If abortion was not Harris’ main campaign issue, then it was one of her top three (along with Trump’s character and the danger to democracy). And after the results were announced, most of the Harris camp’s explanations for the defeat don’t see support for abortion as something that needs to change. Even in her speech accepting defeat, Harris presented abortion as part of an ideal American future.

Harris lost, but everyone who supported her at this point will continue the pro-abortion push with even more determination.

At stake will be defining abortion as women’s liberation and defining pro-lifers as enemies of women.

They will use every case of the death of a woman who wanted an abortion, had an abortion on demand or had a miscarriage. Without looking at the actual medical causes, they will stake on the rage-generating emotion: ‘she died because of legislation’.

They will use every case of a woman in a difficult situation who wanted an abortion and didn’t fit within the laws of her own state and had to go to another state.

They will deny any regret and negative consequences of abortion expressed by women who had abortions or by men who induced an abortion.

Finally, with brutal cynicism, they will ignore every child who died by abortion on demand – over 1 million in the US in 2023, not counting embryos intentionally destroyed in IVF procedures.

They stand every chance of succeeding if a major pro-life construct is missing.

Society’s reaction to restricting abortion in the absence of real support for women is to further promote abortion. This is what happened in Romania in the 90s.

In short, the situation in Romania was as follows: the communist regime legalized abortion on demand in 1957, 7.5 million abortions took place in 1958-1966: the communist regime restricted abortion in 1966, 7.3 million abortions took place in 1967-1989; the communist regime fell and the first law repealed the restrictions of 1967. In 1990 there were 1 million abortions.

With a population of 23 million, 1 million abortions in a year means a frenzy of abortion as a form of freedom – exactly as those pro-abortion in the US are trying and will try to define it.

This is why abortion has been associated for six decades in Romania with the political right and the West, and its restriction with the political left and Russia (Russia, which has a much higher abortion rate than the US in all historical periods). Romania has developed a practical culture of abortion and a mental fascination with abortion, the latter of which has not been shaken by the emergence from communism and access to democracy and the reality of political doctrines in the last 24 years.

How is this possible?

Because under communism institutionally and intellectually no one built pro-life institutions, the regime forbade support and debate. The communist state created a framework where there was no question of support for pregnant women. The state said it was doing everything right and no one else had the right to do it. The state knew what was right and people could not debate. There were no political parties apart from the Romanian Communist Party, all educational and research institutions were state-run, there were no NGOs, cults were not allowed to do social work or to express their real opinion in public.

And after communism, none of the concrete culprits took responsibility for the lack of support and compassion for women who died in illegal abortions, for the terrible conditions in which hundreds of thousands of children were kept in state institutions – and many killed, then the phenomenon of former institutionalized children who ended up on the streets – poor souls living in the sewers of cities and derogatorily called „aurolacs”. It was the restriction of abortion that was blamed!

Instead, the 10,000 women who died as a result of illegal abortions were invoked with self-serving compassion. About the number, it must be said that no one has documented it scientifically, but it emerged after December 1989 as certain – it may be higher, it may be lower, but even one woman dying is bound to generate a lot of grief and a deep analysis of the causes, lest it happen again.

But how many of those bereaved by the deaths of these women have questioned: who and how victimized these women? How did they come to believe that aborting their children was the only way to continue their lives?

Here is a case, without the pretense of generalization – but it sheds light on the answer to the questions.

A family with two children. A third pregnancy occurs. The husband tells his wife that there is no way he can raise three children, so she must have an abortion. The woman has an abortion at home and dies. The husband remarries and has a child with his second wife – so raises three children. Is the abortion restriction to blame? The husband has no responsibility? How functional was that relationship, really?

Moreover, this self-interested compassion in promoting abortion excludes from compassion the children of these women, also dead.

Such self-serving compassion without serious analysis of the facts is taking place in the US. Since 2022, after the Dobbs decision, every day in almost every major American publication (read worldwide) there are articles designed to stir compassion for the tragedies caused by Dobbs, to define abortion as a right and freedom, and the pro-life movement as an absolute oppressor that should frighten any moral person.

This message is so powerful that when you look up the number of women who have died in connection with an abortion in states that have restricted abortion, it is mind-blowing to see that the number is… 4, and in each case thorough analysis showed that malpractice was responsible, not legislation. I repeat it here, the death of one man at the fault of others is an infinite tragedy that must be mourned and worked to prevent recurrence.

But who has the skill and tenacity to seek out articles that analyze these cases in extenso? Too few. And so, the concept is emotionally propagated in society that legislation to protect unborn children kills women and abortion helps women.

What is the solution?

The solution is not disparaging childless women who raise cats (JD Vance I think is reasonable on the subject of relating to people with differing opinions, but political campaigns make people aggressive, even when they have something to lose from it). Just as their pride in being so isn’t helpful, neither is their contempt.

Neither is declaring yourself the „father of IVF”. Most likely, Trump’s interest in exactly how each stage of IVF unfolds and why there’s a problem with it – primarily through the willful destruction of so-called supernumerary embryos and post-implantation embryo reduction – is much the same as Tim Waltz’s confusing his own experience of artificial insemination (where he doesn’t create embryos) with IVF at 60+ years old.

The solution is in fact pro-life construction.

In military tactics, it is considered that the attacker needs at least three times as many soldiers as the defender in order to be victorious. Basically, the pro-abortion mentality is the law of the land in the Christian-based civilization, and it is the pro-lifers who are trying to put the principles of the value of human life and support for the vulnerable back into the foundations of this civilization.

This can only be done by supporting the very many pregnant women with what they need to give birth and by the testimony borne by them and their children.

Support is the duty of the pro-lifers, and the hope is that more and more of the women supported and the children who live because of the support will speak out about the help they receive. „Go and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee” through the support received from others could be a nice thank you that would continue the support, for those who have the strength to speak out. And those who don’t have that strength, for personal reasons, can find different ways to give thanks by continuing the support: from prayer to constant funding of support organizations.

Here are some directions of this construction, which are valid in Romania as well as in the USA.

Capable people

There are many factors in Trump’s victory, and one of them is the involvement of Elon Musk, an organizational genius who for weeks not only gave money, but worked continuously, with all his hard work, campaigning in swing states.

More capable people will be needed!

The ability to work with people on point without agreeing on everything

Another factor in Trump’s victory is Joe Rogan, the world’s most-watched podcaster. The man agrees with all sorts of things that other Trump supporters disagree with and he and Trump are probably not on the same page on many issues. But his podcast with Trump provided a boost that Kamala Harris hasn’t had in the last two weeks of the campaign.

It’s going to take more team players!

Dedicated people

Why do so many young people think they are making the right moral choice if they want to fight against the lives of children (thinking they are fighting for women)? Is it not because they are not being shown IN FACT the clear alternative to the partial pro-abortion approach: namely to fight for the good of the woman and the good of the child at the same time?

More dedicated people will be needed!

In Romania, Gen Z will see pro-abortion people who devote their time, money, connections to supporting abortion; but they won’t see too many who do that in the pro-life area. Implicitly, they will think that the ones who care are the pro-abortion ones, without giving much thought to the real results of it – the destruction of children and, in the long run, the harm to women.

Increasing public knowledge – valid in the US and Romania

How many of us have minimal knowledge about intrauterine development? About abortion methods? About in vitro fertilization and the intentional destruction of embryos? About the general causes of infertility? About the depressions that infertility sometimes leads to? About the effects of abortion on infertility?

How much do we know about maternal mortality – in childbirth, abortion on demand, miscarriage? About infant mortality?

It is true that medicine is a difficult science, but now the basics are accessible and it takes minimal effort and willingness to know them.

Without this knowledge, who can be believed to be genuinely interested in the welfare of women and children?

Increasing doctors’ competence and availability to pregnant women

Abortion seems easier to accept even for those who want to protect the life of the child in the event of life-threatening conditions that could endanger the mother’s life. Although such situations are rare, they do exist. But when they do exist, the optimal solution is not one of lack of interest and lack of competence – „let’s have an abortion, it’s the easiest and most hassle-free”. The best solution is to search hard for an approach where both the life of the mother and the life of the child are saved. It is much harder, it requires a lot of skill, but women will trust the pro-life approach when they see that it is not ideological, putting the child before themselves, but is the optimal combination of exceptional skill and caring for themselves and their children.

In the US there is competence, but the cost of going to the doctor is huge. Here the Republicans need to learn from the Democrats about helping their fellow man in health matters. The health of others is a noble priority even for the rich.

In Romania, the popular opinion and the level of competence of some doctors has not surpassed „if you have an X-ray you have to have an abortion” (beyond the metaphor, it is good to know that this conception is 100% outdated, especially due to the huge decrease in the amount of radiation per X-ray in the last decades). Perhaps a demand from society to raise the quality of medical care and the way of dealing with pregnant patients will lead to greater professionalization.

Economics

Probably the main reason for Trump’s victory is the visible depreciation of the economic situation in the US, especially in the last year. The price at the pump has simply doubled, which is taboo for the average American accustomed to high consumption at the car.

What will an unmarried, out-of-work pregnant woman whose baby’s father tells her to have an abortion because he doesn’t want the baby?

She will simply choose abortion for fear of the economic situation. The solution to having the baby is to support her.

Support systems for families with more than two children and for families with children with disabilities are normal for a society that supports the vulnerable.

Adoption from pregnancy

Romania inherited a number of taboos about adoption from communism. In Romania, adoption is seen as worse than abortion.

In particular, there is an absolute stigma attached to the idea of placing a child for adoption. Removing this stigma would benefit women who feel that they cannot raise the child themselves but want to give them a chance to life and so they give birth and place it for adoption. In the US, they can select adoptive parents as early as during pregnancy and can choose open adoption, which stipulates their relationship with the child.

Expressing the truth about extreme topics with compassion and accuracy

When they saw they were losing electorally on abortion after the 2022 midterm debacle, Republicans and especially Trump marginalized the issue of protecting human life from conception. In particular, children conceived in hard cases, sick babies and embryos destroyed in the IVF process have been completely sidelined. But it’s not politicians’ rhetoric that will save them, it’s concrete action – to effectively support victims of sexual violence, to educate to prevent sexual violence, to give a child with Down Syndrome and the family raising him or her a chance at life, to treat without destroying. Pro-lifers in the US cannot wait until politicians become 100% pro-life. Same in Romania.

Renormalizing marriage

In 90% of abortions, the parents of the aborted child are not married. It is an illusion that outside of marriage there will be mutual responsibility between spouses and between spouses and the children conceived in marriage. Basically, the sexual revolution of the 1960s replaced marriage with the couple, while removing responsibility for the lives of children conceived. Its reverse would come not from outside, but through the self-effort of choosing responsibility.

Conclusion: The lack of pro-life construction has given rise to the view that abortion is a solution. The pro-life construction will show you the falsity of this opinion. In the absence of this construction, the mentality and practice of abortion in the USA will experience the frenzy of 1990 in Romania.

The pro-lifers in the US owe it not just to the voters who have partially validated their position to realize this construction, but first and foremost to pregnant women and their unborn children.

And they owe it to all the young women who supported Harris and cried at her defeat – they owe it to them to show them that the good intentions of these young women for their future and the future of their country are not fulfilled by taking the lives of unborn children, but are more fully fulfilled by every child that is born bringing something unique to its mother, to the country and to the world.

And a necessary addendum.

Most pro-lifers are believers. They know best that without God no good can be done, no matter how much desire and effort. More appeal to God will bring Him, with His infinite power, into the midst of these atrocities for which man was not created.