On Sunday, November 10, five days after the presidential election, nine Princeton Pro-Life (PPL) club members sat on the floor of Princeton’s Murray Dodge Hall. Catholics, dressed in Sunday best and returning from mass, sat alongside Jewish and atheist members, all knitting baby blankets. Their instructor walked around, helping each member learn how to knit and ensuring that each stitch was made correctly. Members shifted around as they worked, and their blankets slowly, but steadily took shape. Chatter and laughter filled the room. This was the first event PPL held post-election, and Trump was not mentioned once.

 

According to Nadia Makuc ‘26, president of PPL, the club’s goal is to promote a “culture of life” on campus and show people there are alternatives to abortion. The club meets semi-regularly and hosts guest speakers, discussions, and other events aiming to raise awareness of the pro-life movement. 

 

PPL is a non-religious club. “We have members that adhere to tons of different religions, or even no religion at all,” PPL member Marianne Cheely ‘27 said. Although most board members are Catholic, the group also includes members of other faiths, including Protestants, Jews, Muslims, and agnostics. 

 

Additionally, PPL does not get involved in political action. Earlier this year, during the Whig-Clio fair—an event for political campus groups to recruit new students—PPL decided not to show up. In the past, PPL protested outside Planned Parenthood but has since discontinued the practice after receiving negative feedback. 

 

In efforts to engage with the broader pro-life cause, PPL has participated in the New Jersey March for Life outside of the New Jersey State House, “to protest the fact that in New Jersey, third-trimester abortions are legal,” Makuc said. “In that way, the pro-life movement is political. But in so many more ways, Princeton Pro-Life and the pro-life movement in general is a social movement.”

 

According to Cheely, “Aside from the pro-life cause, politics really does not come into our meetings or our programming at all.” Last year, PPL hosted Terrisa Bukovinac, a self-described vegan, leftist, atheist, pro-life presidential candidate. Like Bukovinac, many members of PPL hold diverse, and often conflicting, political beliefs.

 

According to Makuc, Bukovinac asked PPL if they would like to campaign on her behalf. In response to this request, Makuc replied, “Personally, I was like, this is a great thing, but it’s just not really what we want to do.”

 

For Makuc, abortion is a personal issue. She was born to a partially paraplegic mother. “When she was having us kids—I’m the youngest of five—doctors repeatedly told her that she should be sterilized and or she should abort,” Makuc said. “But my mom, she obviously valued our life first.” Makuc was raised Catholic and sees her pro-life positions as a service to God. 

 

Makuc believes in protecting all life, regardless of political divides: she supports universal healthcare, expanded childcare, gun control, and prays for peace in Gaza. “I really think now, so much of the abortion issue lies in the states and is kind of out of the hands of the president anyway, that I could almost be convinced. If Harris’s presidency was gonna end the Israel-Palestine conflict, I would vote for her,” Makuc said. “Maybe even if she were still super pro-choice.”

 

But at the ballot box, Makuc did not vote for Harris. “My understanding is that part of the kind of different social campaigns she’s done as vice president has been not just abortion is okay, but really promoting it and saying this is healthcare; this is something we really need to prioritize,” said Makuc. “This is something that I would not feel comfortable voting for.”

 

Weighing the other options pre-election, Makuc said, “I haven’t actually decided whether I’ll be voting for Trump or writing in.” She continued, “I recognize that when you vote, you’re both voting for policies, party, and the person. That’s why there’s a lot of different factors that go into this.”

 

Makuc acknowledged the importance of having a pro-life president but clarified that she does not necessarily support Trump. “It was a good thing that Roe v. Wade was overturned. He was able to promote the justices that got Roe v. Wade overturned,” said Makuc. “I guess lower court promotions could be a good thing. That’s more about getting a Republican in there at all, as opposed to, say, Harris.”

 

However, Makuc added, “I’m certainly not voting for him because he’s pro-life or he says that he will do things for the pro-life movement because I don’t think this is even true.” She added that most of Trump’s policies were detrimental to her goal of protecting and valuing human life. 

 

“What really holds me back from voting for [Trump] are not really even policy questions per se, but really the persona and the way that he has treated women in the past,” Makuc said. “If I thought that the policy things outweighed that, then maybe, but my sense is that there’s nothing that I think that he can do that is going to be so good that I would actually put my vote in for him.”

 

Club member Roberto Lachner ‘26 expressed his views on the election candidly. “Abortion is the issue I most care about. That being said, I don’t really think abortion is on the ballot this election,” he said. “If Kamala Harris wins, she’s gonna have a really tough time, if not an impossible time, passing any federal abortion legislation.”

 

Lachner also noted that Trump’s recent rhetoric has indicated he’s reluctant to go any further on the issue of abortion. “I don’t think the outcome of this election will change the status quo on abortion all that much, at least at the national level,” he said.

 

“I’d say the thing I am considering most strongly is that Trump has proven he can’t be trusted with our democratic institutions. All four years he was in office, he proved that, culminating in inciting an insurrection in Washington, D. C.,” Lachner said. “I fear what would happen if he’s elected again.”

 

“That for me is the biggest issue I’m most considering: democracy,” Lachner said.

 

Lachner, able to disassociate his abortion stances with his vote for Harris, is an uncommon stance, according to Makuc. “I think that there was maybe a disproportionate number [of pro-life voters who voted for Harris] on campus. But I think nationally, most pro-life people voted for Trump,” she said.

 

In addition to pro-life voters, many pro-choice voters cast their ballot for Trump. Data from VoteCast, a survey conducted by the Associated Press, suggests that roughly 33 percent of voters in Arizona, Missouri, and Nevada supported their state-wide pro-choice abortion measures while also voting for Trump. The data suggests that pro-choice voters have dissociated Trump from the pro-life movement at large.

 

No public data seemingly exists on the number of pro-life voters who supported Harris, but Lachner is not alone in this regard. Opinion articles from Newsweek and the National Catholic Reporter highlight pro-life activists across the country who identified Harris as their candidate. Just as this election challenged the assumption that pro-choice voters are a Democratic voter bloc, it also showed that not all pro-life voters sided with the Republican Party.

 

Makuc holds a different perspective. “Even if there was some distancing of the Republicans and Trump from the pro-life movement, they’ve been our home before, and there’s a lot more hope with them and ability to put pressure and move forward with them than the Democrats,” explained Makuc.

 

For PPL members Abigail Readlinger ‘27 and Cheely, abortion remained an issue that could not be ignored. “I’d say abortion ranks extremely high on my list, if not number one,” said Readlinger. “It involves the life and death of human beings in a very real, very physical, very tangible way,” she continued. “It’s dealing with human lives and I know that human lives are irreplaceable and have inherent value, just in the fact that they are human beings.”

 

“I will be voting for the party that supports the pro-life movement more, that respects life more,” said Readlinger. “I have to ask myself, which of these parties better respects life,” Readlinger continued. “Looking at the policies… I choose from there.” 

 

For Cheely and Readlinger, neither candidate was sufficiently pro-life. “I really feel like neither party respects life or supports the pro-life movement as much as they could or as much as they ought to,” said Readlinger. “It really is a tough decision. Because both candidates just aren’t [respecting life] in their own ways,” said Cheely.

 

“To feel that my vote has an impact, I’m obviously just considering between the two main presidential parties, which I think is a flaw in our system,” said Readlinger. “Because of the society we live in, it’s obviously kind of ‘either or.’ But that being said, there’s never going to be one single party that every single thing I believe in, that party says.” 

 

On Friday, November 8, two days after Trump’s win was announced, PPL held their own election for the club’s executive board. Cheely and Readlinger were elected president and vice-president of the club, respectively. Their terms will begin in January of 2025 and end in 2026.

 

When asked about the future of PPL, Makuc said, “We might see a shift towards working on the state level, and perhaps there’s an opportunity to especially think and talk about how the pro-life movement moves forward federally.” 

 

“I think there is kind of this question of, okay, even if Trump’s in office, what exactly can we get him to do? What would pro-life policy on a federal level look like?” Makuc said. 

 

“There’s definitely opportunity,” she added. “But it’s not so clear where exactly PPL fits into that.”