The Most Pro-Life President?

‘I did not have sex with a porn star.” Donald Trump’s statement in response to an arguably ad hominem attack from Joe Biden during this presidential election’s first debate must have given more than a few of us flashbacks to Bill Clinton’s “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is,” who tried to linguistically dance around Monica Lewinsky’s allegations. The main differences were that Clinton was the sitting president at that time, and the problem for his administration — and the United States — was not the sex but the abuse of power. Trump, meanwhile, has always had notorious baggage, and even during his prime, his character was questioned in New York Post headlines. The debate offered no indication that he has overcome those character flaws.

Trump was right to call out Democratic extremism on abortion. But the second question of the debate called out both candidates’ ignorance on the issue. “First of all, the Supreme Court just approved the abortion pill, and I agree with their decision to have done that, and I will not block it,” Trump said. The Court did no such thing. It issued a decision on the abortion-pill case based not on the merits or safety of chemical abortion but on whether the plaintiff had standing for the case, which in no way indicated approval of chemical abortion. Trump’s words in support of abortion pills were callous. Chemical abortion, increasingly the default method of abortion, is a bloody abandonment of pregnant girls and women.

Trump also said that during the half century when the precedent set by Roe was in effect, “everybody” wanted abortion to return to the states. That’s not true, either. The Democratic governor of California has been advocating for the expansion of abortion in states other than his own because that’s what his party is about. But talk with pro-lifers who have been on the front lines, providing hope to scared women who feel like abortion is their only option. Would they be included in “everybody”? I daresay the vast majority of them never popped a champagne bottle because states can now choose whether to allow abortion. I, for one, want the end of abortion in America. I am not content that New York will double down on its status as the abortion capital of the country. I want women to be free from all the coercions and pain of abortion because they deserve better.

In his primers and prep, it sure sounded — not for the first time — as if Trump doesn’t get the heart of the pro-life movement. He quoted Ronald Reagan, but someone should have assigned him “Abortion and the Conscience of America,” a 1983 essay for the Human Life Review, in which Reagan wrote:

Abortion concerns not just the unborn child, it concerns every one of us. The English poet, John Donne, wrote: “. . . any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.” . . .

Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide.

Needless to say, Donne made no appearance in the first 2024 presidential debate. And so much for Trump’s states’-rights fest. There are electoral realities, but there is also truth and justice. “Follow the science,” we were told not long ago. In the case of abortions, sonograms have made reality crystal clear. But politicians of both parties choose their own delusions to justify not having the courage to speak for the voiceless unborn.

I’ve not said much about Biden’s performance. Perhaps because criticizing him might be a form of elder abuse. His family and staff and party seem engaged in just that. On abortion, he has taken about every position there is over the decades. On debate night, he said he was not for late-term abortions. That is a lie. 

When Character Was King, Peggy Noonan’s book on Ronald Reagan, came to mind many times during the debate. In the first chapter, she recalls the christening of the aircraft carrier named after Reagan. It was March 2001. Reagan was still alive but deep into his battle with Alzheimer’s. His wife Nancy attended the ceremony without him, during which President George W. Bush said:

We live in a world shaped in so many ways by his will and heart. As president, Ronald Reagan believed without question that tyranny is temporary, and the hope of freedom is universal and permanent; that our nation has unique goodness and must remain uniquely strong, that God takes the side of justice, because all our rights are His own gifts. . . .

So as we dedicate this ship, I want to rededicate American policy to Ronald Reagan’s vision of optimism, modesty and results. Ronald Reagan’s optimism defined his character, and it defined his presidency. More than a habit of mind, this optimism sprang from deep confidence in the power and the future of American ideals.

Modesty? In politics? You wouldn’t get a whiff of it in this presidential election. And instead of optimism, there is cynicism and anger. If I had been a W aide, I might have suggested swapping “hope” for “optimism.” Hope is rooted in belief in a Creator, which requires modesty and humility and tends to lead to gratitude.

And so here we are. Let’s take this debate as a reality check. Teaching true history, not ideological readings of it, will help. Virtue education, too. Raise children who appreciate civic life and public service as noble work, in the service of humanity.

Many of us were not surprised that the first debate of the Biden–Trump rematch was far from inspiring. Still, we were saddened. What we do with that sadness is show the way in our daily lives and institutions. Character is not a relic of the past — unless we surrender the best in us.

This column is based on one available through Andrews McMeel Universal’s Newspaper Enterprise Association.