![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/533\/2019\/08\/NICU_infant_6978.jpg\")
Yes, protecting the life of unborn children is important.\u00a0 But Trump can\u2019t produce a change in American law with respect to abortion \u2013 that\u2019s happening at the state level, in the form of increasing restrictions in Red states and elimination of any restrictions in Blue states \u2014 including a number of states which have or are moving towards wholly eliminating any limitations or (as in Illinois) even mandating that insurance cover the procedure in the same manner as any other.\u00a0 Trump can\u2019t stop them, due to federalism and separation-of-powers issues.\u00a0 And even to the extent that he could, Trump limits the basic competence to do so.<\/p>\n
And in the meantime, Trump fails other metrics in terms of Catholic social justice teaching. A talk by Bishop Robert McElroy reprinted at the National Catholic Reporter<\/a> lists the usual suspects:\u00a0 immigration, anti-racism, the fight against poverty, etc., but also highlights what he deems to be an issue of urgency comparable to abortion, the fight against climate change, because \u201cthe survival of the planet, which is the prerequisite for all human life, is at risk,\u201d or, expressed another way, \u201cthe death toll from abortion is more immediate, but the long-term death toll from unchecked climate change is larger and threatens the very future of humanity.\u201d<\/p>\n Now, I\u2019ll admit that I\u2019m not persuaded \u2014 the notion that climate change \u201cthreatens the very future of humanity\u201d far overstates the case, and it seems a bit disingenuous to use this overstated prediction to label environmental activism a \u201clife issue\u201d on par with opposing abortion.<\/p>\n And it\u2019s a different case than \u201cpro-life but . . .\u201d folks usually make, which is that the claim that the Democrats\u2019 platform of free healthcare and free daycare will result in fewer abortions even absent changes in legislation.<\/p>\n But nonetheless: of the Democrats running for election, with the exception of Tulsi Gabbard, each and every one of them professes the same Democratic orthodoxy:\u00a0 abortion without any restrictions whatsoever, and promises of inclusion in abortion in their single-payer healthcare plans.<\/p>\n In fact, back in October, when Gabbard was still being included in the debates, she was the only one to venture to make a statement<\/a> other than absolutist abortion support:<\/p>\n I do, however, think that there should be some restrictions in place. . . . I support codifying Roe v. Wade \u2014 while making sure that, during the third trimester, abortion is not an option unless the life or severe health consequences of a woman are at risk.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n None of the other candidates ventured to even suggest that any limits might be acceptable.\u00a0 None.<\/strong><\/p>\n In fact, as\u00a0Alexandra DeSanctis wrote in a Washington Post<\/em> column shortly after that debate,<\/p>\n Evidence of just how taboo it has become to use the phrase \u201csafe, legal and rare\u201d came in the most recent presidential primary debate, when Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii) uttered the fateful words, giving a nod to Hillary Clinton as she did so: \u201cWhen she said abortion should be safe, legal and rare,\u201d Gabbard said, \u201cI think she\u2019s correct.\u201d The candidate favors abortion rights early in pregnancy and would codify the Supreme Court\u2019s 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, but she\u2019d prohibit abortion during the last three months of pregnancy \u201cunless the life or severe health consequences of a woman are at risk.\u201d<\/p>\n Left-leaning critics quickly descended. The Ohio affiliate of NARAL Pro-Choice America tweeted: \u201cThis is a position \u2014 making abortion \u2018rare\u2019 \u2014 not supported by pro-choice advocates.\u201d A headline in Vice said Gabbard was \u201cstuck in the \u201890s,\u201d and the article\u2019s author, Marie Solis, argued that the candidate had revived a \u201cdecades-old talking point that pro-choice supporters say only further stigmatizes abortion at a critical moment.\u201d She quoted Amelia Bonow, a co-founder of the pro-abortion-rights group Shout Your Abortion, who said, \u201cI cannot think of a less compelling way to advocate for something than saying that it should be rare. And anyone who uses that phrase is operating from the assumption that abortion is a bad thing.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And it\u2019s not just the Democrats who have claimed the \u201cprogressive\u201d lane who follow this absolutism.\u00a0 In a recent interview<\/a>, Pete Buttigieg staked out his dividing line:\u00a0 life begins with birth.\u00a0 He also parroted the various disproven claims that no abortions happen later in pregnancy other than due to serious medical crises (the link also contains some of the evidence to the contrary).\u00a0 Back in the summer, Biden was cowed into the new party orthodoxy<\/a> by staffers, backtracking on his prior support of the Hyde Amendment (which prohibits federal funding of abortion); he now explicitly promises<\/a> that his \u201cpublic option\u201d healthcare program will include abortion and pledges to \u201ccodify Roe v. Wade\u201d (and, incidentally, such legislation includes the guarantee that women will be able to get abortions without interference up to viability, and afterwards, so long as her health is deemed at risk \u2014 and with no definition of \u201chealth\u201d the default would be the Doe v. Bolton definition of \u201cany reason at all\u201d; see Wikipedia<\/a> or the 2007 legislation itself<\/a>).<\/p>\n What\u2019s more, in Illinois, back in 2017<\/a>, Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner, who had not tried to hide his past support of Planned Parenthood and general pro-choiceness but campaigned and won Republican support with a promise that he had no agenda there but only economic prosperity, signed a bill implementing Medicaid funding for abortion as well as including its coverage in state health insurance plans \u2014 and that despite assurances to the contrary.<\/p>\n Then, a year ago, shortly after taking office, Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker signed even more extreme legislation, which erased virtually all restrictions.\u00a0 In its most extreme original form<\/a>, even the most nominal prior restrictions on the abortion were lifted, up until birth itself; the requirement that only doctors perform abortions was replaced with a stipulation that any qualified \u201chealth care professional\u201d was permitted to do so; and insurance companies were required to cover abortion with no copay or cost-share \u2014 in the final version<\/a>, the usual language about limiting post-viability abortions to cases where it \u201cis necessary to protect the life or health of the patient\u201d was retained (though, again, there is no actual enforcement of this provision in Illinois) and the insurance coverage requirement was modified to require coverage under the same terms and conditions as any other procedure.<\/p>\n