Query from a reader in India:

I hope you are in good health.  As your country approaches its presidential election, I was wondering about your thoughts on federal policy toward abortion post-Dobbs.  You may wonder, why I ask about these matters, but politics in the U.S.A. always has global ramifications, often serving as a template for other countries, whether in the right or wrong direction.

The Harris/Walz campaign seems to have crossed over into the realm of the demonic by actively celebrating killing innocent lives.   On the other hand, the stance of the Trump/Vance campaign is that abortion should be left up to the states, so that the culture war over this issue would be ended.  Mr. Trump says he would veto a nationwide ban on abortion.  You have said some favorable things about the sincerity of Mr. Vance’s change in attitude toward Mr. Trump, with which I agree.  However, you must know that certain comments of Mr. Vance seem to support nationwide access to the abortion pill.

Given the grave evil of abortion, but also the political reality that there is no consensus on abortion and no prospect of a ban, do you think that saying “I would veto a ban” is permissible on prudential grounds?

 

Reply:

A federal ban is the ultimate goal, but at present, the question “Should we have a federal ban?” is moot.  At present almost all of the pressure at the federal level is to promote abortions, and this is the Harris/Walz policy too.  A federal ban could not be enacted, and if it could be, it would be overturned the next day.

This does not make it harmless to say “I would veto a federal ban.”  Words have consequences even when they cannot be acted upon.  The danger of such words lies in how they demoralize the friends of innocent life and encourage its enemies.

I understand that the Trump/Vance team does not wish to attempt the impossible, and I do not expect it to push for a nationwide abortion ban.  What I want to know is whether it will attempt the possible.  Since at this time there is no chance whatsoever of a federal ban, the pro-life strategy at the federal level must be incremental. 

First, the federal government must not be allowed to promote abortions, for example by performing them in military hospitals, by requiring insurers to cover them, by subsidizing them, or by denying medical personnel the freedom of conscience to refuse to assist in them.

Second, small restrictions on abortion can be advanced little by little even at the federal level, taking what we can get at each stage.  An obvious first step is to require enforcement of existing legislation prohibiting the killing of babies who are born alive.  Each such small gain will shift public opinion and prepare the way for the next small gain.  Another small step could be putting an end to the practices which are used to evade the ban on partial-birth abortions.  Presently, abortionists just stop the heart of a baby ready to be born and then deliver a dead baby.

Third, although turning the matter over to the states has changed nothing in the pro-abortion states, for the first time it has enabled pro-life states to do something for babies.  So another aim of action at the federal level must be to preserve the ability of pro-life states to do so.  For example, it must be made impossible to purchase mail-order abortion pills over state lines.  Probably because most abortions are now done by pill, the number of abortions is just as high now as it was before Dobbs.

Although the Trump/Vance campaign does not echo the demonic “joy of abortion” rhetoric of the Harris/Walz campaign, it has been disturbingly silent about these other aspects of federal abortion policy.  Concerning the abortion pill, it seems to want to sit on its hands.  Would it at least be willing to restrict if not forbid this deadly traffic?  These chemicals are not only murderous to babies, but highly dangerous for mothers.  And what about the other life issues?

The two strategies for ending the culture war – incremental restrictions, and “leaving it up to the states” – have a history.  In the 1800s, the Democratic Party wanted to leave slavery up to the states.  In those days too Democrats were “pro-choice,” but about slavery, not abortion.  In those days too they thought “leaving it up to the states” would end their culture war.

That hope was futile.  It didn’t end the culture war over slavery, but only prolonged and inflamed it.  Eventually we had a real war which nobody wanted.  “Leaving it up to the states” won’t end the culture war over abortion, any more than it ended the culture war over slavery.  As slavery exercised a malignant influence on our politics and culture then, so abortion exercises a beastly influence on our politics and culture today.

Ironically, in our time the mantle of “leaving it up to the states” has been taken up not by Democrats, but by the Republicans.  The Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision is treated as an excuse to drop the whole issue.  I am not surprised that the Democrats of our own day take “joy,” as they say, in the liberty to kill children, but I am gravely disappointed that the Trump/Vance campaign is repeating the mistakes which the other party made over slavery.

One would have hoped that they would take their inspiration not from Stephen Douglas, but from his opponent Abraham Lincoln.  Mr. Trump, Mr. Vance, we are listening.