The pro-life movement achieved big wins on election night from defeating Kamala Harris and securing Republican majorities in Congress to breaking the abortion industry’s winning streak on ballot measures. Life won in Florida, Nebraska, and South Dakota where laws protecting more than 51,000 unborn children annually will remain on the books. The wins, unfortunately, did not materialize in Arizona, Missouri, or Montana, where babies in the womb are now more at risk with the passage of new abortion amendments.

Here are four key takeaways from the wins and losses that the pro-life movement will need to apply to achieve future ballot measure victories.

1. GOP Involvement

The most crucial element to winning ballot measures is Republican engagement. GOP leaders must follow the example of Gov. Ron DeSantis and Republicans in Nebraska and South Dakota.

Up against more than $118 million from the abortion lobby and an army of legacy media reporters supporting Amendment 4, DeSantis did not back down. He traveled across the state to make sure voters knew the measure would allow abortion at any point and take away parental consent. DeSantis’ Agency for Health Care Administration launched a public awareness campaign to protect women when the abortion industry ran ads lying about the ability to receive care for miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy in Florida. The governor rallied GOP officials throughout the state to stand for life and fundraised to expose the extreme implications of the amendment.

The media may ignore the pro-life message but it can’t ignore the statements of statewide officials. As DeSantis was exceedingly vocal and active in his opposition to Amendment 4, the media covered it. The earned media this gave to the opposition campaign was invaluable.

In Nebraska, Sen. Pete Ricketts fundraised, contributed and provided leadership to give Nebraskans an commonsense alternative to the ACLU’s radical abortion amendment. Gov. Jim Pillen was outspoken about the radical implications of the pro-abortion measure and rebutting the dangerous lies that women cannot receive medical care.

Rep. Dusty Johnson ran ads and sent mailers informing South Dakotans that Amendment G had no limit. Sen. John Thune and Governor Kristi Noem also stepped up to support the pro-life efforts, stand up for women and children, and defeat the extreme abortion amendment.

Statewide elected pro-life leaders cannot remain silent if they wish to win in these abortion ballot measures. With the key institutions of our society now being pro-abortion – the legacy media, Hollywood, higher ed, corporations –Republican officials must use their platforms to expose the abortion industry’s lies on amendments. It takes a governor, U.S. senator, or member of Congress to stand up and explain how ballot measures allow abortion until birth and take away parental rights. Key messages about the widely unpopular aspects of abortion ballot measures don’t break through or resonate without our GOP leaders.

2. Fundraising

There’s no getting around the fact that money matters. Check out this breakdown of the votes and spending ratios in each state:

State	Pro-Abortion Vote	Pro-Life Vote	Pro-Abortion: Pro-Life Spending Ratio
AZ	61.7%	38.3%	26:1
CO	61.5%	38.5%	18:1
FL (60% to pass)	57.2%	42.8%	10:1
MD	74.1%	25.9%	5:1
MO	51.7%	48.3%	8:1
MT	57.2%	42.8%	83:1
NE 434 (pro-life)	44.5%	55.5%	1:1
NE 439 (pro-abortion)	48.5%	51.5%	1:1
NV	63.3%	36.7%	No pro-life spending vs. $11 million pro-abortion spending
NY	61.8%	38.2%	11:1
SD	40.5%	59.5%	1:2

In amendment fights, pro-abortion spending generally outpaces the pro-life side and by big margins. Nationwide in all abortion-related ballot measures, the abortion industry and their allies raised nearly $250 million. The pro-life movement and their allies raised $32 million. However, when we look at the two states that held the abortion industry under 50%, the pro-life side either outraised the pro-abortion side (South Dakota) or achieved parity (Nebraska).

The pro-life movement won Florida despite a 10:1 funding disparity because of a strong governor, a strong coalition, and the 60% threshold required to pass a constitutional amendment. The amendment did receive 57% and in most other states would have passed. This is in large part due to the 10-to-1 fundraising disparity.

While it has become common to admit that the abortion industry will outraise and outspend us, this cannot be the accepted premise of a successful campaign. The pro-life campaign must strive to achieve parity in funding to be able to go on offense and run a professional campaign.

3. Med Ed Policies

This election, we saw an increase in the abortion lobby’s misinformation about pregnant women’s ability to receive emergency care in pro-life states. States have started to address this dangerous lie by adopting Med Ed policies, with the three states with ballot measure wins adopting new approaches to spread awareness about ‘life of the mother’ exceptions.

South Dakota became the first state in the nation to adopt a Med Ed law to end the confusion caused by the abortion industry through direct education to medical professionals. Under South Dakota’s HB 1224, training materials and a public video have been established through the Department of Health and with input from the attorney general, medical professionals, and legal experts. The video covers the details of the state’s abortion law, the most common medical conditions that threaten the life or health of a pregnant woman, the standards of care for treating a pregnant woman in a medical emergency, and a practitioner’s ability to use reasonable medical judgment in all situations.

The day Florida’s heartbeat law went into effect, the Agency for Health Care Administration released guidance for the public on doctors’ continued ability to treat pregnant women facing a medical emergency. In the following months, the agency sent a letter to every doctor in the state about the law; issued a rule requiring hospitals to adopt a policy on PPROM, ectopic pregnancy, and other conditions; ran a PSA; and launched a website about the law’s exceptions.

Nebraska voters had two abortion amendments on their ballot this year: one limiting abortion after the first trimester and another allowing abortion at any point. When the pro-abortion ballot measure campaign ran ads to confuse the public about pregnant women’s ability to receive emergency care under the state’s 12-week limit, the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services issued a health alert to clarify the law.

The purpose of Med Ed is to protect the public. A secondary effect is that the abortion debate is returned to the issue of abortion itself and not derailed by a false narrative from the abortion lobby.

4. An Effective Coalition

A look inside the winning pro-life campaigns shows how opposition campaigns formed early on in the process, involved key pro-life organizations and elected officials, and adopted new strategies.

Florida’s campaign formed long before the amendment made the ballot. Gov. Ron DeSantis’ firm and repetitive voice opposing the measure was key to its defeat. Regular meetings and communications with the grassroots added to its success. Ads were vetted through focus groups and placed strategically. Doctors were part of the coalition as well, combatting lies from the media about access to women’s health. Churches and faith leaders were engaged and empowered through both the official campaign and the Governor’s office. All assets were utilized to defeat the measure, which still had support of 57% of Floridians. Again, the key takeaway is that elected officials must take a leadership role in defeating abortion measures.

Nebraska went into their ballot fight with a strong pro-life coalition with groups including NE Right to Life, NE Family Alliance, NE Catholic Conference, and SBA Pro-Life America. With Sen. Pete Ricketts and Jessica Flannigan at the helm, the group created an outside-the-box strategy to fight the abortion industry, whose amendment would have allowed abortion up to birth. The pro-life coalition filed its own ballot measure that would have placed protections for the unborn in the second and third trimesters in the constitution but also allow for legislative action to create further protections in the future. This created a new binary choice. Rather than choosing from “no abortion” or “unlimited abortion,” voters could choose between “abortion limited to before 12 weeks” or “unlimited abortion.” If both measures were to pass, the one that had the most raw “yes” votes would be placed in the constitution. Ads and communications from the pro-life side were high-quality and impactful, including the involvement of influential University of Nebraska athletes in filming an ad.

In South Dakota, the Life Defense Fund had been working for two years to first try to prevent the measure from reaching the ballot, and then to fight it when it did. Significant to South Dakota’s win was the fact that Planned Parenthood and the ACLU did not support the amendment, so there was a lack of large out-of-state contributions and engagement from the abortion industry. The pro-life coalition received significant contributions almost exclusively from in-state donors and outraised the abortion side 2-to-1. The governor and the state’s lone congressman’s PAC contributed generously, and the coalition worked together successfully.

In contrast, while Arizona had a remarkably strong grassroots coalition, they were ignored by the media, lacked a strong pro-life statewide elected official as champion, and severely lacked funds. Missouri’s close loss came after pro-life coalitions suffered a fracture, did not have a consistent pro-life statewide elected voice, and were outspent 8:1.

Up until Nov. 5, the abortion lobby thought ballot measures were their silver bullet. South Dakota, Nebraska, and Florida prove they’re not and point the way forward toward future pro-life victories in the states. The GOP must heed the lessons of 2024 and simply choose to fight.