![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2020\/02\/StopKavanaugh.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
This is an exchange with Scott Eric Alt on his Facebook page, from 24 January 2017. His words will be in blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Prediction about Trump and SCOTUS. This is just a prediction; I am not infallible.<\/span><\/p>\n There is an open seat on the Court: it is early in Trump\u2019s administration. He will choose a nominee very much in the mold of Justice Scalia\u2013red meat for the base. The balance on the Court will remain exactly as before; conservative Christians will say, \u201cSee I told you so,\u201d wave banners, trumpet it in the streets, and claim strong vindication.<\/span><\/p>\n Then, when people like Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer retire, Trump will name justices in the mold of Earl Warren (a Republican nominee), David Souter (a Republican nominee), or Harry Blackmun (a Republican nominee and the author of Roe v Wade<\/em>). The balance on the Court will remain exactly as before; come 2021 or, God help us, 2025, Roe and Obergefell will remain.<\/span><\/p>\n You heard it here first.<\/span><\/p>\n What would it take to convince you that Trump really is anti-abortion and\/or pro-life, Scott?<\/p>\n Let\u2019s see if he makes it a major theme of his administration, on the level of Obamacare being a major objective of the last one.<\/span><\/p>\n Okay; what would prove that it is a \u201cmajor theme\u201d<\/span>?<\/p>\n Some words about it in his inaugural address might have been evidence.<\/span><\/p>\n Sure; but that didn\u2019t happen, so what would prove (in the future) that it is a \u201cmajor theme\u201d<\/span>?<\/p>\n Obama mentioned health care as an objective several times in his 2008 inaugural. Trump mentioned abortion or other pro-life issues 0 times.<\/span><\/p>\n Trump strongly stood against partial-birth infanticide in the third debate, with many millions watching. He also mentioned it prominently at that annual dinner in New York with Cardinal Dolan, which took tremendous guts in that New York liberal audience.<\/p>\n Now I ask for the third time: what would it take to convince you that it is a \u201cmajor theme\u201d<\/span> of his (since you made that a condition, which is secondary to my main question) and that he is pro-life? Or can nothing at all do that?<\/p>\n As an example\u2013if Trump were to give a televised address to the nation on the evil of abortion and steps his administration is taking to end it. Or if he were to talk about it at more than \u201cin passing\u201d length in a SOTU address and talked about it as an important objective of the next four years. And then he\u2019d have to follow through on the steps he had laid out.<\/span><\/p>\n Virtually no Republican Presidents have ever done that (possibly excepting Reagan): because of the extreme polarization of the issue in a political sense. Yet that didn\u2019t cause you to question whether they were pro-life, or to not vote for them, right?<\/p>\n George W. Bush didn\u2019t discover pro-life in 2000.<\/span><\/p>\n That wasn\u2019t my point. He never made it a major issue of his campaign or presidency, to my knowledge (I saw him talk in person in 2004). So why do you make that particular demand of Trump in order to accept him as pro-life? Why is the bar set so much higher? You didn\u2019t question (as far as I know) the pro-life bona fides<\/em> of these other GOP Presidents. And we know that Reagan and Bush I changed their views.<\/p>\n I\u2019m just trying to understand the chain of reasoning of a Never-Trumper: especially on this issue.<\/p>\n Do you care if Trump actually does anything pro-life? Or only that it can be said he is<\/em>\u00a0pro-life? I am confused.<\/span><\/p>\n Of course I do. I\u2019ve been a pro-life activist for 35 years, and it has always been the #1 issue whenever I vote.<\/p>\n So you answered regarding what would make you change your mind. Then I went on to a second point about your standard being much higher for him than for previous GOP Presidents (see my previous comment). Now I\u2019m trying to understand that<\/em>.<\/p>\n Why do I have to ask things 2-3 times to get an answer out of you?<\/p>\n If you go back to my original question, I asked: \u201cWhat would it take to convince you that Trump really is anti-abortion and\/or pro-life?\u201d You deny that he is pro-life, as shown in your cynical take regarding the Mexico City Policy and what he will supposedly do in future Court appointees.<\/p>\n I\u2019m trying to understand the basis of such strong cynicism and what would change your mind. I suppose we could distinguish between someone being pro-life and what they do about it as a President. Mostly in the past presidents have expressed pro-life convictions through Supreme Court appointees. There isn\u2019t a whole lot they can do except express approval of congressional and state restrictions, and to sign those bills that come to their desk. That would be another test for Trump.<\/p>\n So if he appoints a second<\/em>\u00a0strong pro-lifer to the SCOTUS, do you then give up your theory above and concede that he really is pro-life?<\/p>\n If it does matter to you that presidents actually do pro-life things, then isn\u2019t the real question, \u201cWhat would convince you Trump has done an important pro-life thing?\u201d If I could be convinced Trump is pro-life, but he does nothing significant to stop abortion, then what\u2019s the good, except a theoretical absence of harm (at least absence of harm on this<\/em>\u00a0point, not necessarily others).<\/span><\/p>\n I agree. You<\/strong><\/em> seem to deny both things: that he is pro-life, opinion-wise, and that he will do anything other than grant \u201cred meat\u201d<\/span> to the base out of mere political expediency and not conviction.<\/p>\n Still awaiting answers to my second round of questions. To repeat them:<\/p>\n [Bush II] never made it a major issue of his campaign or Presidency, to my knowledge (I saw him talk in person in 2004). So why do you make that particular demand of Trump in order to accept him as pro-life? Why is the bar set so much higher? You didn\u2019t question (as far as I know) the pro-life bona fides<\/em> of these other GOP Presidents.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Trump has a higher standard because his pro-life credentials have not been established. Reagan\u2019s and Bush\u2019s had longer provenance. When Trump says what changed his mind was a kid who was going to be aborted but \u201cturned out to be a superstar,\u201d he was specifically asked \u201cBut what if the kid had not been a superstar?\u201d Trump was stymied, saying, \u201cOh, then I guess not, but I haven\u2019t thought about it.\u201d That\u2019s what Michael meant when he said Trump \u201csounded like a eugenicist\u201d and that\u2019s what led the SBA List, initially, to oppose Trump and say he was insufficiently pro-life. But when he became the nominee, suddenly SBA discovered \u201cnew evidence\u201d just like that\u2013shazaam!<\/span><\/p>\n Now maybe you could say Trump is evolving still because his conversion was recent, yada yada.<\/span><\/p>\n But when Trump has proven himself a liar on so many other points, the question does arise whether this supposed pro-life conversion is just a convenience in an election year because of the sentiments of the base.<\/span><\/p>\n Skepticism is certainly warranted in Trump\u2019s case, and therefore the standard is higher. Trump could prove his pro-life sentiments, and that remains to be seen. But I am still skeptical.<\/span><\/p>\n Trump\u2019s conversion on the issue was not, in fact, in the last year or two. In an April 2011, Trump stated that \u201cI changed my view a number of years ago.\u201d So that is some number of years before 2011. Trump continues in the interview:<\/p>\n Donald Trump: One thing about me, I\u2019m a very honorable guy. I\u2019m pro-life, . . . One of the reasons I changed \u2014 one of the primary reasons \u2014 a friend of mine\u2019s wife was pregnant, in this case married.<\/p>\n She was pregnant and he didn\u2019t really want the baby. And he was telling me the story. He was crying as he was telling me the story. He ends up having the baby and the baby is the apple of his eye. It\u2019s the greatest thing that\u2019s ever happened to him.<\/p>\n And you know here\u2019s a baby that wasn\u2019t going to be let into life. And I heard this, and some other stories, and I am pro-life.<\/p>\n David Brody: So those stories did change you, they came around and changed you?<\/p>\n Trump: They changed me. Yeah, they changed my view as to that, absolutely.\u00a0(\u201cBrody File Exclusive: Donald Trump Explains Pro-Life Conversion\u201d<\/a>: 4-8-11)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Again, in an October 2016 interview with Raymond Arroyo<\/a>, Trump reiterated the same story:<\/p>\n Trump said a \u201cnumber of moments\u201d influenced his change of heart on the matter, but the biggest was a \u201cmagnificent person\u201d he knows who was almost aborted.<\/p>\n He told Arroyo:<\/p>\n One was a couple that I know very, very well. And you had a strong pro-life and you had a strong pro-choice, and they argued over \u2014 the mother was pregnant \u2014 they argued over the child.<\/p>\n One \u2014 I won\u2019t get into the specifics \u2014 but one wanted to abort and the other said we can\u2019t do that, we\u2019re not going to do that. Anyway, they had the baby \u2014 it was a long time ago \u2014 and the baby is such a magnificent person, who I know, a magnificent person. And the person that was actually pro-choice is now pro-life because of it, and it had an effect on me.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n \u201cThe problem with Trump\u2019s change of heart on abortion\u201d<\/a> (Washington Post<\/em>, Trevin Wax, 1-26-16)<\/span><\/p>\n From the article:<\/span><\/p>\n Consider how he responded to a reporter who wondered if he would have become pro-life had the child been a \u201closer\u201d: \u201cProbably not, but I\u2019ve never thought of it. I would say no, but in this case it was an easy one because he\u2019s such an outstanding person.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n To summarize Trump\u2019s view: \u201cI\u2019m pro-life because we shouldn\u2019t abort fetuses that may grow up to be outstanding people.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n But opponents of abortion take a different position: \u201cI\u2019m pro-life because we shouldn\u2019t kill innocent human beings, no matter who they might grow up to be.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Thank you. It\u2019s less than ideal, but it\u2019s important to note that Trump was not<\/em><\/strong> saying that a child should be aborted if he or she isn\u2019t \u201coutstanding.\u201d The question he was answering wasn\u2019t that, but rather, about \u201cif he would have become pro-life<\/strong><\/em> had the child been a \u201closer\u201d.\u201d<\/p>\n The question of what influenced him to become pro-life, which is largely emotional and \u201cpersonal\u201d is quite different from \u201cshould a non-outstanding child be aborted?\u201d<\/p>\n Also, we know that his conversion took place \u201cyears\u201d before 2011, and he is reporting his mindset at that time, not his view today, some 8-12 or so years later.<\/p>\n And that\u2019s assuming this was an accurate report. It may very well have been. But in any event, the article provides no documentation. It merely states: \u201cConsider how he responded to a reporter who wondered if he would have become pro-life had the child been a \u201closer\u201d:\u201d<\/p>\n We don\u2019t know where that appeared, so we can\u2019t see any context. Even the reporter\u2019s question was not cited. So this could quite possibly be out-of-context.<\/p>\n Possible. My point is, skepticism is reasonable<\/em>. It is reasonable not to take Trump\u2019s words on faith.<\/span><\/p>\n He could be genuinely pro-life. But the only evidence I have seen is what Trump claims.<\/span><\/p>\n The reinstatement of the Mexico City policy is good\u2013but it is also SOP, and has limited effect on actual abortions.<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s fair. But then we\u2019re back to \u201cwhat does it take to convince you?\u201d etc. We have one good act, and probably another soon with the SCOTUS pick. That\u2019s not enough for you. So it\u2019ll require signing some good pro-life bills, a second good Court pick (or more than that), I guess.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n [the following was added to the original dialogue on 2-9-20]<\/p>\n Planned Parenthood \u2014 unlike Scott Eric Alt \u2014 seems quite sure that President Trump is actively pro-life, in an article<\/a> (no date given):<\/p>\n Making History In Condemning Abortion<\/strong><\/p>\n Donald Trump is the first sitting president in U.S. history to directly address the annual March for Life anti-abortion rally. [NBC News video: 1-19-18<\/a>] [Dave: that was via video. At this year\u2019s March he was the first president to address the march in person<\/em>] . . .<\/p>\n Calling for a Nationwide Abortion Ban<\/strong><\/p>\n While on the campaign trail, Trump said abortion should be outlawed . . . It\u2019s clear: The total and near-total bans passed by politicians in some states reflect Trump\u2019s view on abortion. [link to People<\/em> magazine, 5-20-19<\/a>] . . .<\/p>\n Packing Courts With Anti-Abortion Judges<\/strong><\/p>\n Before he was elected, Donald Trump said he would elect \u201cpro-life\u201d judges to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade\u00a0\u2014\u00a0the case that recognized the right to access safe, legal abortion.\u00a0No surprise: Trump\u2019s Supreme Court appointees, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, have long records of opposing abortion.\u00a0Trump also\u00a0has packed the federal courts across the country with judges who have track records of restricting reproductive rights.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Scott mentioned the State of the Union address. A Fox News article<\/a> (2-3-20), noted his remarks in the 2019 address:<\/p>\n Trump\u2019s\u00a0comments\u00a0on life in last year\u2019s State of the Union, calling out Democratic Party leaders for their support of late-term\u00a0abortion\u00a0and even infanticide, were the most explicit made on the issue by any president in that address.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n He did so again in this year\u2019s address: noting a mother in the gallery whose daughter was born at 21 weeks<\/a>, and again condemning late-term abortion. He said:<\/p>\n Our goal should be to ensure that every baby has the best chance to thrive and grow just like Ellie. That is why I am asking the Congress to provide an additional $50 million to fund neo-natal research for America\u2019s youngest patients,\u201d he said. \u201cThat is also why I am calling upon the members of Congress here tonight to pass legislation finally banning the late-term abortion of babies.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n ***<\/p>\n Scott \u201creplies\u201d on 2-9-20 on Facebook<\/a> (do you see a change of approach and ratcheting up of the hyper-polemics here?):<\/p>\n Bore\/d\/ing Dave recycles a Facebook exchange from 3 years ago.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n Incidentally, I fail to see how anyone who merely says things about ending abortion, but who appoints justices who call Roe \u201csettled law,\u201d who separates migrant children from their parents and interns them in cages, who refunds Planned Parenthood, who brings back land mines, can be called \u201cpro-life\u201d in any meaningful sense. Trump\u2019s contribution to the pro-life movement is to throw words at it while his hands are committing murder. (The last expression is a figure of speech, for the reading comprehension impaired.)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n ***<\/p>\n See also the discussion of this article<\/a> on my Facebook page.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Related Reading:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n On the Complaint that Pro-Lifers are \u201cSingle-Issue\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[9-24-15]<\/p>\n On Trump & the \u201cSupreme\u201d Pro-Life Cause<\/a>\u00a0[8-16-16]<\/p>\n Dialogue with Deacon Steven Greydanus on Voting & Pro-Life<\/a>\u00a0[11-8-16]<\/p>\n \u201cTrump Ain\u2019t Really Pro-Life\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[1-24-17]<\/p>\n \u201cLessen Evil\u201d Votes for Hillary?<\/a>\u00a0[note: Mark Shea did\u00a0not<\/em>\u00a0vote for Hillary, but he urged people in swing states to do so]\u00a0(vs. Mark Shea) [4-7-17]<\/p>\n Debate: How Pro-Life is the Republican Party (Especially the Leadership)?<\/a>\u00a0[5-8-17]<\/p>\n Debate: SCOTUS & GOP in Relation to Abortion Rates<\/a>\u00a0[11-15-18]<\/p>\n Dialogue on Conservative vs. Liberal Pro-Life Voting<\/a>\u00a0[2-9-19]<\/p>\n Explaining the Pro-Life, Christian Vote for Trump Yet Again<\/a>\u00a0[4-30-19]<\/p>\n Dialogue: Christian Witness, Trump, & Prudential Voting\u00a0<\/a>(vs. Deacon Steven D. Greydanus) [5-10-19]<\/p>\n Abortion Declines Under Trump (Surprise, New Pro-Lifers!)<\/a>\u00a0[1-10-20]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Photo credit:\u00a0<\/strong><\/span>Charles Edward Miller<\/a>\u00a0(8-26-18):\u00a0Illinois Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky Stop Brett Kavanaugh Rally Downtown Chicago Illinois<\/span> [Flickr<\/a> \/ CC BY-SA 2.0<\/a> license]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" This is an exchange with Scott Eric Alt on his Facebook page, from 24 January 2017. His words will be in blue. ***** Prediction about Trump and SCOTUS. This is just a prediction; I am not infallible. There is an open seat on the Court: it is early in Trump\u2019s administration. He will choose a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":44367,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[81,289],"tags":[2768,84,3614,3613,3184,2896,2895,88,1826,2424,756,3612,3611,1254,755,1255,2090,2088,747,746,3182,3615,2383,3183,3181,2091],"class_list":["post-44364","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-life-issues","category-political-ethical-moral-issues","tag-2016-presidential-campaign","tag-abortion","tag-abortion-exception-clauses","tag-abortion-funding","tag-abortion-restrictions","tag-catholics-trump","tag-catholics-and-presidential-election","tag-childkilling","tag-donald-trump","tag-hillary-clinton","tag-infanticide","tag-international-planned-parenthood","tag-mexico-city-policy","tag-personhood","tag-planned-parenthood","tag-preborn-child","tag-prenatal","tag-pro-abortion","tag-pro-choice","tag-pro-life","tag-pro-lifers-elections","tag-rape-incest-life-of-the-mother","tag-scott-eric-alt","tag-supreme-court","tag-trump-pro-life","tag-unborn-child"],"yoast_head":"\nUnfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist<\/strong>:\u00a0<\/span>If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 \/ month \u2014 a mere 33 cents a day \u2014 would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see\u00a0my Resume<\/a>).\u00a0My work has been proven (by God\u2019s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences\u00a0from unsolicited \u201ctestimonies\u201d<\/a>).\u00a0I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and two children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nMy book royalties from\u00a0three bestsellers in the field<\/a>\u00a0(published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.\u00a0 I provide over 2700 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have\u00a0written 50 books<\/a>.\u00a0It\u2019ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and \u201clikes\u201d and links and shares). Thanks!<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nSee my\u00a0information on how to donate<\/a>\u00a0(including 100% tax-deductible donations). It\u2019s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my \u201cbusiness name\u201d there is called \u201cCatholic Used Book Service,\u201d from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: apologistdave@gmail.com). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through\u00a0Zelle<\/a>. Again, just send to my e-mail address.\u00a0May God abundantly bless you.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n