Trump’s Abortion Pivot Is The Right Move | Opinion

When Donald Trump blamed pro-lifers for the disappointing results of the 2022 midterm election, many conservatives, myself included, disagreed. The real reasons the GOP fared so poorly were its weak slate of candidates and a massive spending gap relative to Democrats. Surely, there was no way that trying to protect the lives of the unborn could seriously affect the Republican candidates’ chances of winning.

Then again, maybe Trump had a point.

In recent interviews, Trump and his running mate JD Vance have expressed their approval of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and their unwillingness to support a federal abortion ban. Trump went on to criticize Florida’s potential prohibition on abortions after six weeks and promised to provide coverage for IVF treatments if he’s elected.

These comments caused prominent pro-life activists to publicly condemn Trump and Vance for throwing pro-lifers under the bus. While offering perfunctory gratitude for Trump’s appointment of pro-life judges who overturned Roe v. Wade, they pointed out just how pro-abortion the Republican ticket has become. They noted the grisly fact that the great majority of unborn children conceived through IVF treatments are killed, and reiterated that abortion at any point is gravely evil.

While few people went so far as to recommend an alternative candidate, it seems like the purpose of this outrage was to depress the vote and keep pro-lifers home. Pro-lifers, it’s argued, should shake the dust off their feet, withhold their vote, and let the Republican candidates pay for their betrayal.

This way of thinking is catastrophically short-sighted. Yes, Trump and the Republican Party are making a political calculation with their concessions, but it happens to be a smart move that will ultimately result in saving more babies.

To understand why, there are a few key realities to keep in mind. First and foremost, women are starting their families later than before, and most have been on hormonal birth control for several years beforehand. The average age of women becoming mothers has risen from 21 in 1970 to 27 last year, and much of this increase is from a growing cohort of first-time mothers over 35.

Because of this, many more mothers today are struggling with infertility and complications with their pregnancies. This means that many cannot conceive, will be at risk for miscarriage even if they do conceive, or will have severely handicapped children if the baby is brought to term.

Which is why IVF and abortion access before 15 weeks has become so popular even with otherwise pro-life women. Of course, most women won’t come out and say it, unless they want to invite criticism. They would be told that they should adopt, and if they have a child with Down Syndrome or Trisomy-13, they just should accommodate that child as best they can.

This response, though morally sound, is a heavy burden to place on women who actually want to have children at a time when birthrates are below replacement level. As it stands, the American adoption and foster care systems are horribly broken and becoming ever more discriminatory towards Christian couples. And taking care of a severely disabled child is a huge sacrifice.

To be sure, religious leaders and pro-life activists have a responsibility to support mothers in need and educate people in general on the ethical problems of IVF, the best ways to ensure a healthy pregnancy, and the risks of starting one’s family too late. But that is not a job for politicians. Being held to such a constraint would mean certain defeat in any election. If Trump suddenly woke up to declare his intention to impose a federal ban on all abortions and close down all IVF clinics, he would lose. Bigly.

However, if Trump signals a willingness to help pay for IVF treatments (which are prohibitively expensive for many women) and allow states to pass their own limits on abortion, which may vary according to what their populations want, he removes the single strongest reason for voting Democrat. What’s left for Kamala Harris to promise? Abortion and vasectomy vans?

That said, Trump is still risking the votes of pro-life supporters in order to win the votes of women who have been conditioned to loathe him. But if the gamble pays off, he can win by a landslide. Even if such a win doesn’t mean an end to abortion or IVF, it would at least assure states the freedom to make sensible restrictions themselves.

And perhaps, then, the pro-life movement can finally take a hint and do more to fight the important battles in the states—as Trump has been saying all along.

Auguste Meyrat is a high school English teacher in North Texas. He is the founding editor of The Everyman, a senior contributor to The Federalist, and a regular contributor to The American Mind, Crisis Magazine, the American Conservative, and the Acton Institute.

The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.