FORT WORTH, Texas _ Just weeks ago, actress Michelle Williams earned lots of attention when she declared (in as many words), that her professional success _ including her shiny new Golden Globe award _ was possible only because she had had an abortion.
Williams' narrative _ one in which abortion is not only an unmitigated good but necessary for a woman's flourishing _ is a far cry from the mantra of "old school" abortion supporters, who argued that women should have access to a procedure that was "safe, legal and rare."
In the 47 years since the watershed decision in Roe v. Wade, much has changed.
But while the rhetoric of abortion advocates has become ever-more prideful and shocking, the support for the unborn and unwanted has remained steadfast.
And on Friday, nearly a half-century after abortion was declared a constitutional "right," hundreds of thousands of people convened in Washington, D.C, and cities all over the U.S. to peacefully and prayerfully voice their belief that the right to life is greater than the so-called right to choose.
Despite its significant attendance, the annual March for Life typically receives short shrift by the media. (That is, of course, unless media coverage serves a particular political narrative, such as last year's encounter between a rally attendee and a Native American activist.)
This year, however, it was nearly impossible for the media to avoid the march because the D.C. rally hosted the man of the hour, President Donald Trump, as a featured speaker.
To be sure, Trump's attendance is no small thing.
He is the first sitting president _ ever _ to address the rally in person.
Several pro-life presidents have held the White House in the post-Roe era, but none ever saw fit to make such a grand gesture to the anti-abortion community. Not Reagan. Not Bush 41 or 43.
The cynical may see such a move as purely political. It very well might be.
With his impeachment trial in full swing, Trump may be looking for a quick and easy boost of support.
But while his appearance Friday is not consistent with his past personal support for abortion rights, it's completely consistent with his support of anti-abortion policies as president. In that way, his presence makes complete sense.
That's no small thing, either.
Indeed, Trump owes a lot to the anti-abortion community. He would very likely have lost the presidency if not for the unknown number of voters who held their noses and voted for him in hopes that he would follow through on his campaign promise to appoint conservative judges to the nation's federal courts.
He has. And one of those appointments, in particular, is soon to be tested in a big way.
In March, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in June Medical Services v. Gee, a challenge to a Louisiana law that requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.
On its face, the case is a redux of Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, in which the court struck down a similar Texas law.
But that was 2016; now, the court is different, and the outcome may be, as well.
Pro-lifers have good reason to hope that this may be the year everything changes. While a wholesale overturning of Roe v. Wade isn't probable, even a narrow decision would signal that a reversal is possible, that "the law" is anything but "settled."
It's strange to think we might have Trump to thank for that.
Perhaps Williams is onto something. The ultimate success of the anti-abortion movement may be possible only on account of Donald Trump. Ponder that.
