President Trump posted a video on Truth Social on April 8 stating his position on abortion. The video can also be found in an April 8 Washington post article.1
“My view is now that we have abortion where everybody wanted it from a legal standpoint, the states will determine by vote or legislation or perhaps both, and whatever they decide must be the law of the land. In this case, the law of the state,” Trump said in the video.
According to the Washington Post, several pro-life advocates wanted Trump to take a position favoring limiting abortion
Former campaign manager Kellyanne Conway, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and a range of antiabortion advocates went to Mar-a-Lago and talked to him by phone. By taking such a position, he would be implicitly supporting some states that allow abortions up until birth, they told him. Conway made another argument: Trump would also be implicitly backing states such as South Dakota, Arkansas and Florida with early-in-pregnancy bans he believed were too restrictive and politically problematic. If he took a position like banning abortions after 15 weeks, she argued, he could make a compelling case against Democrats for supporting later abortions.2
So is Trump avoiding taking a position on the issue of abortion? Or is he being a true “Republican” (in the historical sense)?
Safe, legal and Rare
All pro-lifers want to see limits on abortion. They desire a society that values life to the degree that abortion is rare because it’s not needed. That social consensus does not exist at present so pro-lifers must advocate for whatever limits are possible in the existing political climate.
There was actually a time when Democrat candidates advocated for abortion being “safe, legal and rare.” Bill Clinton introduced the phrase in 1992 and Hillary Clinton used it in her 2008 Presidential campaign. Tulsi Gabbard said in 2019 that wanting abortion to be “safe, legal and rare” was one thing about which she agreed with Hillary Clinton. But Gabbard was not correct about agreeing with Hillary, because by 2019 Clinton had already moved on and changed her message to “safe and legal.”
In a 2019 article Vox addressed the “safe, legal and rare” talking point, stating that “[t]he language was likely meant to appeal to people who supported the right to an abortion in principle but still felt morally conflicted about the procedure.” But according to Vox, the Democrat party had changed, as reflected in Clinton’s change in position to “safe and legal,” leaving out the “rare.” Abortion advocates by this time were saying that asking for abortion to be rare placed blame on the person who’s had an abortion by somehow suggesting that an abortion was something to be avoided. Did you catch that? Vox says that by 2019 Democrats no longer believed that abortion was something to be avoided if possible.3
When “Republicanism” Clashes with Our Desired Outcome
Back to Trump saying we should leave it for the States to decide and the backlash he got for not making a clear statement about what the limit should be. Trump reportedly had discussions with his advisors and others about abortion and many wanted him to take a clear position. There are two issues here.
First is Trump’s position on abortion. As the current standard-bearer for the Republican party, many wanted him to make a specific statement on limiting abortion. The Democrats are trying to make abortion a key issue in the 2024 election and they believe that the Republicans needed to articulate their position. (See our Article The Politics of Abortion.)
Immigration and the economy are the top two issues on voters’ minds and despite the continual propaganda from the Leftstream media, the voters see the Democrats as weak on both issues. Focusing on abortion distracts voters’ attention from the border and the economy and the Democrats hope that abortion can be their winning issue (since immigration and the economy are not). So would Trump articulating a position just play into their hands or would it eliminate questions about his position so he could choose to ignore it?
While I personally (from a moral standpoint) would have liked Trump to clearly articulate a pro-life position, I haven’t studied the current politics of the issue enough to opine on the political ramifications of taking a clear stand. But certainly keeping the focus on immigration and the economy, even if that sidesteps abortion, is keeping the focus on issues that favor Republicans. I am only looking only at the politics in making this statement.4
The second issue is that of “Republicanism” which is the more interesting issue.
The Leftstream media continues to say that Dobbs took away a Constitutional right. But since the US Supreme Court is the branch of government that makes those determinations, the media are incorrect. Dobbs merely corrected the error of Roe saying that there was a right to abortion. There is not and has (technically) never been a Constitutional right to abortion.5
It is true that a Federal law could be passed, making abortion either a universal right or severely restricted. Most on the Left want to see a Federal law enshrining abortion and invalidating every State law (which is what Roe did in 1973). There are also many on the Right who want a Federal law, but in this case a law outlawing abortion beyond a certain stage of pregnancy (generally 15 weeks). This is what Conway, Graham and others are advocating.
But there is a better, more Constitutional way and President Trump has advocated it. There is nothing in the Constitution, not in Article I that lists the limited areas in which the Federal government can operate, nor in any of the Amendments and now not in any Supreme Court case, that grants a right to abortion. That means that the Tenth Amendment shows us the way.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Abortion is an issue that is “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Each State can, and has done since Dobbs, determine the law regarding abortion within their borders. In Trump’s words, “the states will determine by vote or legislation or perhaps both, and whatever they decide must be the law of the land. In this case, the law of the state.”
The Left, Socialists and Globalists all want The Government, meaning the Federal government, to control everything. But the Founders put a Republican system in place, severely limiting the federal government and empowering the States. In fact, it is a constitutional requirement that “[t]he United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” (Article IV, Section 4) It is the Republican form of government for the country and in every State, that has made the US the most free nation on earth.
Having The Government be all powerful is much neater and much easier than democracy and republicanism. We don’t have to study the issues and be informed. We don’t have disagreements with our next door neighbor. We don’t have political discussions and disputes. The Government makes all the decisions.
But it also deprives citizens of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Better to have a less regimented system that involves debate and discussion and depends on the citizenry exercising “self-government,” even if it is seemingly more disorganized. (See our post on The True Meaning of Government)
So we can debate whether Trump was waffling or being a constitutional “Republican” when he said that now the States will decide. I for one am always in favor of Constitutional Republicanism, however we get there.
Donald Trump had a good record on abortion in his first term so many aren’t as concerned with how he will govern as much as with how the abortion issue impacts the chances for a Republican win in November. Better to win on the border and the economy.
Since the Dobbs decision ended that was widely considered a very poorly decided Roe v Wade, the regulation of abortion has gone back to the States where Constitutionally it belongs. For those who want to dig deep into the circumstances surrounding the Roe decision, we would recommend Clarke D. Forsythe’s book, Abuse of Discretion.
I agree with all you said, Jeff. Of course we pro-lifers would like to see him take a stronger stance against abortion, but I think the key phrase, and constitutionally correct, is to put it in the hands of the states. Once he becomes president I think he will take a stronger position - hopefully 😊