Safeguarding the Republican Right-to-Life Agenda

By Fr. Jerry Pokorsky ( bio - articles - email ) | Dec 02, 2024

During the tenure of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, former Nixon official and movie actor Ben Stein remarked in a TV interview that Schwarzenegger wasn’t a “true Republican” because he wasn’t pro-life. We’ve come a long way since those days. Practicing Catholics (and many others) who follow the science of human life have their work cut out for them in the years ahead, even under the 2025 rehabilitated Trump presidency.

Unexpectedly, Donald Trump was the most effective pro-life US President since the 1973 abortion-on-demand Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade. During his 2016 campaign, candidate Trump promised to appoint originalists to the Supreme Court. Former Senator Rick Santorum—Catholic, pro-life, and nudged out of the Republican presidential primary—withheld his endorsement of candidate Trump in 2016 until he, Trump, specifically listed potential originalist jurists for nomination to the Supreme Court. Trump complied and received Santorum’s endorsement.

Jurists like Thomas, Alito, and Scalia before them are originalists. They adjudicate the law—using the original understanding of the Constitution and subsequent rulings—regardless of personal preferences. Originalist jurisprudence never guarantees easy arguments or popular outcomes. In contrast, many lawyers refer to the Constitution as a “living document,” with the meaning of words constantly changing, allowing ideological prejudices and contemporary politics to guide their jurisprudence.

In recent years, the “living document” ruse has gone from bad to worse. Ketanji Brown Jackson, during her confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court as a Biden nominee, testified that she could not define “woman.” She (if that is her preferred pronoun) is now sitting on the highest court in the land.

During his first term, Trump reinstated the pro-life Mexico City Policy. He nominated (and the Republican Senate confirmed) broadly defined originalist jurists to the Supreme Court. The federal branch of government—including the military—generally refrained from facilitating abortion. Trump surrounded himself with reliable and loyal pro-life Catholics. But senior Catholic clergymen rarely praised his positions. Indeed Pope Francis singled him out for opprobrium for his restrictive immigration policies, despite the issue’s wide moral latitude.

The Mexico City Policy has been the pro-life canary in the coal mine for every President since 1984. The author of the policy was Carl Anderson, a White House staffer for Reagan. Later he served as the Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus. The provision prohibits US aid to overseas NGOs that offer any services related to abortion. First announced by the Reagan administration, the policy has been rescinded and reinstated by subsequent administrations along party lines. With his Republican predecessors, Trump reinstated the policy in 2017. Biden canceled it in 2021.

Trump appointed three originalists to the Court: Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. The three joined Justices Roberts, Alito, and Thomas in the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. Dobbs sent the abortion question back to the states.

But Dobbs did not outlaw abortion outright. Originalist judicial positivism prevailed over natural-law jurisprudence. (Orginalist argument nuances and intricate details are complicated and intellectually challenging.) Natural-law jurisprudence recognizes that violating natural rights embedded in the Declaration of Independence has Constitutional consequences.

Many Americans—including some generally pro-life Catholics—admit to exceptions to their pro-life political advocacy. The “rape and incest” exceptions are commonplace. However, astute pro-abortion Democrats often point out the inconsistency and correctly ask, “If abortion is the taking of a human life, what difference does the mode of conception make.” Checkmate. All unborn babies are God’s children, whether conceived with the marital embrace, the immorality of IVF, or various acts of violence. Follow the science.

During his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump followed the logic of the Dobbs decision and correctly claimed that the abortion question has become the responsibility of the states, not the federal government. The right-to-life plank dropped from the platform of the Republican Party for the first time since Ronald Reagan. The new plank, approved by the vast majority of Republicans, reads: “After 51 years, because of us, that power has been given to the states and to a vote of the people. We will oppose late-term abortion, while supporting mothers and policies that advance prenatal care, access to birth control, and IVF.” As the Democrats solidified themselves as the Party of Abortion, pro-lifers had little choice but to support the Republicans.

The unfortunate revised stance of the GOP threatens the historical (but always tenuous) pro-life position of the Republican Party. Mainstream Republican pro-life support was always a response to organized pro-life advocacy. So the upcoming months are crucial. Will President Trump reinstate the Mexico City Policy refusing to export abortion overseas? Will he continue to nominate originalist candidates to fill federal bench and Supreme Court vacancies? Will he (at least) refuse to meddle in local political battles over abortion?

Vice-President-elect J.D. Vance’s pro-life incoherence is more disturbing because he is a recent Catholic convert. His often-contradictory comments include, “I think it’s totally reasonable to say that late-term abortions should not happen, with reasonable exceptions.” Unlike prudential judgments such as foreign policy positions (such as the US proxy war in Ukraine) and immigration policies, direct abortion is intrinsically evil and does not allow for exceptions. Hence, the months immediately following a presidential election seem the perfect time for Church leaders (at least privately) to warn Catholics with muddled thinking on the intrinsic evil of direct abortion of their tenuous moral standing in the Church.

Perhaps J.D. Vance is on the Catholic follow-the-science learning curve as he reclaims his pro-life voice. He may consider replacing a pro-life-with-exceptions stance with a sample statement like this, which comports with Pope John Paul II’s Evangelium Vitae:

I follow the science. Human life begins at conception. I oppose every direct abortion without exception because an innocent child has a right to life. Politics is the art of the possible as we negotiate the best deal possible in given political circumstances. But we must treat legislated exceptions as anomalies, address abortion motives, and continue our efforts to protect unborn babies from the horrors of abortion.