On Abortion, How Trump And Cruz Stack Up Against Reagan...And Each Other

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Finally, Trump suggests that--if the right to privacy cannot be rescinded--the abortion issue should be returned to the states where it was handled prior to Roe v. Wade in 1973.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.

Thanks for the satire.

I notice that you post quite often about Cruz so I would like to ask you about Cruz saying that Congress could pass a law giving 14th Amendment protections to fetuses and zygotes, which would bypass a constitutional amendment to overthrow Roe v. Wade.

Do you believe he is correct? Thanks

The thing is, other than appoint SC judges, there’s really not much that a president can actually do about it. And, as the article points out, that’s hit or miss.

Personally, I believe that it’s up to US. WE have to take responsibility for the morality of this nation and stop trying to shove it onto our elected officials. We must work the issue - if it’s really that important to us.

All the big-name GOP candidates support legislation which codifies the killing of some babies. Example: there's a bill that says it's ok to kill babies as long as you do it before they reach 20 weeks of gestational age. Some of the candidates who support these types of bills also say that it is clear that these unborn children are indeed persons. So, these candidates are willing to support legislation that allows some persons to be deprived of their life without due process. That's a step in the wrong direction. We don't need new laws. We don't need to change the Constitution. We need to elect folks who will take their oath of office seriously and support the Constitution by refusing to defer to those who think it's ok to deprive persons of their lives without due process. There's one announced candidate for President (his handle is EternalVigilance here on FreeRepublic) who would follow the Constitution in this matter. Tom Hoefling is seeking the nomination of America's Party (nationally) and will be on the primary ballot in California for the American Independent Party. Tom understands that we need only elect executives who recognize that these littlest persons are persons, and who will act to secure their unalienable right to life.

All of good will are welcome to join in real town hall-style discussion about this and other matters on
Tuesday and Thursday night conference calls starting at 9pm ET --
America's Summit: Restore the Republic
712-432-3566,,,340794#

You're very welcome. At the end of last night's conference call, I asked Tom to describe what he would do, as President, to support the Constitution's guarantee that no person shall be deprived of their life without due process. He said that the first thing he'd do upon taking office is to issue a Presidential Finding which recognizes that all human beings are persons from the earliest stage of their biological development, and pledge that employees of the executive branch would be expected to ensure that these persons are provided equal protection. The second thing he'd do is announce that every executive branch employee who could not fulfil their oath to support the Constitution, including in the personhood matter, would be expected to resign by the end of the day. He would then contact the Governors of all the states and tell them that if they don't shut down abortion in their state, the federal government soon will.

Tom mentioned that he's going to be interviewed on the Bob Enyart radio show today. That show airs starting at 5pm ET, and folks can listen live at http://kgov.com. This morning, I tweeted to the host @BobEnyart - Looking forward to interview of @TomHoefling today. Please ask him how he will, if elected, suppt Constitution re abortion

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.