« Wow: The left is actually proud of its lies | Zuckerberg admits he was muscled by Democrats »
August 27, 2024

The sad spectacle of pro-lifers who are actively or passively supporting Kamala

By Andrea Widburg

Donald Trump has made very clear that his coming administration will not focus on anti-abortion legislation because the Supreme Court has held that the federal government cannot have a say over abortion—although he’s also said that he intends to use his bully pulpit to be pro-life. This constitutionally correct stance has brought out a peculiar type of allegedly pro-life advocate: People who are so “betrayed” by Trump that their only alternative is to support Harris, either directly with their vote or indirectly by sitting out the election.

These people started filling my X feed after JD Vance explained Trump’s abortion stance; namely, that abortion is no longer within the federal purview:

Here’s the key language:

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 cultural war over this particular topic.

If California wants to have a different abortion policy from Ohio, then Ohio has to respect California, and California has to respect Ohio. Donald Trump's view is that we want the individual states and their individual cultures and their unique political sensibilities to make these decisions because we don't want to have a non-stop federal conflict over this issue.

The federal government ought to be focused on getting food prices down and getting housing prices down—issues, of course, where Kamala Harris has been a total disaster. So I think Donald Trump is right. We want the federal government to focus on these big economic and immigration questions, Let the states figure out their own abortion policies.

Regarding Lindsay Graham’s proposed abortion ban, which Kristen Welker raises, a couple of points: First, it’s unconstitutional because the feds can no longer make abortion policy without amending the Constitution. Second, it’s a con. The ban, if enacted, would stop abortions after 15 weeks. However, 94% of all abortions in America occur before 15 weeks. Abortion would continue virtually unabated.

Meanwhile, the Democrats are promising their own unconstitutional abortion laws, which would reinstate unfettered abortion across America (and, assuredly, funding would follow). Kamala would have no qualms about signing an unconstitutional law.

Image by Andrea Widburg using AI.

People who are genuinely concerned with ending abortions would say, “We’ll take the battle to the states and continue to work to change the culture.” What they would not do is say that Trump’s pragmatic (and, again, constitutional) approach is so awful that they have no option but to give their direct or indirect support to Democrats to “punish” Trump. They would understand that the time for getting a more pro-life candidate is during the primaries. Now, the fight is binary (total abortion versus trying to end it locally and culturally). But that’s not how these alleged “pro-life warriors” see it.

One of the most persistent people advocating this view is David French, whose love of Christ and hatred of abortion requires him to abandon the more pro-life candidate and vote for Harris, the “Moloch had the right idea” candidate. At the NY Times, where he now works, French made the “Pro-Life Case for Kamala Harris.” French bizarrely argues that Trump is the reason there are more abortions because the Dobbs decision weakened the pro-life movement. (Plus, Orange Man Bad.)

In the same vein is a guy named Ben Zeisloft:

Sure, those are just two guys, but social media is crawling with people saying words to the effect of “don’t vote for Trump because he’s for abortion,” an attitude that, in a binary election, effectively throws votes to Kamala. Both James Lindsay and Kurt Schlichter suspect that what’s going on here is worse than stupidity. Kurt thinks it’s about money:

James Lindsay, who probably understands communism better than anyone in America, thinks what’s happening is more nefarious than that:

Real voters who oppose abortion know that they have two choices on November 5: The candidate who is pro-life but who understands that the federal government is no longer the right battlefield versus the candidate who wants to ensure that abortion up to and after the moment of birth is enshrined at the heart of America.

If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com