Posted on 01/24/2016 3:25:03 PM PST by Brices Crossroads
Many pro-lifers find themselves in a dilemma this election season. Whom to trust on the all important issue of the sanctity of human life? It is by now well known that Donald Trump--as a private citizen in 1999--identified himself as pro-choice. As a businessman, he obviously had given the issue little thought, and he evidently defaulted to the prevailing views held by other native New Yorkers on the subject. Ted Cruz, on the other hand, has given many speeches on the subject, maintaining that he is, and always has been, pro-life. But let's go a little deeper. Has Trump done anything to promote abortion? And, conversely, has Cruz done anything to diminish it? The answer to both questions is no. Neither man has yet had any impact on this issue. We have only their words and actions to judge.
Trump's op-ed yesterday in the Washington Examiner suggests the three front assault that he would mount, as President, against abortion. First, he maintains that the Supreme Court created an imaginary right to privacy and, in 1973, extended that right to abortion. Trump has maintained that his favorite Supreme Court Justice, also the most conservative constitutionalist on the Court, is Clarence Thomas. Justice Thomas has over and again criticized in his opinions the so-called "right to privacy" as a thinly disguised vehicle for legislation by the judiciary. There is little doubt that he would eliminate this extra-constitutional "right" at the first opportunity. If Thomas is Trump's model justice, then there is little to fear, and very much to hope for, in Mr. Trump's future court appointments.
Recognizing, however, that the Court might be unwilling to dispense with the so-called "right to privacy", Trump turns to his second strategy. He suggests that no public funds should be used for abortion. This is something that the President can directly affect. Trump has pledged to reinstate the Mexico City policy, which forbids the grant of federal funds to any international agency that promotes abortion overseas. Both at home and abroad, the stream of federal funds that currently go to abortion mills would dry up under a President Trump.
Finally, Trump suggests that--if the right to privacy cannot be rescinded--the abortion issue should be returned to the states where it was handled prior to Roe v. Wade in 1973.
In a nutshell it is clear that Trump wants to see Roe overturned and that this will be a "litmus test" for his judicial nominees. Although I cannot find the interview, I heard him asked by an interviewer last summer whether he would ask prospective Supreme Court nominees their position on Roe v Wade. His response was "Yes. I think that would be very helpful to know." He did NOT give the response, standard since the first Bush administration, that there would be no litmus test on abortion. There obviously will be a litmus test for GOP nominees under Trump, as there has been for every Democrat nominee since 1973. Trump will nominate only Justices whom he believes to be committed to overturning Roe v. Wade.
But why should we trust Trump, given his statements nearly two decades ago? Hasn't Cruz always talked the talk? Isn't Cruz a better risk?
Let's look at the situation of Ronald Reagan in 1980. He was running in a GOP primary field that included Senator Bob Dole and Congressman Phil Crane of Illinois, both of whom had completely unblemished pro-life records. Spotless. Both had sponsored or co-sponsored the Human Life Amendment and other legislative attempts to restrict or eliminate abortion. And Reagan? Barely a dozen years earlier in 1967, Governor Reagan had signed the Therapeutic Abortion Act, which caused the number of legal abortions in California to soar from only 518 in 1967 to 100,000 per year from 1967 until 1973 (when Roe legalized all abortions). Reagan's actions in signing this bill resulted in the loss of 600,000 unborn children who otherwise would have been spared. Parenthetically, I believe Reagan was misled into signing the bill, and he often said it was his greatest regret in public life. Nevertheless, on paper at least, Reagan appeared much less pro-life than either Dole or Crane. In 1980, in spite of this rather glaring weakness in his background, conservatives believed Reagan was sincere and he became a great President and the best friend the pro-life movement ever had in the Oval Office. Trump, in my opinion, not only deserves the benefit of the doubt at least as much as Reagan did, but he is actually a better risk to advance the pro-life agenda than Cruz, for two reasons.
First of all, Trump's ability to persuade should--by this time--not be underestimated. I believe Trump will be very effective in persuading reluctant Senators to support his court nominees. He will use his negotiation skills to great effect here. And when that fails he will use the very real threat of political retribution. Trump does not like to lose, and he is not about to allow his Court appointments to go down in flames since that would be a reflection on him and his Presidency.
Second, I believe his judgment in hiring individuals is far superior to Cruz's. Trump has already revealed his model Justice. (No. It is not his sister for whom he had kind words as one would expect any proud younger brother to have). It is Justice Thomas. Ted Cruz, on the other hand, supported John Roberts for Chief Justice of the United States. I, along with many court observers, believe Justice Thomas is the solidest conservative on the bench. Advantage Trump.
No President can foresee exactly how his Court appointments will turn out over time. I believe Trump has more experience in assessing potential employees than Cruz and will be less likely to make a mistake. But even more importantly, unlike Cruz, Trump says and does what he thinks is right without regard to political calculation. He will fight tooth and nail to get his appointments confirmed, and I predict he will be successful. Both of these factors lead me to believe that, between Trump and Cruz, Trump is the better candidate to advance the pro-life agenda.
How many Pro Life POTUS’s have we had since Roe v Wade?
What has it changed?
It’s going to take a massive movement of people to overturn it, this is not an issue this time around.
Thanks for the satire.
You know what would cinch the deal? His hiring Rand Paul as VP. Rand just introduced a personhood bill in the senate.
Roe v Wade is a road too far from my perspective. Box the judiciary via legislation and win.
Well since Cruz is about to take a dive, I guess we’ll get to find out what DT can get accomplished.
He’ll take a dive after winning Iowa? That’s weird.
So did most conservatives in America as well as most of us on this board.
How long has Clarence Thomas been Trump’s model Justice?
First time hearing negotiating skills presented positively, this application is conventionally called bully pulpit. First time feeling better about Trump, hope he’s honest.
Wish Buffett, Gates, Soros & other zills could be convinced kids are profitable.
Thanks for the in-depth look at a Trumper’s brain. The firing synapses reminded me of a nighttime satellite shot of North Korea.
DT is a negotiator. He’s used to winning. I expect he will take that same tack as President.
Children are very profitable, just moreso for the real estate industry.
I’d like some of what you’re having.
We’ll find out for sure in 8 days.
I lived in Iowa half my life and worked on two presidential campaigns. Needless to say, I still have people I talk to there. Cruz is winning at this juncture. Iowa is not a primary state where you drive to a polling place, spend 10 minutes there and leave.
The only question, then, is what will he define as winning?
As a developer, that was easy to do -- whatever benefitted The Trump Orgaization.
However, as President, how will he define "winning"? Will it be:
1. Will be getting "a deal done"?
2. Or will it be getting a deal done "your way"?
3. Or will it be getting a deal done "his way"? And what, exactly, is "his way"? Do you know? For sure?
I don't.
The states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for abortion purposes. The reason that the corrupt federal government is now doing so is this.
As a consequnece of the corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification Senate confirming state sovereignty-ignoring, pro-abortion activist justices, these lawless justices not only wrongly stole legislative power to legislate the fictitious constitutional right to have an abortion from the bench, but they breached the Founding States division of state and federal government powers to steal 10th Amendment-protected state legislative powers to do so.
And even though Congress has the constitutional authority to remove state sovereignty-ignoring justices from the bench, corrupt lawmakers hide behind the Courts pro-abortion scam to keep their voting records clean to fool constitutionally low-information, pro-life voters into reelecting them.
Remember in November !
When patriots elect Trump, or whatever conservative they elect, they will also need to elect a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will be willing to not only work within its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers to support the president, but also be willing to fire state sovereignty-ignoring, pro-abortion activist justices.
Trump says he’s pro-life now but he’ll change to get blue state votes.
We shall see in 8 days.
It's going to take every pro-life person to say, when in a discussion about abortion, that a DNA test would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a fetus is a separate and unique human being who should not be killed for the sake of convenience.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.