Pro-lifers must resist Trump on abortion and IVF

Pro-lifers should rejoice in the defeat of Kamala Harris, and of the Democratic Party, which remains the greatest threat to the unborn in American politics. But they cannot rest, because their job is only half done. The second greatest threat has yet to be dealt with, and that is Donald Trump.

Many pro-life Trump supporters will be shocked and angered at such a statement. But I urge them to resist this emotional reaction and dispassionately consider the cold, hard facts. Trump supports preserving access to the abortion pill, which is responsible for the majority of abortions in the United States. Since these pills can be sent by mail into states where abortion is restricted or banned, preserving such access largely undermines recent state-level pro-life measures. Trump also actively opposes those measures in any event, insisting that they are “too tough” and need to be “redone.” He has repeatedly said that, even at the state level, abortion must remain legal beyond six weeks. And he wants the federal government to pay for, or to force insurance companies to pay for, in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments – a practice that results in the destruction of more human embryos than even abortion does. The only threat to the unborn Trump has clearly and consistently opposed is late-term abortion, which accounts for a mere 1% of abortions. In short, the policies Trump favors would prevent very few abortions and encourage the discarding of millions of embryos. True, Trump is much better than Harris in supporting the rights of pro-lifers. But he is now only a little better in upholding the rights of the unborn.

To be sure, the enthusiasm of many pro-lifers for Trump is understandable. The Supreme Court Justices he appointed were crucial to overturning Roe v. Wade. He took other pro-life steps during his first term, such as reinstating the Mexico City Policy, which prevents taxpayer dollars from being used to fund abortions overseas. Pro-lifers are desperate for a champion, and Trump’s grit and victories over pro-choice extremists like Harris and Hillary Clinton can make him seem to fill the bill. But none of that changes the unhappy facts summarized in the previous paragraph. None of it changes the fact that Trump rigged the GOP party platform process so as to exclude pro-lifers and ram through a removal of the pro-life plank. None of it conflicts with the clear evidence that Trump pushed a pro-life agenda during his first term only out of political expediency rather than conviction, and has reverted to the moderate pro-choice position that he held for decades because he judges that that is now the politically more expedient course.

When I and others raised the alarm about these problems during the campaign, there were many pro-life Trump supporters who quietly acknowledged them but urged that criticism of Trump be muted until after the election, lest it help Harris. But the election is now over and Trump won handily. There is no longer any excuse for keeping silent. And pro-lifers must not keep silent, because Trump’s policies on these matters are gravely immoral. Let’s look more closely at both the IVF issue and Trump’s current stance on abortion to see just how grave the situation is.

The gravity of the IVF issue

The Catholic Church is the best-known critic of IVF, but it is crucial to emphasize that the moral problems with IVF have nothing essentially to do with specifically Catholic premises, or indeed with religious premises of any other kind. As with abortion, even an atheist could object to IVF on completely secular moral grounds (even if in fact most atheists no doubt don’t object to it). There are many moral problems with IVF, but for present purposes I will focus only on those that anyone who already agrees that abortion is wrong should be able to see. This is by no means a trivial exercise, because in recent months, a number of people often thought of as staunchly pro-life have endorsed IVF. Trump himself is an example, as are Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and other Republican U.S. Senators. It is important for pro-lifers tempted to accept IVF to see that they cannot do so consistently with their opposition to abortion.

Now, in vitro fertilization itself simply involves bringing sperm and egg together outside the normal context of the womb, so as to yield a new human embryo. While there are moral grounds for objecting to this practice, this much does not amount to homicide, as abortion does. But it is by no means the end of the story. For the IVF procedure to yield the results desired, producing a single embryo is not sufficient. Usually several embryos are generated, even as many as a dozen. From them, those considered the best candidates are chosen for implantation in the mother’s womb. The rest are discarded, used for research, or frozen for possible future use. Among those implanted, one is often judged the healthiest and brought to term, and the others aborted if the mother does not want more than one child.

Destroying unused embryos is morally on a par with abortion, and killing unwanted embryos after implantation just is a kind of abortion. To speak harshly but truthfully, the destruction of embryos that is typically involved in IVF is murder, no less than abortion is. A recent estimate puts the number of embryos lost in in the IVF process every year in the United States at over a million and a half – twice the number of abortions that occur in the U.S. every year. Nor, again, is this an evil that can realistically be avoided if IVF is to have the results desired from it. Experts judge that “discarding embryos is inherent to the IVF process.”

Freezing embryos indefinitely is also gravely evil. Most of those frozen are simply abandoned. But even those that are not are done a grave injustice. A child has a right to be provided for by his parents, with food, shelter, instruction, and the like. Any parent who would deprive a child of these things would be considered wicked. But how much more does a child have a right to be nurtured in the womb and brought into the world, which is a precondition of these other goods? A parent who leaves an embryo frozen in the expectation that it might eventually be taken by others is comparable to someone who abandons a child on a doorstep. A parent who allows a frozen embryo to be abandoned altogether, eventually to die, is comparable to the pagans of old who would abandon unwanted babies on garbage heaps.

To characterize a presidential administration that actively promotes IVF as “pro-life” would be ludicrous, indeed obscene. Yet Trump intends for his administration to do just this. Again, he wants the federal government either to pay for all the costs of IVF procedures, or to force insurance companies to do so. If Catholic institutions are forced to participate, this would be an assault on religious freedom no less grave than Obama’s attempted contraception mandate. To be sure, Trump has indicated that he might be open to a religious exemption. But that is nowhere near good enough. The fundamental problem is not that Catholics would be forced to participate in the murder of embryos, bad as that would be. The fundamental problem is the murder of embryos.

Some might suggest that Trump’s call for an IVF mandate was just campaign rhetoric that will quickly be forgotten. But while we can hope this is true, we cannot complacently assume that it is, and in fact the evidence points in the opposite direction. Trump has not merely made a perfunctory statement or two on the issue. On the contrary, he repeatedly and enthusiastically promoted the IVF mandate during the campaign, going so far as to characterize himself as “the father of IVF” and to pledge that the GOP will now be “the party for IVF” even more than the Democrats. Other Republicans with pro-life reputations have also in recent months taken positive action to promote IVF. Even JD Vance, despite his reputation as a faithful pro-life Catholic, has enthusiastically spoken in favor of it. Elon Musk, a major Trump ally and advisor, is an especially vigorous proponent of IVF, several of his children having been conceived via the procedure.

As one commentator has concluded, “if Trump makes good on his promise of federally-funded IVF, it will be one of the most objectively anti-life acts in US government history.” But even this is only the half of the problem.

Trump is now pro-choice

In the years since Roe was overturned, Trump has repeatedly said that the abortion issue should now be left to the states rather than the federal government. Yet he has during the same period also repeatedly criticized state-level restrictions on abortion. When the Arizona Supreme Court ruled in favor of enforcing an abortion ban, Trump complained that it “went too far.” When Florida governor Ron DeSantis signed a law banning abortion after six weeks, Trump condemned the ban as “a terrible thing and a terrible mistake.” The reason, he explained, is that he thinks “the six week is too short, there has to be more time” – more time, that is to say, for the mother to decide whether to have an abortion. And again, he says that the restrictive measures some state Republicans have pushed for are “too tough, too tough” and “are going to be redone.”

During the campaign, Trump repeatedly obfuscated on Florida’s Amendment 4, which would have expanded abortion access even to late term. At one point, when asked whether he would vote against it, he responded that he would “be voting that we need more than six weeks” – thereby giving the impression that he would vote for the amendment. After an outcry from pro-lifers, Trump then said that he would vote against it, but reiterated that he still thought a six week ban was too restrictive. But then, on Election Day, he refused to say whether he had in fact voted against the amendment.

At one point, Trump said that a fifteen-week ban on abortion at the federal level might be “reasonable” and reflected “the number of weeks” he was “thinking in terms of.” He later changed course and declared that he would veto any federal ban. But when you consider his initial view that a fifteen-week federal ban would reflect a “reasonable” time frame, together with his repeated criticism of six-week bans at the state level, the natural conclusion to draw is that the most Trump would support in defense of the unborn is a fifteen-week ban on abortion at the state level. In other words, Trump’s position seems to be that abortion should be legal, even at the state level, before fifteen weeks.

That is manifestly an example of what every pro-lifer before twenty minutes ago would call a pro-choice position. It is what no pro-lifer would have tolerated in a Republican presidential candidate before Trump. True, it is not as extreme a pro-choice position as the one that Kamala Harris and other Democrats now routinely take. But it is still manifestly pro-choice, and not pro-life.

Now, 93% of abortions in the U.S. occur at thirteen weeks or earlier – that is to say, precisely during the period that Trump apparently wants abortion to be legal even at the state level. And again, he has also stated that he “will not block” access to abortion pills, which account for the majority of abortions and can be mailed across state lines into states with restrictive abortion laws. In short, Trump’s current position on abortion would permit well over 90% of abortions even at the state level. As with his IVF policy, it would be ludicrous and indeed obscene to characterize this as remotely close to a “pro-life” position.

Here too it would be naïve to think that Trump’s recent statements are mere campaign rhetoric that will be forgotten now that he has been elected. Trump has not merely refrained from advocating pro-life policy when running for a second term. He has actively fought against such policies when Republicans have pushed them even at the state level, and took positive action to remove from the GOP platform its commitment to defending the lives of the unborn. He has emphasized that his new administration “will be great for women and their reproductive rights,” standard code for pro-choice policies. Late in his campaign, Trump’s wife Melania released a memoir which was loudly marketed as, of all things, an expression of her commitment to abortion rights. It would be absurd to suppose that the Trump campaign would permit this if it were not trying to send a reassuring message to those worried that Trump would return to pro-life advocacy once elected. And far from distancing himself from this message, Trump has effusively praised the book (and at the Catholic Al Smith dinner, of all places). He has also now surrounded himself with pro-choice advisors like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard, and gotten even the once staunchly pro-life Vance to temporize on the issue.

Some pro-life Trump supporters might suggest that while Trump’s current position is regrettable, it is irrelevant. By helping to overturn Roe, they might say, he has opened the door to fighting abortion at the state level, and pro-lifers can now do this as effectively without Trump’s support as they could with it. But this too is naïve. Trump is clearly convinced that the pro-life cause is now a liability for him and for the GOP in general. That is the best explanation for why he has fought even state-level restrictions rather than staying neutral. With only thin majorities in Congress and worries about how the midterms might go, he is likely to continue to try to discourage Republican governors and lawmakers from pressing for restrictions on abortion. Presidents can exert considerable pressure, especially when they are popular with the party base and have won decisive electoral victories. And as I have argued in a previous article, Trump’s record shows that he is likely to be vindictive against those who resist him on this matter. Pro-lifers will have their work cut out for them.

Some common responses

I’ve found that while some pro-life Trump supporters are clear-eyed about these problems, others are extremely reluctant to face up to them. There are several stock responses I’ve seen over and over, not only throughout the campaign but even after Trump won. It is worthwhile to explain why, though emotionally attractive to some, these responses completely miss the point or otherwise have no force:

1. “How can you say Trump is pro-choice?He got Roe overturned! Have you no gratitude?”

Yes, Trump was instrumental in overturning Roe and deserves thanks for that. But getting rid of Roe does not by itself save any unborn lives. It merely removes a certain obstacle to saving them. One has to take further positive steps in order actually to protect the unborn. And the trouble is that Trump has both opposed such steps (insofar as he has actively opposed both federal action against abortion and the state-level measures Republicans have pushed for), and also proposed a new policy that positively threatens the unborn (the IVF mandate).

Suppose someone bought you a car but also both made it difficult or impossible for you to get any gasoline, and encouraged others to steal the car. Obviously, it would be silly for someone to defend him by saying “Don’t be ungrateful! After all, he bought you the car!” Buying someone a car is hardly much of a gift if you also make it impossible for the person to use or keep it. The point of having a car, after all, is to drive it. Similarly, for pro-lifers, the point of overturning Roe was to open the door to protecting the unborn. For Trump to help overturn Roe but then go on to oppose federal and state-level restrictions and promote IVF defeats this purpose. Trump is taking back with his left hand what he gave with his right.

2. “But it would be politically unrealistic to push for a national ban on abortion or IVF!”

This is no doubt true, but it is beside the point, because no one is criticizing Trump for failing to do that. His critics realize that current political circumstances make such bans politically unfeasible. But it is one thing simply to refrain from pushing for a federal abortion ban. It is quite another thing actively to oppose such a ban, and actively to remove the pro-life plank from the GOP platform. It is one thing simply not to oppose IVF. It is quite another actively to promote IVF and to push for federal funding of it. Moreover, the problem is not just that Trump actively opposes any federal action in this area. It is that he has also actively opposed the steps pro-lifers have been taking even at the state level to restrict abortion.

3. “AfterDobbs, abortion is a state-level issue anyway, so Trump’s current views are irrelevant”

There are three problems with this response. First, while Trump and his supporters often speak as if Dobbs permits the states alone to restrict abortion, that is not true. After Dobbs, either the states or the federal government may put restrictions on abortion. It may currently be politically unfeasible to push for federal restrictions, but it is dishonest to insinuate that the Dobbs decision somehow rules out such restrictions.

Second, even where state-level restrictions are concerned, Trump’s current views are not irrelevant. Again, though out of one side of his mouth he says that the states can do what they like, out of the other side he has been actively opposing recent state-level restrictions. He clearly thinks these restrictions are politically harmful to him and the GOP, and wants to discourage Republicans even at the state level from pushing for them. A president has tremendous influence on what happens in his party at all levels, especially when he has tight control over the party apparatus and has won a decisive electoral victory. Republican politicians down-ballot who want the support of the president and the party are bound to feel strong pressure not to resist him on the abortion issue.

Third, whatever one says about abortion, Trump’s proposed IVF mandate would itself be a federal initiative. It is he, not his critics, who is making of IVF’s threat to the unborn a federal issue rather than a state issue.

(Some Catholic Trump supporters have argued that the natural law principle of subsidiarity requires dealing with abortion only at the state level rather than the federal level. But this is not true, as I have shown in another article.)

4. “No political candidate is going to fit some imagined ideal.By criticizing Trump, you are self-righteously making the perfect the enemy of the good and encouraging a purity spiral that will only damage the pro-life cause!”

This is a straw man. Trump’s pro-life critics are not demanding perfection. And again, they aren’t criticizing him for simply refraining from pushing a pro-life agenda in a hostile political climate. Rather, they are criticizing him for doing things that are positively gravely damaging to the pro-life cause. As we have seen, Trump’s current position on abortion would effectively permit over 90% of abortions, and his IVF proposal would actively promote a procedure that entails even more killing of the unborn than abortion does. That is not merely imperfect or less than ideal. It not only permits but positively facilitates the vast majority of killings of the unborn. It does not merely fail to promote the pro-life cause, but is directly contrary to it.

5. “But Harris is worse!It would have been insane for pro-lifers to help her defeat Trump!”

Yes, Harris is even worse than Trump, which is why I consistently said for months that it would be better for her to lose and that it was justifiable for pro-lifers in swing states to vote for Trump in order to ensure that she lost. But as I also argued during the campaign, in no way did this entail that Trump’s current position was not seriously problematic, or that pro-lifers could be excused from criticizing his betrayal of the unborn. In any event, that is now moot. Harris has lost, Trump has won, and there is no longer any excuse (if there ever was one) for pro-lifers to remain silent.

6. “This is all just Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS)!You’re just a NeverTrumper!”

This is the most brain-dead response, and not really worthy of comment. But because it is extremely common, I’ll offer a reply.

First, I am neither a “NeverTrumper” nor “deranged” in my criticisms of him. Though I have always had serious reservations about Trump, I did vote for him in 2016 and 2020 because the alternatives were worse. To be sure, his behavior after his 2020 defeat, and especially what he tried to pressure Mike Pence to do, were in my opinion disgraceful and a grave assault on the rule of law. That alone should have prevented Republicans from ever nominating him again. All the same, had I lived in a swing state, I would have voted for him even in this election, just to keep Harris out. I have also many times explicitly acknowledged that Trump has real strengths and has done some good things, and that many of the things his critics say about him are false. My article “Trump: A buyer’s guide,” while very critical of him, also defends him against these excessive and unfair criticisms. No reasonable person who reads that article could accuse me of “TDS.”

If I really were suffering from “TDS,” I would have been writing critical things about Trump for years. In fact, in the years since he took center stage in American politics, I have written very little about him. The reason is that I find it very unpleasant to do so, given that so many of his biggest critics and biggest fans alike are unable to discuss the subject in a reasonable and civil way. Whenever I have said positive things about Trump, I have been accused of being part of the “MAGA cult” or the like. Whenever I have said critical things about him, I have been accused of “TDS” etc. So many people on both sides are so shrill and irrational on the subject of Trump that for a long time I judged it better to avoid saying much about him. Anyone who has been paying attention will know that I started frequently commenting on Trump only after he began to sell out the pro-life cause. The reason, as should be blindingly obvious to any rational person, is not that I have an animus against Trump, but because I have an animus against abortion.

In any event, even if I did have an animus against Trump, that would be completely irrelevant to the cogency of the arguments I have given here and in earlier articles. The arguments stand or fall on their own merits, whatever my motivations. To suppose otherwise is to commit a blatant ad hominem fallacy.

But while we’re on the subject of motivation, it’s worth noting that the issue cuts both ways. Pro-life Trump voters are often accused of putting politics ahead of their pro-life principles. The accusation is usually unfair, but not always. Any pro-life Trump voter who, even after he has been safely elected, would still refuse to criticize him for his betrayal of the unborn thereby proves the critics right.

(Editor’s note: This essay originally appeared on Dr. Feser’s blog in a slightly different form and is reprinted here with the author’s kind permission.)