Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that recognized abortion as a legal right, marked the beginning of a serious national debate over the legality of abortion in the United States. Fervent movements have emerged as a result of the decision, drawing attention from prevalent political officials as both pro-choice and pro-life advocates have sought to gain support to further their respective causes. The March for Life has, in particular, proved a telling event, as, just this year President Trump made history as the first incumbent President to speak at the March –– a bold move for any politician, regardless of how strong his or her beliefs are. The polarity that has resulted since Roe is certainly a cause for concern, and efforts for true bipartisan understanding and dialogue on the matter are increasingly imperative.
Friday, January 24th marked the 47th annual March for Life –– an event that has brought people together in efforts to protect the unborn since 1974. The March began in reaction to the threat to life that resulted from the Supreme Court victories of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the latter of which was also decided in 1973 and ruled abortion regulations to be unconstitutional. The March’s website states its mission as promoting “the beauty and dignity of every human life by working to end abortion—uniting, educating, and mobilizing pro-life people in the public square.” As a national call for action, the event gathers tens of thousands who seek to protect the rights of the unborn together to march to the steps of the Supreme Court.
Before Roe v. Wade, abortion was illegal in 30 states, permitted only under certain circumstances in 16 states, legal in three, and generally permissible in the state of New York. Roe v. Wade dismissed state laws that prohibited abortion and, instead, insisted that women had the right to an abortion until viability of the fetus––a fairly vague term––under the privacy rights of the Fourteenth Amendment. States that had chosen not to allow abortions were then subjected to new laws that condoned the right to abort. The enactment of Roe in 1973 was largely when national polarization on abortion started to become more apparent: abortion became a hot button issue, which fostered an inevitable pressure on government officials.
Many are labeling President Trump as the most pro-life president in history. This claim, however, might be a bit misleading since there was not necessarily a need for a “pro-life president” before the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. Nixon was the acting president when the decision was made, but did not appear to make an official statement on the matter; however, his thoughts on abortion rights were discovered via the Nixon tapes, in which he said that he did not fully support abortion rights because the easy access to procedures would enable excessive abortions and could potentially break up families. He did, however, see abortions as necessary to prevent interracial children and permissible in the case of rape.
The debate over abortion progressed quite a bit following Nixon’s presidency, and the issue became much more partisan. Being pro-life has emerged as an overwhelmingly Republican position, as each president that has outrightly criticized Roe v. Wade has leaned conservative. Presidents Ford, Reagan, H.W. Bush, W. Bush, and Trump have all spoken out in opposition to abortion. However, both Trump and H.W. Bush took less aggressive stances prior to their elections, with each supporting abortion rights early on before switching to pro-life platforms. Ford, on the other hand, became pro-choice in his later years. Presidents who supported the Roe decision include Carter, Clinton, and Obama. This politicization has become very prominent, as crossing party lines on abortion issues is a rarity nowadays.
One might wonder whether the stance that each politician takes on the abortion debate is actually true to his or her personal beliefs on the matter. The capricious nature of H.W. Bush and Trump initially favoring abortion does raise some red flags. Although they did go on to champion the pro-life movement, might this just be a result of party loyalty? Even Bill Clinton opposed abortion in the mid-1980s before changing his position prior to the 1992 election. The increasing partisan nature of the issue demands that candidates tread lightly, lest they experience party and voter backlash.
With Vice President Pence being the first sitting VP to attend the March back in 2017, the Trump administration appears to have sided with the pro-life cause more so than any other administration since the enactment of Roe. The following year, President Trump became the first sitting president to speak to the rally via video; though, it should be noted that both Presidents Reagan and H.W. Bush did address the marchers via phone call and other means during their presidencies, but not nearly to the same extent that Trump did. The Trump administration continued to tout close ties to the March this year when Trump became the first to actually attend and speak at the event in person.
However, President Trump appeared to have an unclear grasp on what the pro-life movement stood for when he was running during the 2016 election. At times he called for the punishment of women who have had abortions –– a stance out of touch with the broader pro-life movement, which instead blames the abortion industry and believes the women are vulnerable victims of the procedures. President Trump has, however, gained an understanding that is more in-tune with the pro-life community since then, and has since presented himself as the most outwardly pro-life president the country has had, evidenced by his passionate speech at the March.
In his speech, the President notably spoke about how he has fought for the protection of life during his time in office. He reinstated and expanded the Mexico City Policy, like George W. Bush did during his presidency, which prevents non-governmental groups from using federal funds to promote abortions in other countries. The policy itself was first instituted by Reagan in 1984. Trump also boasted confirming 187, constitutionally abiding federal judges, including Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. While Gorsuch is perceived as a staunch pro-life ally, Kavanaugh seems less committed to the cause, due in large part to a conversation he had with Senator Susan Collins––a pro-choice Republican––in which he said that Roe v. Wade is “settled law.” He holds this position due to his commitment to preserving precedents set by previous Court decisions. President Trump’s presence at the March was certainly a milestone, but it was only one step in the right direction for the fight for life. The March's audience was those who already support a child's right to life, and if anything President Trump's presence just provided more hope for the eventual end to abortion. Continued political action is necessary in order for the March to someday become a celebration of the guaranteed protection of life, rather than a fight for it.
Nevertheless, Trump has undoubtedly proven himself to be a pro-life advocate, and has succeeded in bringing a great amount of attention to a major political movement that had previously received only minimal consideration on a national level. Despite the seemingly deep partisanship that has stemmed from the Roe v. Wade decision, figures like Louisiana Democratic State Senator Katrina Jackson still emerge as strong advocates for the pro-life movement. She does not believe that Trump’s appearance makes him the best representative of the movement; rather, she hopes that he was able to set a precedent for future presidents to speak about the issue. She also cautions against his attendance making the March seem like a partisan event, going as far as to say she believes a majority of her fellow Louisiana Democrats are pro-life. Her claim is supported by her proposed No Right to Abortion constitutional amendment, which resulted in close votes among Democrats in both the Louisiana State House and Senate (with the former voting against the amendment, and the latter voting in support of it).
The pro-life movement should transcend political movements. The protection of life and the end to abortion is surely something that calls for political action, but not simply on one side of the political spectrum. Life should be fought for and cherished with bipartisan support, and party lines should not prevent anyone from supporting the cause. Perhaps this is a good start to the disregard of presupposed party loyalties in the fight for life. Politicians must act in accordance with their own beliefs and consciences when it comes to issues as vital as the lives of the unborn instead of solely acting as representatives for their chosen political parties: instead, they must act as defenders of humanity. President Trump calling executive attention to the March was a great start, which hopefully builds momentum for the movement in the years to come.