pro-life movement’s first real political victory in its history.
Single-issue voters like Rose ignore the crucial role prudence plays in good statesmanship. Making political choices almost never means making perfect choices. Trump’s refusal to countenance a federal abortion ban certainly doesn’t preclude incremental policy changes on the state level.
Allegations that Rose is in this for the money are unconvincing. The finances of nonprofits are complicated, which is why people pay accountants well to handle their 990s. St. Clair’s uninformed reference to these documents as proof of Rose’s bad intentions reveals both economic illiteracy and a deep-seated resentment (a loser mentality) more commonly found on the left.
St. Clair’s big “gotcha” here — that Live Action takes in far more money than it dispenses — would only land if Live Action’s primary activity were charitable giving. This is not the case.
The group’s explicitly stated mission is to change hearts and minds by producing pro-life media. Among other expenses, this requires a sizable staff of professionals, all of whom are entitled to fair compensation for their work.
Rose’s salary of almost $230,000 a year is relatively low for the head of a large media organization, especially considering how effective she is at her job. If anyone else in the pro-life movement is producing content of equal quality, Rose’s critics haven’t mentioned it.
Liberals are seldom so stingy with their own. When was the last time you heard one complaining about salaries at the Southern Poverty Law Center? Perhaps in this instance, conservatives could learn from the people they routinely label as communists.
Rose’s stubborn political idealism is fair game, but should her desire to make a decent living count against her? It’s no secret that conservatives lag behind liberals when it comes to representation in the media. Given this obvious reality, it is perverse to begrudge creatives like Rose a fair market rate for her work.
Originally Published at Daily Wire, World Net Daily, or The Blaze
What's Your Reaction?
