Voters on both sides of today’s abortion debate should, in good conscience, support Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election. This includes not only pro-lifers concerned about Mr. Trump’s moderate stance but also moderate pro-choice supporters now wavering between Mr. Trump and his opponent Kamala Harris.
Both camps seek compassion for those in hard circumstances: young women who see no choice but abortion, and unborn children who become expendable.
Ms. Harris does no favors for either. She misrepresents the consequences of the United States Supreme Court‘s decision to return the abortion question to the states and conceals her true positions on abortion policy.
Mr. Trump was the first president to deliver on his pro-life promises. But he does not support a national abortion ban or Florida’s ban on abortion after six weeks of gestation. Pro-life groups have responded to this moderation by withdrawing their support for America’s most pro-life president.
Meanwhile, using the heartbreaking death of 28-year-old Amber Thurman, Ms. Harris tries to scare mothers and daughters into voting for her. In fact, Ms. Thurman’s tragic case resulted from high-risk abortion drugs promoted by the Biden-Harris administration.
How can we move toward a reality in which future Amber Thurmans and their babies would live?
In last month’s debate with Mr. Trump, Ms. Harris refused to admit that newborn babies are ever left to die after surviving an abortion attempt, even when state law requires rescue measures for any infant born alive. Ms. Harris also refused to concede that she supports unrestricted abortion and refused to articulate a position on late-term abortion.
For his part, Mr. Trump has given young mothers and unborn babies more support than any president in American history, in stark contrast with earlier presidents who rode the support of pro-life voters into the Oval Office in exchange for no meaningful progress.
In 2016, Mr. Trump expressed clear opposition to late-term abortion, expressing revulsion at a graphic description of the gruesome death that procedure inflicts on unborn babies. Critics decried his opportunism and guaranteed he would never deliver.
SAGINAW, MICHIGAN – OCTOBER 03: Republican presidential nominee former President Donald Trump speaks to supporters during a campaign event at Saginaw Valley State University on October 03, 2024 in Saginaw, Michigan. Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris has two events scheduled Michigan tomorrow as the two battle for support of voters in the critical swing state.
Scott Olson/Getty Images
But Mr. Trump delivered. Once elected, he appointed judges devoted to applying the law as written, rather than inventing made-up rights. In 2020, he became the first sitting president to attend and speak at the March for Life, the largest annual pro-life demonstration in Washington, D.C.
In 2022, the United States Supreme Court, including three Justices appointed by Mr. Trump, returned the abortion question to the states, where it belongs. This was a long-awaited reversal of abortion’s federalization in Roe v. Wade, a judicial overreach described in 1973 as “a very bad decision” by people on both sides of the debate, including a prominent, pro-choice Yale law professor. “It is bad because it is bad constitutional law,” he said, “or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”
What now? We are weeks away from the most consequential presidential election in a generation. Abortion is but one of many important issues voters must consider. After the election, young people will continue to find themselves in difficult and overwhelming circumstances, faced with surprise pregnancies which cause them to question the right path for their lives.
“Nonmarital sex is the main cause of abortion,” author Ryan Anderson has noted. “Four percent of babies conceived in marriage will be aborted, compared to 40 percent of children conceived outside of marriage. Meanwhile 13 percent of women who have abortions are married, and 87 percent are unmarried.”
As marriage rates decline and chastity outside of marriage decreases, the abortion rate will probably worsen. What should pro-lifers do? “Recognizing that there is no imaginable pro-life majority absent a big change in the way that Americans approach sex and marriage and religion,” writes Ross Douthat of the New York Times, “does that imply that it should be the business of the pro-life movement to be a pro-marriage or even pro-chastity movement as well?”
Back in the real world, what is the best that staunch pro-life and moderate pro-choice voters can achieve with this election? Mr. Trump supported his abortion policy with clear action and principle. His judicial appointment strategy returned the abortion question to the states. He opposes late-term abortion, citing basic human empathy rather than religious scruples.
Ms. Harris continues to conceal her true views and sow fear among women with lies about their fate if they find themselves pregnant.
The clear choice for both pro-life and moderate pro-choice voters is Mr. Trump. He is the candidate for all voters who do not espouse unlimited and late-term abortion on demand. We can only hope for a future in which no one would support such inhumanity.
Gayle Trotter is a lawyer and political commentator in Washington, D.C.
The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.
