Withdrawing Support For Trump Would Be Political Suicide For The Pro-Life Movement
At this moment in American history, when life is on the line, when we are just under 60 days from Election Day, it is political insanity to attack Donald Trump on the pro-life issue.
Now, I am not going to imply that Lila Rose is a communist, as James Lindsay did. But to suggest that the Trump-Vance ticket does not “stand for pro-life principles,” and that pro-lifers should withhold their votes, as Lila did, is equally outrageous. In an interview with Politico published on Thursday, Lila Rose said she “would not vote for Harris or Trump” if the election were held today and said there are “other candidates” and even “write-in candidates.”
Such comments are a priceless gift to Kamala’s campaign. Expect interviews on CNN, MSNBC, and other regime media to follow as they use Rose to demonize Trump and demoralize pro-life voters into staying home on Election Day.
Everyone needs to remember that this is the pro-life president who spoke at the March for Life rally in Washington, D.C., had many pro-lifers in top positions, and pursued a host of pro-life policies at home and abroad. This is the pro-life president whose Supreme Court appointments overturned Roe v. Wade. The federal government is no longer forcing the states to allow mothers to murder their children, and 22 have partial or complete bans in place.
Finally, this is the once-and-future pro-life president who is all that stands in the way of Kamala Harris. If she gets into office, she will pack the Supreme Court with pro-abortion justices, Roe v. Wade will be brought back, and abortion on demand up to — and beyond — birth will be the law of the land for another two generations.
You may not like Trump’s or Vance’s recent rhetoric on the issue. But bear in mind that they are responding to attacks from the Kamala bots in the regime media, whose game is to hide Kamala’s abortion extremism by turning the accusation on Trump.
Just to be clear, I bow to no one in my defense of the unborn. I was in an operating room in Communist China 44 years ago when nearly full-term babies were being delivered by cesarean section and killed by lethal injection. I have been pro-life ever since.
I successfully fought to defund the UN Population Fund because of its involvement in China’s one-child policy and other coercive programs around the world in 1985 — and through the last five presidential administrations. I helped implement the Mexico City policy, which forbids taxpayer dollars from going to foreign nongovernmental organizations that promote, perform, or lobby for the legalization of abortion.
I have helped thousands of pregnant women who were fleeing forced abortion and sterilization to escape from China and seek political asylum in the United States or elsewhere. My organization, Population Research Institute, played an instrumental role in researching and drafting the Tiahrt Amendment, which forbids taxpayer dollars from going to any “reproductive health” project overseas that involves coercion, bribes, experimental methods, or violates informed consent.
But the practical politics of the matter are plain: Anyone who is still attacking Trump this close to the election is dispiriting the base, giving quotes to the opposition, and — it must be said — making Kamala Harris’ election more likely.
Is that what Lila Rose — or any pro-lifer — wants? Does anyone (besides Kamala) want pro-life voters so demoralized that they will wash their hands of the whole nasty business of politics, declare a pox on both their houses, and stay home on election day? Because that is the political effect of her reckless words. Whether she knows it or not, Rose is urging the pro-life movement to commit political suicide.
Attacking Trump at this juncture is like telling the Union troops at the Battle of Gettysburg that Abraham Lincoln is not really committed to ending slavery. It is like telling American troops on the eve of D-Day that General Eisenhower picked the wrong beaches to land on.
Now I hear people say that to remain silent in the face of Trump’s moderate rhetoric would be “to participate in the coverup of the horror of abortion.” Really?
By delaying the Emancipation Proclamation until 1863 did Lincoln “participate in the coverup up of the horror of slavery during the first three years of the Civil War?” By not demanding that Gorbachev “tear down this wall” until 1987 did Reagan “participate in the coverup of the horror of communism” by not speaking sooner?”
If you really want to stop the horror of abortion — and I do — knock on doors, register voters, and spread the word that Kamala Harris thinks that every inconvenient pregnancy should result in a dead baby.
Those who help put Trump back in office will have a seat at the table. They will have President Trump’s and Vice President Vance’s ears. They will be able to push for pro-life policies and recommend committed pro-lifers for positions in the administration. Those who engage in character assassination from behind their keyboards will be ignored.
Just to be clear, the Republican platform is still pro-life, as it has been since 1984, although it could be stronger. Donald Trump is still the most pro-life president since abortion became a national issue, although he could be more resolute.
We need to pray as hard as we can for Trump and Vance’s complete conversion on the life issue. And we must work as hard as we can to get the most pro-life president in my lifetime back in office.
Steven W. Mosher is the president of the Population Research Institute and the author of “Population Control: Real Costs and Illusory Benefits.”
Comments are closed.