Trump’s Pro-life Plan Includes Millions More Abortions

I support legal protection for the lives of unborn children. A comprehensive, whole life approach to abortion and the defense of human life should include such a commitment. The strategy of electing candidates who promise to appoint or confirm strict constructionist conservative Supreme Court justices is deeply flawed in that regard. Donald Trump confirmed this fact last week:

Lesley Stahl: During the campaign, you said that you would appoint justices who were against abortion rights. Will you appoint– are you looking to appoint a justice who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade?

Donald Trump: So look, here’s what’s going to happen– I’m going to– I’m pro-life. The judges will be pro-life. They’ll be very—

Lesley Stahl: But what about overturning this law–

Donald Trump: Well, there are a couple of things. They’ll be pro-life, they’ll be– in terms of the whole gun situation, we know the Second Amendment and everybody’s talking about the Second Amendment and they’re trying to dice it up and change it, they’re going to be very pro-Second Amendment. But having to do with abortion if it ever were overturned, it would go back to the states. So it would go back to the states and–

 Lesley Stahl: Yeah, but then some women won’t be able to get an abortion?

 Donald Trump: No, it’ll go back to the states.

Lesley Stahl: By state—no some —

 Donald Trump: Yeah.

 Donald Trump: Yeah, well, they’ll perhaps have to go, they’ll have to go to another state.

 Lesley Stahl: And that’s OK?

Donald Trump: Well, we’ll see what happens. It’s got a long way to go, just so you understand. That has a long, long way to go.

Conservative justices will return abortion to the states; it will remain legal in big states like New York and California; inadequate support for pregnant women and young families will leave many women feeling like they must abort their children; and millions will die. This is their best case scenario. Is it not clear that this plan is flawed?

To make matters worse, it is quite possible that the Court could return to Lochner era activism (when minimum wage, child labor, and similar laws were struck down on preposterous grounds) and overturn quite obviously constitutional laws in order to pursue a radical right-wing agenda. The foolishness of the pro-life movement’s subservience to Republican interests will be on full display. And again, this is only if Trump delivers on his promises to the pro-life community.



Bush’s Stem Cell Decision Was the Right Call

Millennial writer Christopher White has a new article at Crux. He writes:

Fifteen years ago this month, President George W. Bush announced he was issuing a moratorium on the future spending of federal funds for embryonic stem cell research. He would later refer to this as one of the most consequential “Decision Points” (the title of his autobiography) of his presidency.

While his presidential legacy is much debated, science has already vindicated his decision to end the destruction of embryos and to pursue alternative methods of medical advancement….

While critics of Bush’s policy were eager to label him as “anti-science,” tone deaf, and unsympathetic to folks like Christopher Reeve (who they claimed would be able to walk again with the aid of embryonic stem cells), other prominent figures, including leading scientists and ethicists, urged both caution in the destruction of life in its earliest stages and also pushed for other means to be pursued that they believed could be just as effective.

That’s why when Bush made his decision, he also announced that he was doubling federal funding for research to explore alternative methods-and in November 2007, James A. Thomson (along with Shinya Yamanaka), the same scientist to first isolate human embryonic stem cells which sparked this whole debate, announced that he discovered an “embryo-free way to produce genetically matched stem cells.”…

In his willingness to give pause and to probe the intricacies of this debate, President Bush reminded us that something deeper is at stake beyond stem cells: our very souls.  Our national leaders would do well to ask these hard questions more often and to make us do the same.

You can read the full article here.

 


Pro-life Democrats Deliver Whole Life Message in Philadelphia

Via CNS:

At a time when the official party platform advocates for removing current legislative restrictions on obtaining abortions, pro-life Democrats came to Philadelphia with a counter message: You can’t win big without us.

Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton has called for repealing the Hyde Amendment, which forbids federal funding for most abortions and continues to be included in many federal appropriations bills for abortions. Her stance has been endorsed in the party platform, which also calls for eliminating the Helms Amendment, which prohibits U.S. foreign aid from being used to fund abortion-related activities.

But Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats for Life of America, notes that since 2008, when President Barack Obama launched his first term, the party has lost 11 governorships, 30 state chambers, 69 house seats, 13 seats in the U.S. Senate and 912 seats in state legislatures….

At a reception honoring Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards, a Catholic, who is the only Democratic governor in the South, for his support of the pro-life cause, Day underlined that idea from the podium: “We choose the mother. We choose the child. We choose both.”…

Day and honoree Edwards, who said that his Catholic Christian faith informs his views, both argued that pro-life beliefs aren’t limited to abortion.

“There is a difference between being anti-abortion and pro-life,” said Edwards in accepting the Governor Casey Whole Life Leadership Award.

via Kate Scanlon:

Edwards said pro-life Democrats must make their voices heard because “it’s hard to be a big tent party if you’ve got a very small platform.”

He argued that pro-life Democrats “can be successful” but “it’s going to be increasingly difficult to navigate these waters if the party doesn’t moderate on this issue.”

Edwards said he’s proud of the 100 percent pro-life voting record he earned as a legislator, but he added that he believes a truly pro-life position not only includes opposition to abortion but also fighting for access to health care, housing and nutrition.

“You can’t simply say you’re pro-life,” he said. “It’s got to be demonstrated.”


A Pro-life, Pro-animal Welfare Movement

Millennial writer Christoper White has a new article at Crux. He writes:

If certain individuals or organizations lobby for the protection of animals, might they want to extend their sympathies to all vulnerable creatures, such as unborn children?

The reverse, however, also deserves consideration: Wouldn’t it behoove pro-lifers to rethink their own attitude toward animal welfare and our eating choices? And even if one is not fully convinced that we’re ethically obligated to give up eating animals entirely, then might such deference toward animal welfare serve as an invitation for pro-choice animal activists to confront their own inconsistencies?

Perhaps in all of this, there is the real possibility that in showing mercy towards animals — be it abstinence from meat or simply taking smaller steps, such as rejecting factory farming — that this entire movement might serve as a gateway to a deeper embrace of the concept of mercy that Francis has staked his papacy on and manifest itself in all sorts of ways.

You can read the full article here.

 


Men and the “Right to Choose”

If liberals and libertarians sincerely believe that autonomy and choice should trump the protection of human life in the case of unwanted pregnancies, then the question has often arisen: why should men not be free to exercise their choice to terminate a pregnancy or opt out of an unwanted pregnancy in some other way? A regional branch of the youth wing of Sweden’s Liberal Party is now making the argument that they should have this “right”:

The idea, proposed by a regional branch of the youth wing of the centrist Liberal Party, would allow a potential father to legally abdicate his responsibility toward the child up to the 18th week of a woman’s pregnancy. The man would lose any rights to visit the child but also would not pay any child support he may otherwise be required to contribute.

If this seems horrifying, it should. But it is merely an extension of the disordered values that place autonomy above life, individualism above the common good, and choice above responsibility. Proponents of abortion-on-demand should not be shocked that other liberals are taking their arguments to their logical conclusions.