Pro-lifers in America have always been homeless, politically speaking.
After President Trump’s cryptic assertion last week that his administration “will be great for women and their reproductive rights,” it should come as no surprise that he signaled support for Florida’s Proposition 4 before backtracking Friday afternoon.
The amendment would enshrine abortion as a constitutional right in the Sunshine State.
Trump told NBC on Thursday that Florida’s law protecting babies after six weeks in the womb is too short. “I am going to be voting that we need more than six weeks,” he said.
He told Fox News the very next day: “I’ll be voting no.”
Nor should we be surprised that Trump is vowing to force the federal government or health insurance companies to pay for IVF (in vitro fertilization) treatments—something most pro-life advocates have denounced for years.
Trump’s running mate, J.D. Vance, who converted to Catholicism in 2019, told NBC’s Meet the Press that a Trump-Vance administration “will not impose a federal ban on abortion” if such a bill reached the President’s desk.
If pro-lifers are shocked, they haven’t been paying attention.
Trump is teetering on the brink of losing the pro-life vote even though he’s the only American president to have addressed the national March for Life in person. He told pro-lifers in 2020 that “when we see the image of a baby in the womb, we glimpse the majesty of God’s creation.”
A year earlier, in his 2019 State of the Union address, Trump famously told the joint session of Congress: “Let us reaffirm a fundamental truth: All children—born and unborn—are made in the holy image of God.”
However, those statements don’t seem to resonate with Trump’s position on abortion in 2024. So, what spurred Trump’s rush to the mushy middle?
The Republican Party’s mushy platform, written by Trump’s team and passed at his urging. Gone from the platform’s right-to-life plank is language saying that unborn children have a “fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed.”
The Trump-Vance playbook draws straight from that newly revamped platform, which says, “We will oppose late-term abortion while supporting mothers and policies that advance prenatal care, access to birth control, and IVF.”
Pro-lifer leaders gave the new plank mixed reviews when it dropped in July. Now that the Republican ticket is articulating its position, pro-lifers are urging Trump to reconsider.
“It’s disappointing to say — but perhaps he personally lacks principle on this issue,” said Live Action founder Lila Rose.
The truth is that Trump and Vance—and the entire Democratic Party—continue to hold a radical position on abortion. The notion that some human life is disposable is wrongheaded on every level. To deny the humanity of the unborn child is to be anti-science.
To hold that life in the womb is “not life,” “not human,” or simply “potential life” is to deny a fundamental reality that has been accepted by humanity since the dawn of reason. Modern embryology is unequivocal.
“A human begins life as a fertilized ovum. This single cell gives rise to the millions of cells that form the human body,” writes Edward Klatt, MD, of Mercer University.
While there are obvious religious reasons underpinning the pro-life position, the concept that we should protect all innocent life, no matter where it’s located, is also a human rights question.
The abortion lobby asserts that preborn humans are disposable, depending on whether or not the child is wanted. Given the scientific certainty, the unborn are worthy of protection under the law for the entire nine months in the womb. To leave them vulnerable before birth because of their geography is to deny their fundamental right to life.
During his first term as president, Trump surrounded himself with pro-lifers and Constitutional conservatives. This time around, he seems to have forgotten his base when it comes to protecting the unborn.
While pro-lifers across the country are grateful that Roe v. Wade is now on the ash heap of history, leaving the abortion question to individual states is not sound policy. It’s time for pro-life leaders to open the debate on the humanity of the unborn child from its earliest stage.
Eleven states will be put to the test in November with abortion-related questions on the ballot. The majority of those will be proposed constitutional amendments to expand abortion. Fourteen states already have total or near-total abortion bans. That number will undoubtedly change after the votes are tallied.
To quote Ronald Reagan, this is “a time for choosing.” The choices are life or death.
The time has come for American voters to lead on this issue and protect every innocent human life regardless of that life’s geography.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Pro-life folks denouncing IVF? That is news to me. I’ve had strongly pro/life folks defend the practice because “that is the only way for” (my sister, my cousin, my best friend, etc) “to have a baby”
Well, glad you finally got the Good News.
For more, see:
https://www.hli.org/resources/ivf-catholic-church-catechism-teaching/
IVF is designed to create many more embryos than can be implanted or born. Most are destined to be discarded, either by subsequent surgical abortion or by flushing them down the drain after they have been stored in inventory, treated as just another commodity. Then of course there is the inevitable application to commercial surrogacy. None of these respect the dignity of life.
There is no doubt in my mind that the embryo or fetus is alive. But what we have with pregnancy is a clash of rights. The woman has the right to defend herself against the harm that delivering the baby would bring. Harms like preeclampsia, gestational diabetes and hypertension, stress incontinence and others. Plus the mental stress, anguish and mental illneses such as post-natal depression and psychosis. Childbirth is not free to the mother and ultimately she has the right to not give birth.
Things would be different if there were artificial wombs that could complete the gestation for mothers who choose not to continue their pregnancy. But asking a woman to take on that cost is not reasonable.
None of this gives any mother the slightest right to abort her baby. There is no “clash of rights”. The baby is a person with a God-given right to live.
Cermak, you state: “The woman has the right to defend herself against…” Says who, you? Just as the Trump-appointed Supreme Court ruled, there is no Constitutional “right” to an abortion, so too there is no woman’s “right” to all the things you mention. Rights are not something an individual or group gets to decide is theirs. Rights are things that come to us from our Creator, God, and that are revealed to us. All other “rights” are chimerical.
What did your mother do?
“The woman has the right to defend herself against the harm that delivering the baby would bring”
Leaving aside the cases of rape, the woman had the right not to spread her legs and engage in the actions which result in the conception of a child. Once she made that “choice”, she does not have the right to have the human being which resulted from her freely chosen action murdered (see “Pope Francis”).
Like any other action, prudence ought to be exercised concerning engaging in pro-creative acts, taking into account full knowledge of possible risks. That the choice to take procreative actions is so cut off in our culture from any such considerations is part and parcel of the whole situation. It will not be remedied except by forcing the society to confront the nature of the procreative act, and the humanity of the creatures which result, and to restore its acceptable context to the only one allowed under the moral law instituted by God. There is no shortcut to this, no worldly remedy, not even a “natural law” approach that by itself will ever carry the day. The title of this article should be seen as totally accurate and immensely ominous.
She has the right to not have sexual relations with men, in order to avoid those things.
But most men in our society would much rather she give them what they want, and then have her child murdered. They reject self-sacrifice and self-control, and therefore take it out on the weakest and most vulnerable.
In cases of rape, this is even more starkly illustrated, as our society is willing to give the death penalty to the child, but many convicted rapists serve less than a year in prison – while the woman is left with life-long trauma.
What is a woman to do if her baby dies in her womb at the eighth month of her pregnancy? What kind of a person would require her to carry a dead baby for a month?
This article as it mirrors the dominant pro-life discourse reveals the problematic limited scope of the so-called pro-life thought and action that takes to mean mainly as consisting in fighting for the unborn only. In this developing story of Trump’s flip flop move regarding his position and plan against abortion, single issue abortion only Catholic voters feeling abandoned by their dear leader find themselves in a moral quagmire as to how and who to vote this coming election. This is the result of inordinately considering abortion only in voting for a politician, party or platform. At best this is not fully pro-life but only anti-abortion or pro-birth at its best. This incomplete pro-life position ignores other pressing issues that impact human life and dignity like immigration, health care, education, racial and economic justice that are integral to the overall quality and sanctity of human life, particularly for the most vulnerable and marginalized members of society. By concentrating solely on abortion, this partial pro-life movement when voting for Trump inadvertently support or tolerate policies that contribute to systemic injustices or exacerbate inequalities, like racism, restrictive immigration policies or failing to address economic disparities that contradict the total pro-life commitment to valuing every human life. Catholic Social Teaching (papal social encyclicals from Leo XIII’s “Rerum Novarum” (1891) to Francis’s “Fratelli Tutti” (2020)) and the Bible (like Jesus’ vision mission statement in Luke 4:18-19 and the last judgment standards he set as to who gets into eternal life in Matthew 25:31-46) provide a comprehensive framework for understanding and acting upon the sanctity of life today. A truly pro-life stance encompasses all stages of life, from conception to natural death. In elections this entails discerning one’s conscience as who to vote for by determining who among the imperfect (not all are total pro-lifers) politicians, parties and platforms advocate for the more or most policies and actions that protect not only the unborn but also support the well-being and flourishing of individuals and families throughout their lives from womb to tomb.
“A truly pro-life stance encompasses all stages of life, from conception to natural death.”
Well, duh. Which is why no Catholic should be voting for Democrats, who are committed with a radical obsession to abortion, contraception, euthanasia, trans-mutilation, starting wars, inflation, higher taxes, drugs, sexual immorality, homosexuality, queer, polyamory, lousy public educaton, censorship, etc. etc.
I have yet to hear a homily that supports your contentions at our Catholic Church. On the other hand we have a local community church whose pastor receives death threats for advocating the same line of thought as you have expressed here, Of the two men, I would rather have this protestant pastor in a foxhole with me standing our ground than our priest who would employ a duty to retreat.
I have heard homilies on these things. At my traditional, FSSP parish. Not so much in the decades of NO parishes. It is very nice to have a community, and a pastor, that I can count on.
I disagree on contraception. The vast majority of the laity (myself included) have either practiced or are practicing contraception. This is not changing.
Contraception prevents unwanted pregnancy. Why would you oppose this?
It prevents pregnancy that is unwanted by people who want to have sex. With about a 95-99% chance of success. Which virtually guarantees an unwanted pregnancy from contraception given enough sexual intercourse. Which many people subsequently “solve” by having their offspring murdered. Even without this, hormonal contraception destroys women’s natural hormones, disrupting her emotional life and causing physical problems, and it raises a barrier between husband and wife, obstructing their mutual self-giving which is the foundation of their relationship.
This says nothing about what God wants (hint: He wants people who are not in a position to have children, to not have sex, and He wants the children into whom he has infused souls at the moment of their conception, to not be murdered). But what God wants is what we should be concerned about. The mother and father want many things that are bad for them and those around them, and they want to not have many things that are good for them and those around them. Not the best decision metric. God wants what is best for everyone, with perfect knowledge of our entire futures, into eternity -> His will is the best decision metric.
Would the editorial “we” oppose contraception?
Well, there’s the moral argument–also philosophical, theological, and common sense–that sexual unity is oriented toward procreation. To artificially separate the act from even the possibility of conception is disordered. And then there’s the fact that some kinds of contraception are actually abortifacient from time to time.
Back in Arabian times it was a problem when a camel became pregnant during one long caravan journey or another. The practical solution was a large handful of gravel inserted into the female. Contra-ception!
Which today calls to mind the camel’s nose in the tent, and then the whole camel…the contraceptive culture has led to the anti-child culture of abortion, and to anti-conceptive LGBTQ culture, to drag queens at the Olympics and in kindergarten classrooms, and surely to future litigation in favor of polygamy and maybe even beastiality. The logic is relentless and “progressive”…the deep-state Pete Buttigieg has recently announced that abortion also gives men (!) freedom!
Instead of asking what we “oppose,” the meaningful question is what we “affirm.” Something about the inborn natural law in conformance with the interior life (say what?), male responsibility, sexual sobriety and respect for women and their biological cycles, the family, and a culture of life.
And so, primum non nocere. And, yes, sustained support for women who need help rather than gradualist deception and word-merchant brainwashing from Camella Harris.
You have a right to your opinion. You have a right to eschew contraception. You do not have a right to inflict your opinion on others.
“You do not have a right to inflict your opinion on others.”
What does that even mean? Are we in junior high here? Good grief.
Carl (and Will),
Not junior high school. Let’s try the university level!
Only a few years back I was attending an evening lecture series at the University of Washington. Taking a break from the side lecture room, I mingled with the crowd exiting the much larger auditorium. Overheard from one excited student to another was this bit of ersatz brainwashing:
“…and we learned that to ‘challenge’ another person’s ideas or opinions is to ‘attack’ that person!”
Dialogue? No wonder some amoebic craniums scurry to university “safe spaces,” rather than engage in rudimentary inquiry. And, no wonder some complain when a question they themselves post (Will: “why would you oppose this?”) receives an answer.
Also a few years back, Brown University (now listed at the #1 gay-friendly campus in the United States: the UW is on the list at #20) took the prize. Their safe space was a room offering “cookies, coloring books, bubbles, Play-Doh [not Plato], calming music, pillows, blankets, and a video of frolicking puppies” (New York Times, 2016).
I demand, why are there no frolicking puppies on this website?!
Will:
*
The sexual revolution has been all about imposing its views on the rest of society. Taxpayer funded abortions, stripping conscience protections from healthcare providers to force them to participate in abortions. Forced DEI indoctrination in the schools and at work, etc.
“Contraception prevents unwanted pregnancy. Why would you oppose this?”
Planned Parent supports contraception, in support of their business model. They know contraception will fail, which will create the unwanted pregnancies that fuel their industry. A portion of their revenue comes from harvesting body parts for experimentation, even though they know it’s illegal. Just ask David Daleiden.
Deacon Dom – Opposing abortion is not being a single-issue voter. There is such a thing as a disqualifying issue.
For example, if a candidate was for all the things that Deacon Dom mentioned, but for some reason the candidate was in favor of killing all Deacons, I would oppose that candidate, and I don’t think that I could be accused of being a single-issue voter.
I believe that the bishops/clergy statements on abortion, given that in this country alone we are killing one million unborn babies a year, are generally weak. I read a commentator on another site state that said if a candidate or party came out in favor of killing all bishops/clergy, or even locking them all up, their reluctance to speak out on “politics” would disappear. Unborn babies’ lives are not as valuable?
To oppose abortion, is to affirm The Sanctity and Dignity of every Human Life, of every beloved son and daughter, which is the single issue from which securing and protecting our inherent unalienable Right to Life, To Liberty, And To The Pursuit Of Happiness depends. 🙏💕🌹
Thank you, Carl. Fully agree.
Understand the author’s lament about the Trump/Vance politically motivated surrender on the abortion issue. But it seems to me the unaddressed question in this article is what to try to do about. One possible solution is to look beyond the presidential election and use whatever financial or other resources one might have available to support Republican control of the Senate, House of Representatives and as many governorships as possible.
The Catholic Social Teaching advocates are the ones who appear to have an obsession with exclusively governmental solutions to social problems. Almost, if not entirely, an idolatrous fixation on government. A governmental monopoly can be subject to abuse. Concentrating corrupting levels of power in the hands of government, which is hostile to accountability for the results of their programs.
From the USCCB website:
From 1973 through 2005, more than 45 million abortions occurred in the U.S.
Divided by 32 years and then 365 days, that’s around 3,800 abortions a day, a few hundred more deaths than on 9/11 per day. A very grim reality.
Abortion is an intrinsic stand alone evil. There is never an okay time to murder a baby (double effect pre term delivery of babies is not murder) and I am surprised that your formation does not remind you of this. It is the pre eminent issue of our day.
Consider voting in 1860 for one candidate who was pro slavery but had better positions on worker’s rights and protections for immigrants from China, versus a candidate who was silent on worker’s issues but was opposed to slavery’s expansion and committed to minimizing it.
The choice is fairly clear.
And yet we see bishop v Bishop, cardinal v Cardinal, pope v Pope, as if The Sanctity of Life and The Sanctity of Marriage are merely a political issue and not a human rights issue.
Stop cutting and pasting the same posts in multiple articles here. It’s inappropriate. And your specious arguments don’t get more credible the more often you repeat them.
Dear Deacon, abortion is infanticide (or feticide technically). One party will promote the murder and mutilation of millions of unborn babies while they remain in power. The other party though will try to limit abortion, will “cruelly” close the border to all illegally crossing it.
A single issue prolife voter will always choose the cruel party who closes the border, NOT the one that will promote the massacre of millions of unborn babies. Are you suggesting that it is still OK to choose the party that is compassionate to refugees & illegal migrants while they abort millions?
Re: other pressing issues-
“…the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.” Pope John Paul II, Christifideles Laici (1988), no. 38
Using the legal system to effect change in the hearts of Americans with regard to abortion is pipe-dreaming. Unless the culture in this country changes for the better, it makes no difference what laws you try to enact or whom you elect for president. (Admittedly not by any stretch of the same moral gravity, we have speeding laws governing vehicle travel on our roadways. Literally no one obeys the speed laws.)
There are 53 million adult Catholics in the USA. The Church’s number one mandate is to proclaim the Gospel, proclaim Christ to our world so that hearts and minds might be converted. Does anyone think that if 53 million Catholics actually evangelized as they are called to do that this culture wouldn’t be converted? Of course it would be. If abortion is still occurring such that since the 1970’s over 60 million unborn babies have been put to death, shouldn’t we be taking a hard look at our Church’s efforts to evangelize the culture? But we think, rather, that enacting laws will do the job?
Thank you, Deacon.
Couldn’t say it better myself!
We could also look at the Church’s efforts to evangelize the Catholics. But yes, spot on. The fact that the national Republican party is crumbling on abortion, IVF, etc. is a symptom of society at large crumbling on those issues. At the very least, there are not enough national voters who consider abortion to be a sufficiently important issue to give them confidence of winning with a pro-life platform.
I have come to the conclusion that using politics and legislation to protect life is a losing battle. The real battle is in changing the thoughts that pregnancy is to be feared. We need to focus on the culture and make marriage and children something to be welcomed and celebrated. We need to focus on helping women through the process if it i challenging or overwhelming to them and make it known where these resources are located. We need to show how rewarding family life can be with a mother, father and children. We need to change the culture and that is not done through the government that is done through US, the church. Just my thoughts….
w
We need to do both, as the Law should always serve to defend The Sanctity of Human Life, and never to deny The Sanctity Of Human Life.
Trump should concentrate on the economy, world war prevention and reversing the damage inflicted by the border management, or lack thereof.
As soon as I heard him say “IVF should be covered by insurance” or however he said it, the wind went out of my campaign sails.
Do we have just copycats running for the highest office?
This article is concise and brilliantly coherent.
And, now, on the political front we have one candidate who would impose the seamless garment that Olson enumerates (above); and the other candidate who, unlike Solomon, would split the difference. Plus a business world that in hundreds of amicus briefs (2015) has kowtowed to the striped and not-unrelated surrender flag. And, a consumer culture and voters of all stripes who buy into George Orwellian slogans about, say, cerebrally-challenged “reproductive rights”…or is it lucrative “reductive rites”?
All of this anti-science universe interactive with two versions of Hobbesian and Rousseauian docility toward the totalitarian State. But, a political culture pragmatically indifferent as to whether it’s the singular deep State or the multiple states that should impose either unlimited or time-arbitrary fetal infanticide.
About ever restoring real personal dignity and sexual morality (say what?), now that even unborn children are illegal aliens…how to begin to put Humpty Dumpty—and other abortion victims—back together again? How to at least turn the lights on?
How to outlive the New Math novelty that it’s possible to be only half-pregnant?
Saving lives of the unborn cannot be accomplished by not voting for Trump/Vance, the lesser of two evils. Under Harris/Walz, more babies will be aborted, school children will be indoctrination in gender ideology. Sometimes I wonder what these extreme purist prolifers want to accomplish. What they are doing now is making sure Trump loses the election & Harris & the Democrats continue in power. Puritanical prolifers are either so politically naive or intentionally complicit in making sure Democrats win.
Cannot they understand that a HUGE MAJORITY of Americans believe abortion is a right? They barking up the wrong tree! Focus on changing the hearts of people (voters & non-voters) in your parishes, schools, communities, & homes instead. When you have accomplished to convert a huge majority of people to see abortion as truly infanticide, then the true prolife party (ASP) will win every election at all levels, the US constitution can be amended to include the phrase, life begins at conception & must be protected in all stages.
Culture matters. In the Philippines, culture says abortion is infanticide. There, abortion is a serious crime carrying 6 yr imprisonment. Its constitution states:
The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.
Is this possible in the US? YES. If culture will change because politics ALWAYS follows culture. One cannot win an election by going against the prevailing culture.
The choices are – Donald Trump or Kamala Harris.
“It’s disappointing to say — but perhaps he personally lacks principle on this issue,” said Live Action founder Lila Rose.
This really cuts to the heart of the matter. I even said four years ago that I’d rather vote for a candidate who was personally in favor of abortion but consistently acted to limit or end it (as opposed to those who were “personally opposed”), which is essentially why I voted for Trump in 2020– but not this time. Now we see the real Trump of two failed marriages and no principles– the egotistical populist who is always looking to see which way the wind is blowing. Beyond that, he was always concerned about his “base,” but obviously he dosn’t consider pro-life people part of his base any more, if he ever did. Instead, he’s relying on his base instincts to get re-elected at all costs. It’s long past time for pro-life people to abandon the sunken ship of the Republican Party and build themselves a home elsewhere instead of perenially complaining about being homeless. A country with radically different laws about abortion depending on geography is just as unsustainable and irrational as one that allows it anywhere, any time.
“During his first term as president, Trump surrounded himself with pro-lifers and Constitutional conservatives.”
It was those people– probably much more so than Trump himself– who really did all the hard work of trying to reverse the ratchet. It was all those federal judges he appointed and the administrative staff who should get the credit for whatever good Trump did in 2017-2020. “People are policy.” Can we realistically expect him to appoint the same sort of people the second time around, or will he merely fill his administration with Lite Democrats? Look at his first appointment, J. D. Vance, for the answer to that question.
The slogan for any pro-life people considering a vote for Trump in 2024 should be “Abandon hope, all ye that enter here.”
I’m maybe an original prolifer, dating back to the 1970’s in my first year of college. Roe v. Wade was an abomination, I have absolutely no issue with human life beginning at conception. I have no doubt that deliberate abortion is a grave evil, and only slightly less evil are contraception and IVF.
All that said, however, one of the main evils of Roe v. Wade was the notion that there was a “right to privacy” that aupported abortion on demand. And to some extent that “clash of rights” idea that one commenter here has alluded to was incorporated into and adopted by the prolife movement.
But we should back up. Abortion wasn’t a crime because the fetus has a “right to life” any more than grand larceny is a crime because people have a “right to property”. The government has the prerogative to criminalize conduct because of its wrongfulness, not because it is protecting anyone’s “rights”, although protection of others may result as a byproduct.
The reason it’s important to understand this is that in the US, criminal laws and codes are overwhelmingly the province of state governments, not the federal government. It is very basic to the constitutional scheme that state law making authority is “plenary”, whereas federal law making authority is limited.
Accordingly, it is a reasonable and intelligent prolilfe position that the decision whether to criminalize abortion resides in the state and not federal legislatures. Moreover, having that position would mark a good contrast with the other side, which is always trying to federalize the issue and force the states’ hands.
No doubt, some states would have very permissive abortion laws and other states would restrict elective abortion almost entirely. And then we’d see which states prosper and which states people flee, and I can practically guarantee that the prolife states will be in the former category and that the states in the latter category will adjust their position within a generation because they’ll be hollowed out shells of their former selves.
We should be patient and principled in our positions to accentuate the contrast with the other side.
One final point. Trump is not Catholic, he has never had a principled position on abortion or anything else so far as I can tell, he was – and will be – a fairly incompetent president crippled by a crude egotism, but he’s infinitely preferable to Harris, who is nothing more than an empty vessel for the deep state to fill with whatever its agenda this morning is.
You can say many things about Trump but incompetent is wide of the mark. The establishment ruling class, which includes the MSM, had it out for him from day one. All sorts of Russia hoaxes consuming time and money. Mark Zuckerberg has admitted to it in a recent letter. Elon Musk exposed questionable practices by Twitter. It was Trump’s opponents that made it impossible to have a responsible discussion about Russia, or much of anything else. His administration had good policies that were impacted by the pandemic. In this election cycle the Dems are trying to copy Trump’s policies to cover up their own policies. I vote policies, not personalities.
He’s far preferable to Harris.
The evil of abortion is a matter of natural law. It is binding on those who are not Catholic, not Christian, and even not monotheists. The fact that Trump is not Catholic does not remove his culpability.
While most abortion laws ought to be handled by the state, like most criminal laws, there are two reasons for there to be an exception in this case. First, the principle of subsidiarity, which says that things ought to be taken care of at the lowest practical level, also says that higher levels ought to take over when the lower levels fail. As slavery ultimately had to be outlawed at the federal level, so with the greater evil of abortion. The Constitution also supports this in various ways, as states are required to provide equal protection, Constitutional amendments and Congressional law are provided for, etc. Secondly, the most common method of abortion, at this point, is a chemical pill abortion. That is regulated federally, by the FDA. There is some legal question as to how far states can go in banning or regulating a drug that has been approved by the FDA, as federal law trumps state law in most circumstances. Trump’s and Vance’s support for this drug is not a minor plank in their platform.
Well this is a thoughtful reply. And the parallel to slavery is apt. But slavery was federally legislated by a constitutional amendment and that’s what would have to happen here also.
Rome wasn’t built in a day. There has been a lot of damage, to lives, to intellects, to principles. Trump got Roe overturned. That’s huge.
Yes, a Constitutional amendment is needed. In order to get that, and to get it in a way that doesn’t also enshrine legalized abortion in the Constitution before a certain age, we need an actual pro-life society. Right now we don’t even have that among church-going Catholics.
We need conversion, and that’s not something that happens by November. Trump’s the best bad option we have, and so far, I intend to vote for him. He’s still a bad option, and if we don’t remember that, we won’t be equipped to oppose his many problematic aspects. For example: What is the pro-life movement going to do when the abortion mills close and the abortion rate increases due to pills prescribed online, delivered by mail, and taken at home? What are you going to do when, thanks to Trump, it is no longer possible to find an insurance plan that doesn’t use your money to cover other peoples’ IVF treatments, each of which results in a couple dozen deaths or so (worse numbers than most women get from getting abortions)? Some thinking ahead will be helpful.
Do you know that the Pill’s components are in our water?
We are not canonizing a saint, electing a pope, appointing a bishop, ordaining a priest. We are attempting to put a person in place who is willing to carry some of our issues to a place where they can be honestly engaged and get some of them operative.
Do we want an expanded Supreme Court? Do we want four new demoniac senators from two new states? Do you want your voice to be made illegal as we observe in Brazil and Canada? Britain, France and the rest of Europe?
In the final analysis it is not any secular entity, no political party, who has the responsibility for addressing moral issues. It is the Church, our Church, the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox as well. Protestantism dropped the ball decades ago, if not centuries. Are we doing our job? A Cardinal Archbishop walked by the Abortionmobile, the Snippermobile, a few weeks ago and did not raise hell over the infanticide going on in our country at the Demonic National Convention.
What is wrong with that picture?
Let’s drop our hankies and get on the battlefield.
Pro-life people are not surprised by anything. They know how things are to progress and when the progress does not present itself they recognize it and say it. When regression happens, that too. That’s pro-life.
You mustn’t keep trying to de-position or caricature pro-life. You must respect it. What pro-life will do is bear all the consequences of what goes wrong, on account of whoever is making it go wrong. Thus, it is counter-intuitive to be degrading pro-life when it could be that Trump would get elected and he and the Republicans continue the decline but more slowly -counter-intuitive, because, pro-life will still be the thing to be shining in the darkness of the slowed decline.
A long time ago Trump outed Roy Moore in favour of a non-pro-life Doug Jones. Get it? If a Congress brings brings back late term abortion, will Trump absolutely veto it? Another time Trump declared “I never want to have to sign a bill again like that!” -and signed it anyway. It’s a VERY GOOD IDEA to fragment the Congress stranglehold.
Trump is saying abortion will abide and simultaneously boasting he is pro-family and pro-IVF. He wants to amass votes among the like-minded and buttress his Republican position. But if you beat back pro-life -you and your pro-life SELF- it makes zero impress on the Trump-Republican composition and it fosters that composition going wrong. Instead you should keep pressing the pro-life position and how the current and potential make-up in States and in federal politics can and do sustain it. Don’t just keep running headlong with the compromised politics and suite.
With a strategic vote “the time for choosing” would not make either/or, as absolute imperative. Meantime pro-life can question if the set-up is conclusively one of being “lesser evil with no alternative”, is indeed the totality of necessary politics.
Why is Trump averse to pro-life anyway? Dobbs indicates States can have it as their law.
If things went to the Democrats do you really suppose pro-life will flee or cave?
IVF should be regulated to make sure that no child is intentionally killed. Germany once had a rule that no embryo could be conceived unless it was to be implanted in the womb. IVF would no longer be equivalent to abortion if we had such a rule.
Novecosky’s placid ultimatum, certainly always the reality for our faith, is the result of several decades of virtual universal contraceptive use among Catholics. And since contraception divorces life from the act we’ve developed a contraceptive mentality that gradually leads to acceptance of abortion as a necessary good. Who to blame? Mainly recalcitrant clergy and bishops, and poor management from bishops who supported Humanae Vitae.
The ‘ultimatum’ would require Mass conversion of the entire Church to succeed.
Novecosky’s time for choosing in view of the present scenario has more eschatological force than not. Our drift into complete loss of sexual equilibrium begs the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah. Our option is serious commitment to intercessory prayer and sacrifice. If Moses could succeed over the golden calf we can.
As to A Time for Choosing directed toward the presidential vote that changes the conditions. For US Catholics to vote locally and incrementally per state against abortion appears a lost cause. However, abortion attached to the Republican more conservative platform despite the change toward compromise, positions abortion with a nuance of conscientious appeal to the less faithful Catholic.
Certainly for the traditional faithful the choice of vote between the radical incumbent party and the Republican morally favors the lesser evil argument.
“Trump is teetering on the brink of losing the pro-life vote …”
The choice is to have the Pro-life movement declared to be domestic terrorists and shut down altogether should Kamala/Walz win, or have the Pro-life movement be allowed to continue its efforts under a Trump/Vance administration. That’s it. That’s the choice Pro-life voters must make.
Due Process is binding in both State and Federal Law, which is why those who approve of the destruction of a beloved son and daughter residing in their mother’s womb intentionally misrepresent the fact that it is not possible for human persons to conceive a son or daughter, who is not, in essence, a human person during every stage of development. Slavery, like abortion, was always unconstitutional, as affirmed by The Fifth Amendment, but depriving persons of their inherent, unalienable Right to Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness was justified by denying the personhood of a multitude of beloved sons and daughters , as if God only endowed some human persons with their inherent unalienable rights, and thus, not all human persons have inherent unalienable Rights which as a matter of fact, would be an error in both substantive and thus Procedural Due Process Law. The Fourteenth Amendment serves to clarify The Fifth Amendment, “nor shall any person…”.
If I was voting I would inform myself in detail who will be on the ballot for my area to know and remember their names and what they stand for individually. It would be to identify exactly who is pro-life and who not and what else they stood for so when faced with the extensive ballot list I can distinguish among them federal, state, local, what I purposed to do. I think it’s crucial for people to understand it’s not the brightest idea to always be voting straight down a party line but also that it’s best to get prepared beforehand to face such an extensive ballot list on the actual day of the vote.
You don’t have to be Catholic to be on the right issue; or, to be right on the issue.
Lesser evil depends on clear outcome; whereas in the situation at hand it is not clear. Going from Trump’s first term, Trump was all but powerless in the ganging up against him and his entourage. How much better off is he today? How much not?
My point is there are too many options at large that the matter could be reduced to an either/or choice set-alternative. Elsewhere I said the obligation is in prudence not in a predefined selection -regardless that might also appear to be less pro-death. Trump appears to be less pro-death yet the numbers are showing otherwise and the 15 week limit (being proposed) will do nothing for it. Also Trump is alleging that abortion will no longer be a federal issue but the feds will be setting the stage with the limit and funding it; and the same for IVF.
Pope Francis once warned that some antagonists/protagonists can make your head spin. I can add that even when you succeed getting your head to stop spinning, you still have to check on see if its pointing the right direction. Pope Francis forgot to talk about this part and many of his advices could allow for a variety of head settings. A kind of a collocation that will leave you helpless EQUALLY whether Biden or Trump.
The only thing that’s clear with the Democrats aside from abortion is that quite apart from any question of abortion, they are turning the place upside down and ruining your international welcome on top of it. Trump will send homosexualist ambassadors abroad and achieve the same effect on that in the wider polity.
Finally, there can be no real renewed discourse by just hanging on “lesser evil” or on “Trump great saviour”.
My vote is against Harris, and not a vote for Trump, who is very weak with respect to life issues, most especially abortion. Harris’s support for a constitutional amendment that would legalize abortion without any restrictions, including allowing an infant surviving an abortion to die, is barbaric. This woman also supports gay marriage and the mutilation of children through transgenderism. Thus, she openly opposes basic moral principles that are foundational to Catholic teaching. This woman is an arm of Satan. A third-party vote or a no vote is effectively a vote for Harris. Additionally her policies with respect to the economy and immigration are also unacceptable. Unlimited speeding by Democrats lead to de-valuation of the dollar, which induces inflation. The only way Harris can lower pricds is through price control, which leads to shortages and long gas lines.
“Conception is the implantation of a fertilised ovum in the womb”
Reference – American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologist’s, 1972
Implantation in the womb occurs some 6 to 7 days after fertilisation and less than half fertilised ova are implanted. Perhaps we should write the proven science into the moral teachings many of which were conceived in scientific ignorance long before humankind had the faintest idea about ova and spermatozoa.