Roe v. Wade is decided at during a particular surge of feminism and female advancement in American society. I think it’s very hard for a lot of people to imagine a world where abortion is restricted as it was in 1955, but you have the landscape of female achievement and opportunity that you have in the 2020s. Do you think there’s a tension there? I mean, I think that the tension is an unnecessary one. I think we’ve walked ourselves into a brick wall and we didn’t need to do it. The mistake of feminism — and not first wave, I think first wave was beautiful, but then as we went further down the waves with feminism, the mistake was to say, well, now I need to be the same as men, not just have equal status under the law, but now I need to be the same. And so if a man can’t get pregnant, then I shouldn’t have to get pregnant. So then if we have sex and he’s not pregnant and then I get pregnant, then I should be able to disappear the pregnancy. That’s not reality. The reality is men and women are different. And the reality is, when you get pregnant, you’re pregnant with a new human life that also has rights and bodily autonomy and a whole lifetime of choices in front of them. I would argue what’s truly pro-woman, and certainly going to make for a more just and loving society, is to acknowledge the differences between men and women and acknowledge what sex does. Because I think this is the root of the issue. We see sex today — and this was the sexual revolution on steroids, the free love movement — sex should be divorced at all times for adult pleasure, as long as there’s consent, whatever that means. It should be divorced from consequences, responsibility, and certainly procreation. And that’s not reality either, because sex creates new life, and sex is incredibly bonding. And sex is also, I think, sacred and belongs in lifelong commitment, which is why historically, we’ve valued sex in marriage as something really special, where it belongs. And that’s what I would say is as the tragic mistake we’ve made. And that’s why people now have this view of sex as recreational. And it’s less — they’ve lowered the bar for its value. And then the next step is you say human life isn’t valuable. We live on the far side of the sexual revolution. And I think any plausible world where abortion is restricted is not going to be a world where you have an immediate return to large-scale premarital chastity. And so it is most likely going to be a world where you have a lot of pregnancies in difficult circumstances that under current conditions would end in abortion. You’re talking about reality. A core reality is that of difference between men and women, is that in a situation where there’s an unplanned or unexpected pregnancy, women do bear a burden that men don’t bear. What is the responsibility of society, government, public policy to be cognizant of that and provide some kind of special support? Is that an obligation? Is there inherent in the pro-life argument, is there a case for a kind of public provision of support for women who are being asked to carry pregnancies? I would say absolutely, yes. And I think part of Life Action’s advocacy is certainly we want to abolish abortion. We don’t — legal abortion is at its core unjust, and it should not be permitted. Abortion should not be permitted. But I do think the government should provide — there should be safety nets for people that find themselves in tough situations to support children. And I also think there should be public policy to encourage marriage because I’m not so, I guess, pessimistic about the future.