Rejecting the False Choice
Part Two: Both Candidates are Effectively Pro-Abortion
It is particularly disappointing to see the shift in the national conversation surrounding abortion over the last four years. Back in 2020, I cited research from the Guttmacher Institute showing that the abortion rate had steadily declined under every presidency since the Roe v. Wade decision. In fact, by 2017, the abortion rate had reached its lowest point ever observed. However, since that post, this trend has unfortunately reversed, and the abortion rate has begun to rise once again. The abortion rate1, which hit an all-time low of 13.5 in 2017, rose to 14.4 by 2020 and 15.9 by 2023.
The number of abortions increased both during the Trump presidency (there was an 8% increase in the number of abortions over the three-year period from 2017 to 20202) and the Biden presidency (there was an 11% increase in the number of abortions over the three-year period from 2020 to 2023)3. It continued to increase even after Roe v. Wade was overturned and partial and total abortion bans went into effect in many states throughout the country.
Why is the occurrence of abortion increasing even as legal restrictions against abortion increase? I would like to reference back, again, to my 2020 post on abortion:
Despite all of his policy achievements on the issue of abortion, I believe President Trump actually undercuts the pro-life movement in several of these battles. First of all, as for winning hearts and minds, … the President [plays a crucial] role in reminding us of our values and being a voice for our nation. I would argue that the President can have an even bigger impact on the number of abortions in our country by employing this power than through policy and judicial appointments.
President Trump, however, is incapable of being a moral leader on this (or any) issue. In fact, much like his proximity to the church undermines the church’s witness, I would suggest that President Trump’s connection to the pro-life movement has undermined its appeal, especially among young women who are ultimately deciding whether or not to carry out their pregnancy. President Trump’s approval rating among women aged 18-34 is only 30%. And, recall the Forbes article I referenced in my last post. It points out that, in the past, abortion has been an exception to the general pattern that each new generation is more liberal than previous ones on social issues. That is no longer the case. According to a study conducted in 2019, 72% of those ages 18-29 years old said that abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Don’t tell me that has nothing to do with President Trump.
Unfortunately, the public opinion has continued to shift in the wrong direction on this issue. According to the Pew Research Center, only 51% of U.S. adults said abortion should be legal in all or most cases in 2015. In 2016, when Donald Trump took control of the Republican Party, that number increased to 57%. Since then, it has continued to steadily increase and now sits at 63%.
Kamala Harris seeks to ride this tide of public opinion on the issue of abortion straight to the White House by running what is probably the most pro-abortion Presidential campaign of all time. In March, when it still looked like Joe Biden was going to be the Democratic nominee, Kamala Harris became the first Vice President to visit an abortion provider, touring a Planned Parenthood facility in Minnesota and hosting a press conference from its lobby. Since becoming the nominee, Harris has made it clear that one of the central objectives of her Presidency would be to pass national legislation that restores the principles of Roe v. Wade. She has even gone so far as to say that she supports doing away with the filibuster rule to allow such legislation to pass with just 51 votes in the Senate. She has doubled down on this by selecting Tim Walz to be her Vice Presidential candidate, the Governor of Minnesota who signed one of the most extreme abortion laws in the world in 20234. The complete lack of value placed on the life of unborn children represented by the Harris-Walz campaign is astoundingly revolting.
In the face of this extremist position the Democratic nominee is taking on the issue of abortion, I would love to be able to say that the Republican nominee is standing firm for the rights of the unborn and communicating the value of life. Instead, Donald Trump is in full retreat. In a post on Truth Social, Donald Trump claims that his administration “will be great for women and their reproductive rights.” That followed a CBS interview in which he disavowed a legal effort to overturn the FDA’s drug approval of mifepristone, a drug used in nearly all medication-based abortions. More recently, Donald Trump has promised to veto any federal abortion ban as his wife passionately makes a pro-choice argument in her book5. The Republican Party followed his lead by modifying the party’s platform to match his position.
Donald Trump’s position on abortion seems to be that it should be left up to the states, except that he hasn’t really supported state-level restrictions either. When asked about Florida’s “heartbeat” bill which bans abortions after 6 weeks, Donald Trump called it a “terrible thing and a terrible mistake.” To understand the context, Trump’s home state of Florida is voting on an abortion referendum in November that would guarantee a right to an abortion before the baby reaches the point of viability6. In the interview, Trump said he would “be voting that we need more than six weeks.” When pro-life leaders expressed concern over those statements, his initial response was to say that he hadn’t yet decided how he would vote on the referendum. When that didn’t seem to do the trick, he finally announced that he would be voting against the referendum, but still clarified that he thought the existing six-week restriction in Florida needed to be expanded and that more exceptions needed to be added for the life of the mother, rape, and incest.
It’s also important to note that even if he did consistently support state-level restrictions against abortion, studies show this is an entirely ineffective means of reducing the number of abortions. Even though some states with state-level restrictions did see declines in the number of abortions in 20237, the effect of these state-level bans were counterbalanced by the ability of women to get abortions in bordering states that allow abortions. In fact, the number of abortions in states bordering states that had banned abortion increased by 38% between 2020 and 20238. Six states have gone so far as to enact abortion “shield laws” that protect their doctors who send abortion pills to tens of thousands of women in states where abortion is illegal. Use of abortion medication such as mifepristone (which, again, Donald Trump has said he would ensure continues to be available), combined with the broader availability of telehealth, has effectively torn down state borders with respect to the provision of abortion. Unless and until every state prohibits abortion, abortion is effectively available nationwide.
Donald Trump has also attempted to out-flank the radical left on the subject of in vitro fertilization. A February Alabama Supreme Court ruling that embryos created through in vitro fertilization should be considered children under Alabama law stirred much national debate on the topic. In June, the Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution which delicately outlines the ethical pitfalls involved with reproductive techniques such as in vitro fertilization. It is a complex issue fraught with difficult dilemmas, but it is absolutely essential that the dignity of the human embryo and the pro-life ethic be consistently applied on this subject. It concerns me, then, that Donald Trump has not only publicly supported IVF treatment (much more forcefully than he has championed any anti-abortion cause of late), but has called for legal changes to have IVF treatment paid for by government or insurance companies. This would require many pro-life citizens who are desperately attempting to live out their moral convictions on this issue to pay for what they believe amounts to the reckless killing of unborn children.
Effectively, Donald Trump’s public position on abortion and IVF amounts to a waving of the flag and a complete abdication of his moral responsibility as the leader of the Republican Party to win hearts and minds and fight for the rights of unborn children. While Kamala Harris’s position is more extreme, Donald Trump’s ambivalence creates a national political conversation devoid of the pro-life argument. This can only lead to further erosion of the public support for abortion restrictions created by fifty years of groundwork laid by pro-life leaders.
No matter who wins this election, the radical left will still be there forcefully advocating for abortion without limits. But, if Donald Trump wins this election with his muddied down abortion and IVF policy positions, what will be left of the pro-life movement?
Picture a Roman gladiator locked in combat, fighting for his life. On his right stands a fellow gladiator who has fought beside him, each defending the other. On his left, an enemy attacks with full force, gaining the upper hand. Suddenly, the ally on his right grabs his shield and shouts, “Sorry, I need this to win,” leaving our central gladiator defenseless to his enemy's blade. Who is to blame for his defeat—the enemy or the “friend”? I would argue both share the blame.
I understand those who view abortion as the most critical issue in this election and see Trump as the preferable option. However, I suggest he is like the “friend” in this illustration. While he may not launch a direct assault on the pro-life cause as Harris and the Democrats do, by co-opting the Republican Party to retreat on this issue, he deprives the cause of its strongest defense against the Democrats’ attacks. In this way, he is just as responsible for the countless deaths that will follow. Moreover, the Republican Party must learn that it cannot continue to expect the blind loyalty of pro-life voters if it is going to fail to stand for pro-life policy. That’s why I cannot in good conscience support either candidate in light of their positions on abortion.
Abortion rate is defined as the number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44.
Pew Research Center, What the data says about abortion in the U.S.
Guttmacher Institute, Despite Bans, Number of Abortions in the United States Increased in 2023.
The Minnesota abortion law allows abortion for any reason all the way up to birth and even went so far as to remove the legal requirement that “reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice” be taken “to preserve the life and health of … born alive infant[s].”
Per reporting from The Guardian: “It is imperative to guarantee that women have autonomy in deciding their preference of having children, based on their own convictions, free from any intervention or pressure from the government…”
“Why should anyone other than the woman herself have the power to determine what she does with her own body? A woman’s fundamental right of individual liberty, to her own life, grants her the authority to terminate her pregnancy if she wishes.
“Restricting a woman’s right to choose whether to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is the same as denying her control over her own body. I have carried this belief with me throughout my entire adult life.”
While “viability” is not a well-defined standard, the general consensus seems to be that it would be in the 20-28 week range.
The only exceptions to the general increase in the number of abortions were Arizona, Georgia, Indiana and Wisconsin, which all saw declines. Arizona and Georgia have a 15- and 6-week ban, respectively, while Wisconsin and Indiana had total bans in effect for much of 2023. guttmacher.org
Illinois, by itself, provided abortions to an estimated 26,000 more patients from out of state during this time.