The American Right often seems more like a battlefield of opposing factions — neocons vs. paleocons, libertarians vs. Christian nationalists, MAGA vs. NeverTrump — than a coherent movement.
This week, another group entered the fray: call them the absolute anti-abortion people.
Making political choices rarely means making perfect choices.
In response to a video in which vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance asserted that President Trump would veto a nationwide abortion ban, the head of the leading anti-abortion activist group Live Action urged pro-life voters to withhold their support for the Republican candidate.
“You can't get the pro-life vote if you don't support pro-life principles,” Live Action CEO Lila Rose said.
Other conservatives quickly fired back. In response to X's post, influencer Ashley St. Clair appeared to accuse Rose of using her platform for personal gain.
Lila Rose, one of the pro-life movement's most prominent voices, has urged people not to vote for Trump because he “doesn't have enough integrity,” yet she pays herself more than $250,000 a year and uses $14 million in pro-life donations to throw lavish parties and appear on podcasts.
St. Claire then shared a screenshot from another user. Live Action 990 Tax ReturnRose noted that the organization only shows $24,000 in grants and donations, even though it raised $14 million in 2022. Meanwhile, Rose's salary increased 45% from $161,712 to $234,794 from 2021 to 2024.
St. Clare's supporters quickly joined the attack, echoing her insinuation that Rose was exploiting the plight of needy pregnant women to enrich herself, with some even suggesting that she had a vested professional interest in keeping abortion legal indefinitely.
Whether you agree with her or not, Rose makes a fairly consistent point: the only way to ensure a truly pro-life regime in the long run is to reject any half-measures in the short run, even if it means a temporary setback for the movement.
This is a debate that needs to be answered, and bringing Rose's personal financial issues into this discussion only serves to further confuse an already complicated issue.
First, the question of Lila Rose’s political calculus: despite his recent communications blunders, it seems entirely counterproductive for the Supreme Court to block Trump from overturning a U.S. Supreme Court decision. Roe v. WadeThis was the first real political victory in the history of the pro-life movement.
Single-issue voters like Rose ignore the important role that prudence plays in wise political management. Political Choices are rarely decisions perfection There are plenty of options: President Trump's refusal to allow a federal ban on abortion doesn't preclude incremental policy change at the state level.
The argument that Rose is in this for financial gain is unconvincing. Nonprofit finances are complicated, which is why people pay accountants big bucks to process their 990 forms. St. Clair's ignorant citation of these documents as evidence of Rose's bad faith reveals both economic ignorance and the deep-seated resentment (loser mentality) common on the left.
St. Clair's big “gotcha” here – that Live Action takes in far more money than it spends – would only hold up if Live Action's primary activity was charitable, which is not the case.
The organization's stated mission is to change hearts and minds by producing pro-life media, which, in addition to other expenses, requires a significant number of dedicated staff, all of whom are entitled to be fairly compensated for their work.
Rose's salary of about $230,000 a year is relatively low for the head of a major media organization, given the efficiency of her work, and her critics fail to mention that others in the pro-life movement are producing content of similar quality.
Liberals have rarely been this stingy with their own people. When was the last time you heard a liberal complain about their pay at the Southern Poverty Law Center? Perhaps in this case conservatives can learn from the people they routinely label as communists.
Rose's staunch political idealism is a legitimate target for attack, but will 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 stark reality, it's unjust for creators like Rose to be hesitant to receive a fair market value for their work.
