If Harris Wins, The Pro-Life Movement Won’t Stand A Chance

The intentional ending of an innocent human life is always wrong; so too then is every abortion and every destruction of a human embryo by an IVF clinic. However, a majority of Americans will never vote to ban all abortions or prohibit the destruction of embryos created for IVF. 

Our country has tumbled too far down the slope of situational ethics, brainwashed along the way with the rhetoric of choice. And if the overturning of Roe v. Wade proved anything, it was that a large swath of Americans will readily accept the lies of abortion apologists to prevent even a hypothetical complete ban on abortion — even if that means sacrificing a few thousand near-term babies demand by the Left’s extremism of abortion on demand, until birth.

The failure of Kansas’ referendum which would have left abortion regulation to the state legislature proves the point, as does the success of the various other state constitutional referenda on abortion passed in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision. For the same reason, a federal abortion ban stands no chance.

No amount of righteousness — and the absolutist pro-life position is righteous — will alter that reality.

What then should dedicated pro-life voters do?

The Democrat Party long ago proved itself unworthy of the pro-life vote. But should pro-lifers withhold their vote from the Republican Party now that the party’s platform removed its goal for a 20-week federal limit on abortion, proclaiming instead regulation of abortion should be left to the states?

As critics of this approach — the view championed by Trump — rightly analogize, we didn’t leave slavery to the individual states because slavery was intrinsically evil, just as abortion is. Nor did Roe v. Wade, as some portray, make abortion a state issue; the Supreme Court returned the question of the legality of abortion to the people through the legislative branches, which includes both Congress and the statehouses.

Yet, the Republican platform and the Trump-Vance ticket has abandoned any effort to advance pro-life positions, and, to the contrary, appears supportive of the unregulated destruction of human embryos through IVF.

Should pro-life voters in turn, then, abandon the party and Trump?

There are two rationales that might suggest so, the first being principle: There is no more fundamental right then the right to life, and if a politician and a party refuse to defend the most innocent and defenseless among us, they are not entitled to a dedicated pro-lifer’s vote. Second, by withholding their votes, the pro-life block may believe they can ensure future politicians do not similarly discard the right-to-life movement turning Republicans into, in essence, a pro-choice “light” party.

I appreciate the latter pragmatic point, and I respect principled pro-lifers who withhold their vote out of conscience. Neither should be condemned or ridiculed, or blamed as if they didn’t do enough post-Roe to change the culture of the country.

But for those not compelled by conscience, please consider the ramifications: If Kamala Harris wins, Democrats will pass a federal law which, at a minimum, makes Roe v. Wade (and not the more limited holding of Casey), the law of the land, preempting the pro-life laws currently in place in some states. Harris will hold the power to appoint federal judges and possibly replace one to three Supreme Court justices — and that’s if Democrats don’t expand and stack the high court. Harris will hold the bully pulpit and will only further dehumanize the unborn, making it more difficult to change the hearts and minds of Americans.

Trump may not govern as a pro-life president, but Harris will most assuredly be the most pro-abortion president ever elected. With Trump in office, the status quo can be maintained until four years from now, a primary battle can demand a candidate willing to fight for the sanctity of life. While society will still not be open to laws that protect all human life, a pro-life candidate can support a federal ban on late-term abortions while working to support pregnancy resource centers and promoting life.

It took us 50 years to get to where we are and it will take decades more to move society toward a place where the populace will agree to ban most abortions. But if Harris is elected, we may never have the chance to start changing hearts, minds, and laws.

Margot Cleveland is an investigative journalist and legal analyst and serves as The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. Margot’s work has been published at The Wall Street Journal, The American Spectator, the New Criterion, National Review Online, Townhall.com, the Daily Signal, USA Today, and the Detroit Free Press. She is also a regular guest on nationally syndicated radio programs and on Fox News, Fox Business, and Newsmax. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. Cleveland is also of counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland where you can read more about her greatest accomplishments—her dear husband and dear son. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.