‘Girls State’ Highlights Abortion’s Role in Growing Gender Divide

It’s hard to ignore the growing political gender gap. Its implications are obvious for the present electoral landscape in the United States, as young women become an increasingly crucial part of the Democratic coalition while young men trend more conservative. But the gender ideological divide seems to be happening in other countries too, and the implications go beyond politics.

Christians, especially church leaders, should pay attention to this trend—not as intel for political maneuvering or campaign calculations but as a window into the passions, fears, and identity narratives shaping young women and men today. What drives them—and what’s pushing them in seemingly opposite directions—matters for Christians trying to reach them with the gospel and disciple them in biblical living.

A newly released documentary, Girls State (watch on AppleTV+), provides compelling fodder for this discussion. Following the success of its 2020 predecessor Boys State, Girls State examines the political passions of Gen Z women and provides on-the-ground evidence of the growing gender divergence.

High School Politics

Directed by Amanda McBaine and Jesse Moss (the married couple behind Boys State, as well as documentaries of interest to Christians like The Mission and The Overnighters), Girls State follows the 2022 gathering of Missouri Girls State—an annual immersive program for high school girls interested in politics and government. The Boys/Girls State program happens in every state (except Hawaii) and is sponsored by the American Legion and American Legion Auxiliary, respectively. Juniors from across the state gather for a week to participate in mock elections, trials, and legislative sessions.

Like Boys State, Girls State chooses a handful of teenage participants to focus on and follow throughout the week. Unsurprisingly, these mostly include progressive young girls passionate about feminism, gun control, LGBT+ causes, environmentalism, and (especially) abortion rights. The anomaly in the group is Emily Worthmore, an outspoken Christian and political conservative who emerges as the film’s focal point.

Worthmore is an ambitious overachiever who says she expects to run for U.S. president in 2040. She’s sincere in her conservative convictions but also (perhaps naively, given today’s politics) a bipartisan coalition-builder who thinks she’ll win skeptics with enough one-on-one conversations. When she runs for Girls State governor in a sea of left-leaning girls (even in a deep red state like Missouri), she knows it’ll be an uphill battle.

Galvanizing Spark of ‘Roe’

Worthmore’s challenge is more pronounced given the headlines in the backdrop during 2022 Girls State. The leaked Supreme Court draft opinion challenging Roe v. Wade had just been released, and the likely overturning of Roe loomed large, galvanizing many girls leftward (a dynamic that played out in recent U.S. elections). The issue of abortion rights—positioned within a larger narrative of female marginalization—appears to be the most animating issue for the Girls State delegates.

In a mock trial, the Girls State Supreme Court hears a case that challenges a law requiring women to get counseling before having an abortion. In a 5–2 decision, the teen girls rule that the law violates privacy rights and that women seeking abortions shouldn’t be forced to see a counselor before terminating their pregnancies. In casual conversations and debates among the girls about abortion, some girls say they’re pro-life but “wouldn’t want to convince someone who’s not,” while others say they’re pro-life because they’re Catholic and that’s what they have to believe. But no pro-life girl (in the film) articulates compelling arguments or offers a robust defense for the pro-life position.

The rhetoric of the pro-choice girls, meanwhile, largely goes unchallenged. “Pro-lifers aren’t pro-life; they’re pro-birth,” one girl says, while another argues pro-life is a “problematic” label if the cause doesn’t prioritize all-of-life programs to support vulnerable kids and their mothers.

The most common rhetorical move among the pro-choice girls, however, is to situate the issue within the broader narratives of patriarchy, gender power imbalances, and feminist resistance to men controlling their bodies. Men “don’t have uteruses,” one girl notes, so why should they have a say in abortion laws? Others decry the extent to which “old white men” adjudicate women’s reproductive health in male-dominated legislatures and courts. Whether in strict dress codes or reproductive decisions, the girls lament their perception that “[their] bodies are policed.”

This “bodily autonomy” rhetoric emphasizes the choice element of the pro-choice cause and conveniently avoids any talk of the actual morality of what’s going on in the horrific physical act of abortion (killing a child). The narrative instead focuses on the “morality” of choice and an assertion of female bodily autonomy: “My body, my choice.” Revoking abortion rights is framed as just another example of men dominating, controlling, and subordinating women.

It’s an effective rhetorical strategy, perhaps especially for teen girls. As much as it’s disturbing to watch the young girls of Girls State advocate for an adult issue like abortion rights, it makes sense that this issue could galvanize them. At this vulnerable adolescent stage, girls are sexually mature (or maturing) but far from being able to conceptualize themselves as mothers. Unless they have an infant sibling (increasingly rare as family sizes shrink) or volunteer in a church nursery, their interactions with babies are likely rare. For teen girls, concepts like freedom/choice, bodily autonomy, and sexual discovery are tangible and urgent, whereas motherhood and raising children feel abstract and far off. Abortion—especially when framed as “don’t police my body!” liberation—is thus an appealing “right” for many of them.

Lessons for Pro-Lifers

Pro-life Christians ought to watch a film like Girls State in part because it highlights the messaging challenge we face in reaching young women. The positioning of abortion as a totem of female empowerment is by now entrenched. How can we offer reasonable, compelling arguments against abortion to an audience that only hears it in terms of patriarchal power-grabbing and mansplaining?

How can we offer reasonable, compelling arguments against abortion to an audience that only hears it in terms of patriarchal power-grabbing and mansplaining?

How can we change the minds of millions of young women who agree with pro-choice Taylor Swift (whose formidable influence over the political trajectory of women shouldn’t be underestimated) that abortion is about “women’s rights to their own bodies” and that Roe’s reversal “stripped us of that”?

Part of the answer for pro-lifers is that young women in the movement—like Worthmore in Girls State—need to be better equipped to speak confidently and compassionately in defense of the pro-life position as women. If part of the pro-choice tactic is to position the issue as men encroaching on women’s rights, then pro-life women need to provide confident but compassionate arguments and compelling models for how being pro-life is also being pro-woman. Christian pro-lifers should also make the connection between the sanctity of life and the innate dignity of women (among other vulnerable groups)—ideas that originated with Christianity and the way Jesus revolutionized power structures in the ancient world and elevated the status of women in particular.

Christian pro-lifers can also gain credibility among skeptical young women by acknowledging many gender grievances and injustices. The #MeToo and #ChurchToo movements are tackling real problems. Women’s experiences in male-dominated professions (whether in government or business or any number of other spheres) are often harrowing.

We need to compassionately hear and advocate for women when they experience injustice, discrimination, misogyny, and abuse. And we can do this while disentangling abortion from that narrative. We must show that women’s rights are important and good, but it’s a category error to put abortion (which strips humans in the womb of their rights) within the “women’s rights” framework. How could the sanctioned killing of more than 300,000 baby girls each year be part of a “women’s rights” movement?

Pulled Between Christian Roots and Post-Christian Zeal

By the end of Girls State, Worthmore’s arc tilts in an unexpected direction and leaves the viewer wondering about her future: Will she persist into young adulthood with her pro-life convictions intact? Or will the ubiquitous narrative of female marginalization and patriarchal oppression ultimately pull her leftward like so many of her peers? Will the anchor of her Christian faith hold fast against the pull of post-Christian zeal, which seizes upon a Christian idea (equality) but turns it against its source?

This unanswered question plays out en masse among young adults like Worthmore all over the world. It’s a question Christians should monitor with great interest. It has huge consequences not only for the future of the church but also for the fate of countless unborn children for decades to come.