At Minimum, Trump Should Support Bill Banning Late-Term Abortions
The shock hasn’t worn off for pro-lifers, who continue to watch with dismay as Donald Trump and his Catholic running mate, Senator J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), seem to publicly disavow years of conservative principles on the unborn. Reaction is still pouring in over the former president’s tweet that his administration would be “great” for “reproductive rights,” a euphemism for abortion that many see as a devastating surrender in itself. It would be one thing, the editors of National Review wrote, “for a Republican candidate for national office to say that a federal law against abortion is unattainable, or even undesirable,” given the current political realities. But at this point, they continue, “pro-lifers have to wonder if there’s any difference left between the parties on abortion.”
Of course, as veterans of the movement know, the warning signs loomed large well before July’s Republican National Convention, when Trump’s inside circle hinted that abortion would no longer be an issue of common concern but a political inconvenience that the former president would try to avoid at all costs. The ensuing party platform cemented those fears, shredding paragraphs of pro-life vision and values in exchange for four sentences that promised merely to “oppose Late Term Abortion” and support mothers.
HELP LIFENEWS SAVE BABIES FROM ABORTION! Please help LifeNews.com with a donation!
Even that seems to be in doubt after Vance’s Sunday interview, in which he walked back any support for a 15-week federal threshold for abortion, which is past the point unborn babies can feel pain. Asked whether or not he would commit to not “impos[ing] a federal ban on abortion,” Vance replied, “I can absolutely commit that.” He continued, “I think it’s important to step back and say, ‘What has Donald Trump actually said on the abortion question, and how is it different from what Kamala Harris and the Democrats have said?’ Donald Trump wants to end this culture war over this particular topic.”
In what appears to be a big departure from Trump’s first term as president, Vance wouldn’t even commit to the 45th president’s former positions — which, until recently, were considered the bare minimum of bipartisan federal policy: blocking taxpayer-funded abortion at home and abroad, stopping the military’s war on the unborn, and ending the shipment of abortion pills to pro-life states.
“This is an issue,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins reiterated on “Washington Watch” Monday. “It’s a concern.” And frankly, he said, “God have mercy on us as a nation if the one party that has been advocating for the unborn child and for their mothers abandons its position on life. We’re in serious trouble,” he warned. Right now, Perkins pointed out, conservatives are “the only thing standing between abortions until birth with taxpayer funds. That’s what the Democratic Party is pushing for. And it looks like the Republicans are running away from their historic position of protecting unborn children.”
It was also news to the FRC president that Trump had suddenly broken from Senator Lindsey Graham’s (R-S.C.) call for a federal limit on abortion. “Senator Graham called me [Sunday] during the altar call of the last service I was preaching out [in California],” Perkins said, “… [and] we talked about this.” But as he clarified, “What is being discussed here is not a ban. What Lindsey Graham has put forward is a measure that [would stop] late-term abortions when a child feels pain. So we’re not talking about a ban.”
Obviously, he explained, most conservatives support life from the moment of conception forward. But “I know we have to build consensus. We’ve worked for 50 years to bring about a consensus point to support unborn life in this country. And now, we’re running away from the ground that we had gained. This is why I was so animated and concerned about the party platform and what took place in Wisconsin earlier this year,” he lamented, “because I knew that without something tethering the Republican Party and Republican candidates to a strong position on life, we would end up with something like this. And because Donald Trump is seen as the leader of the Republican Party, others are falling in behind him.”
Making matters worse, no one is quite sure what the former president stands to gain from alienating his base, especially since, as Phillip Klein argues, it only serves to divide his own party “while doing absolutely nothing to win over anybody pro-choice.” As Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) pointed out, it’s not like America’s liberal women are suddenly going to trust the man who appointed the three Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade. And increasingly, pro-lifers are wondering: can they?
That said, Perkins acknowledged, there are two choices before us this November. “And I’m not advocating that people don’t vote for [Trump],” he wanted people to know. And frankly, “I’ve taken a little bit of grief from people who have said, ‘You shouldn’t say anything.’ Well, I’m sorry,” he said, but “as Christians, as evangelicals in this country … we are [called] to be a prophetic voice … to the political leaders. We are not to fall in line with their positions [that] are not in [agreement] with biblical truth. Now, absolutely,” Perkins clarified, “I’m not saying that we would ever vote for a party who advocates abortion until birth, but what I am saying is we have to hold both parties to the same standard. And when one party gets it wrong, and the other party gets it wrong, we should be just as quick to call them out. And this is wrong. What we’re seeing is a fundamental change of the Republican Party’s decades-long position on protecting unborn children. And we cannot be silent about this.”
But what would he say to voters who are discouraged by what they’re seeing and hearing from the Trump campaign?
“Two things,” Perkins replied. “Number one — let me just be very clear on this — I’ve been having conversations with the campaign and others every day about this. … The reason I’m talking about this publicly is because the private conversations haven’t brought about the fruit that [they need] to bring — and that is coming back into alignment with supporting unborn children and their mothers. Now, what does this mean for voters? It means we still have to speak truth. We have to vote, but we vote for the candidate who most clearly aligns with biblical truth. I would just like the contrast to be starker.”
That’s why he’s taking a stand. “I want to encourage Donald Trump to take a stronger position on life. I’d love to see the Democrats take a stronger position on life, but if we’re silent, nobody’s going to change. And so we have to pray, we have to vote, and we have to stand. And standing means we have to speak. We have to speak truth whether or not people receive it or agree with it.” At the end of the day, “We are not an appendage of any political party. The church is a prophetic voice to this country, and we have to use [that] voice speaking the truth that God has entrusted to us.”
LifeNews Note: Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand, where this originally appeared.
The post At Minimum, Trump Should Support Bill Banning Late-Term Abortions appeared first on LifeNews.com.