Ice cream giant Ben & Jerry’s ignited a firestorm of criticism after publicly celebrating National Abortion Provider Appreciation Day, prompting calls for boycotts and accusations of promoting the termination of unborn lives.
Top Takeaways
- Ben & Jerry’s social media post supporting abortion providers drew intense backlash from conservative figures and pro-life advocates
- Senator Ted Cruz called the company’s stance “tragic” and claimed Ben & Jerry’s “hates your values”
- Critics are urging consumers to boycott the brand, with some promoting Blue Bell as an alternative
- The controversy highlights the risks businesses face when wading into divisive political issues
- Ben & Jerry’s has a history of political activism on various progressive causes despite being owned by Unilever
Ice Cream Giant Stirs Controversy With Pro-Abortion Stance
Ben & Jerry’s found itself at the center of heated debate after posting support for National Abortion Provider Appreciation Day across its social media platforms. The Vermont-based ice cream company shared a message stating, “We stand with abortion providers today and every day,” and directed followers to their website containing reasons to support abortion providers. The post immediately drew sharp criticism from pro-life advocates and conservative commentators who viewed the company’s stance as celebrating the termination of pregnancies rather than simply making ice cream.
The company’s website elaborated on their position by highlighting what they described as threats faced by abortion providers and the disproportionate impact abortion restrictions have on communities of color. This messaging further inflamed critics who accused Ben & Jerry’s of inappropriately mixing divisive political commentary with their consumer product marketing. The controversy comes in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade, which has led to stricter abortion laws in many Republican-led states.
We're boycotting @benandjerrys for celebrating baby killers.
Who's with us? 🙋♂️🙋♀️ pic.twitter.com/zpvWD50k54
— LifeNews.com (@LifeNewsHQ) March 11, 2025
Prominent Conservative Voices Lead Backlash
Senator Ted Cruz of Texas was among the high-profile critics who condemned the company’s stance, writing: “Tragic. Ben & Jerry’s hates you and openly hates your values.” Cruz encouraged his followers to “Throw Ben & Jerry’s in the trash. Buy Blue Bell instead!” His comments reflect a broader conservative pushback against what many see as corporate virtue signaling on contentious social issues. The outcry extended beyond political figures to include pro-life activists and everyday consumers who expressed disappointment and disgust with the brand’s position.
“It’s disgusting that you’re cheering for the slaughter of innocent human beings. Disgusting,” said Pro-Life activist Abby Johnson.
Daily Wire host Michael Knowles didn’t mince words in his criticism, calling the company’s post “psycho stuff” and “revolting.” He acknowledged that while many consumers might overlook the company’s progressive stances on other issues, “cheering on the mass murder of babies” crossed a line that might permanently alienate customers. The controversy highlights the deep divisions within American society over abortion rights, particularly in the post-Roe landscape where the battle has shifted to state legislatures.
Corporate Activism Meets Consumer Backlash
This isn’t Ben & Jerry’s first foray into controversial political territory. The company has a long history of progressive activism on issues ranging from LGBTQ+ rights to climate change. Despite being acquired by multinational corporation Unilever in 2021, Ben & Jerry’s maintains an independent board focused on its social mission, allowing it to continue taking stands on divisive issues. Previous controversies have included the company’s decision to stop selling ice cream in Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories.
The company’s vocal support for abortion providers comes as National Abortion Provider Appreciation Day commemorates Dr. David Gunn, a physician murdered by an anti-abortion activist in 1993. The episode serves as a reminder of the potential business consequences when companies stake out positions on deeply personal moral issues rather than sticking to less divisive territory.
