(Originally published in NewsMax.)
America is at a crossroads of choice not just about abortion but about what it means to be human and what it means to be American.
The national abortion debate reflects a crisis of government in two ways: 1.) the people do not understand the role of government, and 2.) the three co-equal branches of federal government are at odds with each other.
First, the response to former President Trump’s April 8 statement, saying he would not support a federal abortion ban, reveals a general lack of understanding on the role of government.
What Trump said was, “My view is now that we have abortion where everybody wanted it from a legal standpoint, the states will determine by vote or legislation or perhaps both, and whatever they decide must be the law of the land. In this case, the law of the state.”
His statement lit the hair on fire of many anti-abortion groups and gave abortion rights proponents cause to indict him on charges of purported moral inconsistency.
But is Trump’s clarified abortion position a departure from being anti-abortion?
He and I have not spoken, but his statement does not necessarily signal a shift in position as much as a reinforcement of the American form of government.
The abortion debate in America has reached a fever pitch and it is because both those anti-abortion and pro-abortion rights are conflating state abortion procedure regulations with their ultimate goals.
For those anti-abortion, the goal of abortion regulation is protecting preborn babies. For those pro-abortion rights the goal of abortion deregulation is to secure a woman’s reproductive freedom.
For those anti-abortion to assert that state regulations restricting abortion saves babies may be an accurate explanation of the results. But the legal restrictions on the procedures are, strictly speaking, just that.
One can presume the restrictions are informed by a moral position to protect babies from abortion. But when you boil it all down, state abortion restrictions are not about babies.
Similarly, abortion rights advocates conflate their goals with these types of regulations too.
Abortion procedure deregulation is painted as securing a woman’s reproductive freedom.
Again, one can extrapolate the ramifications of such laws, or the repeal of those laws, on a woman’s ‘reproductive freedom’ but it doesn’t change the fact that those laws are not about women’s rights.
Bill Maher’s recent barbaric statement demonstrates the public confusion between restrictions on abortion procedures and the personhood of preborn babies. Maher recognizes the fact that abortion equals killing a baby but he is “OK with that.”
Ignoring the brutal and cold insanity of Maher’s moral position, his critique of Trump as morally inconsistent on the personhood issue is telling when he quipped, “You mean killing babies is OK in some states?”
No. Trump said restricting abortion procedures is up to the states. Trump was silent on the personhood of the preborn baby. Just thinking about Maher’s pro-baby-killing comment still makes me wince.
But, Maher, like most debating Trump’s position, conflates two separate issues.
State laws rarely speak to either the anti-abortion personhood protection of babies or abortion-advocate reproductive freedom outcomes.
Abortion restrictions are just legal regulations on abortion procedures.
Recently, it appears that all former President Donald Trump did was reinforce the fact that these regulatory decisions — per the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022) and the 10th Amendment of the Constitution —is the legal purview of the states.
Trump is right.
In his statement, Mr. Trump referred to the how abortion regulations shake out in the various states as the “law of the land.” This is a very important thing for a presidential hopeful to say because it is the role of the executive branch to enforce the laws duly enacted by the legislature.
Herein lies the rub; Trump’s statement, if taken to the logical conclusion, signals that he’s interested in enforcing federal law; after all it also is the “law of the land.”
This is the second way the abortion debate demonstrates America’s crisis of government.
The executive branch is at odds with the other two co-equal branches of government, judicial and legislative.
Juxtapose Trump’s commitment respect of the law of the land by state to the Biden administration’s express refusal to do so when it comes to abortion — the Comstock Act.
The executive branch undermined the legislative branch through its refusal to enforce the laws of the land.
The Comstock Act, while originally passed in 1873, was modified in 1971 and again in 1994. Each time, the prohibition of abortion was maintained.
This means that the current “law of the land” at the federal level forbids the mailing of, “Every article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing which is advertised or described in a manner calculated to lead another to use or apply it for producing abortion.”
It’s the role of the executive branch to enforce the laws duly enacted by the legislative branch. To do otherwise undermines not just America’s three co-equal branches of government, but cuts off the will of the people through their elected representatives.
And the judiciary, at the time of this writing, is about to step in ruling on chemical abortions any day in a case which exists because the executive branch refuses to respect the legislative.
These are perilous times for America. We must certainly tread lightly when the lives of our littlest are on the line. But in so doing, we must also look beyond the symptom to the cause. America has forgotten the morality that made our democratic republic work.
As John Adams, one of our Founders warned, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
The Rev. Jim Harden, CEO of CompassCare, an anti-abortion medical network based in Buffalo, New York, is married with 10 children. He passionately exposes unequal enforcement of the law and immoral public policy. Read more of the Rev. Jim Harden’s Reports — Here.
