Why the Pro-Life Movement Needs to Reject Trump

This is probably the hundredth opinion piece you have seen attacking Donald Trump, and for good reason; there are just as many criticisms towards Trump. His policies are awful; he has lied more in this election than Clinton, and has more scandals surrounding him. However, what I want to focus on are his misguided views and comments surrounding abortion.

One of the most talked about statements from last week’s debate were the two candidates’ stances on abortion, with special focus on late-term abortions. Trump was against abortion, promising to appoint pro-life judges, saying it would automatically reverse Roe v. Wade. He then focused on late-term abortions, describing a misleading situation only for the purpose to awaken emotion. Hillary, in contrast defended late-term abortions by saying that the only time this kind of abortions happens is when the mother’s life is in danger. The general consensus was Trump being criticized for uninformed comments, and Hillary being applauded for hers. Despite this, the pro-life movement had a different response attacking Hillary, and supporting Trump, being summed up in article shared around on Facebook.

The article was published by conservative news site, Mad World News and was written by the founder’s wife, Christy Lee Parker. Parker, a former nurse, who describes Clinton as a “forked-tongue demon,” and says her comments were inaccurate and a bold-faced lie to promote fear-mongering. She also praises Trump’s comments for describing it as it is. She then ends with her saying don’t vote for Hillary to stop another baby from dying a horrific death. Mrs. Parker is correct in the fact that Hillary’s comments were inaccurate, since late-term abortions are never performed for the mother’s safety. However, there are various facts that she gets wrong, or ignores shown in another article published this week.

This one was published by the liberal-leaning Huffington Post, and was this time written by Dr. Jennifer Gunter, an Obstetrician-Gynecologist or OB/GYN. In this article, she addresses the fact that Clinton’s statements were inaccurate because at nine months it would just be delivered as said before, but Trump’s comments were even more misleading. She explains there’s actually no such thing as a nine-month abortion, because at that point they would still actually deliver the baby (which isn’t “ripping the baby out”), and the only time it happens is when birth defects are so severe that it’s incompatible with life. She also explains that the pro-life movement focusing on late-term abortions is no good for their cause because their only focusing on 1.3 percent of the abortions that are performed, not having much of an effect on lowering abortion.

This story is one of best representations of my frustration toward the pro-life movement’s treatment of Donald Trump during this election, and the methods and actions of the pro-life movement. I fully support and sympathize with the purpose of the pro-life movement to lower the rate of abortion and eventually end it. The problems are their views, methods, and irrational attitude they use in their attempt to end abortion. Instead of considering the reasons why women have abortions, and how to combat those reasons with other options; they would rather instead just picket or pray outside of abortion clinics, and other ineffective methods. They are also so eager to immediately give in to anyone who preaches pro-life policies, including Mr. Trump despite how misguided his ideas and proposed policies actually are.

As shown previously, Trump has gained a talent for using and manipulating the pathos within pro-life activists with his sympathetic comments for all the unborn babies. The problem is his comments as shown before are scientifically inaccurate, and is just nothing but pathos. However, his main promise that has rallied the pro-life supporters to side is his promise with the Supreme Court. Trump has promised to appoint Supreme Court justices that are pro-life and doing that will automatically overturn Roe v. Wade. That sounds great, but it doesn’t work like that. A president can’t ask the court to reverse a decision. A case that challenges the initial decision would have to happen, which has happened before, but has always ended with the court supporting Roe v. Wade, even if the court has a conservative majority. Then there’s the problem that would arise if abortion was outlawed again.

The Lancet, a medical journal conducted a study showing that the abortion rates in countries that outlawed were not only the same, but higher than countries where abortions were legal. These then result in unsafe abortions (abortionists lacking the medical skills), which according to the World Health Organization, 22 million of them are performed every year. This then results in the deaths of 47,000 females, and 5 million gaining disabilities. While some will argue that they brought it upon themselves, keep in mind that it’s sometimes not the female in this situation who decides to have the abortion, especially within countries where females are treated like second-class citizens like the Middle East. In North America and Western Europe where abortion is legal, we already have the lowest abortion rates and unsafe abortions. Outlawing abortion might give us a fake sense of accomplishment, but it won’t solve the problem.

Abortion is horrific and tragic, but if the pro-life community wants to actually stop abortion, they need to consider why females do get abortions, and how to offer other solutions to that reason. It may have the same feeling as picketing outside of an abortion clinic, but we need to be open to the solutions that work. We also need to lobby for better child-care assistance for lower-class mothers, once the baby is out of the womb. Finally, we need to stop giving in to politicians who whose uses it only as a pandering method, and whose policies are proven to be unrealistic and ineffective.

Leave a Reply