We’ve covered this story here and here and here. Now a leader of the pro-life movement says, “It is not the job of the pro-life movement to vote for President Trump.” Her name is Lila Rose and she leads the pro-life group Live Action.
Here is a taste of Rose’s recent interview with Ian Ward of Politico:
I’ve received no confirmation from the Trump campaign that they’re going to secretly lie about abortion and then go do pro-life things afterward. I think that’s a narrative that there’s no proof to back up. And I think that if he actually is secretly pro-life and he’s just doing this to win both — I think it’s morally wrong and it’s extremely misguided politically.
He’s alienating his base. Kamala Harris spent a whole week at the DNC rallying her pro-abortion base. Abortion was a headline issue at the DNC, and Trump’s response to that is saying, “Well, I guess I’m going to alienate my base.” He’s not getting Kamala’s base.
And this:
If you look at the 2016 campaign, he was much more vocally pro-life than he is now, and he had more public promises to do pro-life advocacy. Now he’s changed his position. And he is not only not saying pro-life things — he’s actively saying he would support pro-abortion policy. That’s a very important distinction, and no amount of “Well, it’s just politics” cover up that fact. Vance has come out and said that [Trump] would veto an abortion ban, that he supports abortion pills, that he supports “reproductive rights” without clarifying what that means. [Trump] was behind the RNC platform being weakened on this, which for four decades was strong on life, and now it’s been weakened.
Don’t get me wrong — I would love to see Trump coming out standing strong with life and say, “I’m going to fight for life” [with] a strong pro-life message. I would love to see him stop saying this nonsense about supporting abortion. But unfortunately, that’s not the case.
And this:
People will need to vote their conscience in November. We’re over two months out, so there’s a lot of things that can change. I think that it’s the job of the pro-life movement to demand protection for pre-born lives. It is not the job of the pro-life movement to vote for President Trump.
In some cases, you can make the argument that it can be the right move to vote for the lesser of two evils. But part of our job is not to just accept whatever position we’ve been handed — especially from a politician who, in the past, has counted on our vote and has indicated that he is pro-life [before] changing his position. It’s our job, if we want to be an effective lobbying group in any way, to demand more and to say, “If you want my vote, I need to see more from you.” This is how politics works. This is how any advocacy or movement works, whether it’s gun rights or immigration rights or whatever the advocacy group is fighting for. If you will always be happy to support a candidate provided that they are just a fraction better than the next candidate, you will never achieve your goals for the group that you’re fighting for.
Read the entire interview here.
Here is Rose’s earlier comments on Trump:
Rose is not the only one bothered by Trump’s new pro-choice position. (And yes, it is a pro-choice position. He wants the individual states to CHOOSE whether or not abortion will be legal.)
Here’s the latest from the evangelical community:
Mat Staver’s Liberty Counsel is troubled. Here is a taste of the organization’s August 27th statement:
Former President Donald Trump troubled many conservatives and Christians with a post on Truth Social Friday evening stating, “My Administration will be great for women and their reproductive rights.” The Republican presidential nominee is using “reproductive rights” to refer to abortion.
President Trump’s post follows his recent backing of the Republican platform unveiled last July, which departed from the GOP’s historically strong pro-life position by paring down the platform’s pro-life language and softened its stance on abortion bans. President Trump’s rhetorical shift has many pro-life supporters concerned that he is more focused about winning over people who are pro-abortion than staying true to the pro-life principles and values of his base.
Robert Jeffress is turning the conversation to veterans and 2017:
Here is Tony Perkins:
Can we truly be one nation when just over half the 50 states protect the unborn and half do not? The Democratic presidential nominee, Kamala Harris, has made clear she wants a nationwide policy that would trample upon the right to life and eliminate nearly every pro-life state law. Don’t take my word for it; read the party’s 92-page platform, which clearly outlines their plans and priorities.
“Vice President Harris and Democrats are committed to restoring the reproductive rights Trump ripped away. With a Democratic Congress, we will pass national legislation to make Roe the law of the land again.”
First, definitions matter. “Reproductive rights”? Everyone has the right to not engage in sex or to use contraception; taking the life of an unborn child is not health care, nor should it be a right. However, please take note of their stated objective: national legislation that would make Roe v. Wade the law of the land. That legislation, the Women’s Health Protection Act, has already been introduced by former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and it would take the nation back to 1973, erasing hundreds of pro-life policy victories won over the last 50 years and imposing abortion until birth — at taxpayer expense — upon the entire nation.
What is Donald Trump saying on the issue? He avoids it by saying abortion is now a states’ rights issue. While the states have led the charge to protect life, they can’t do it alone when the federal government has greenlighted deadly abortion pills, which now account for the majority of abortions, being mailed into every state — even those with the strongest protections for the unborn.
America cannot and will not withstand being half for protecting life and half for taking life. We will be one thing or all the other. That is why we must not focus only on the presidential race, as important as it is. Every elected office matters. Be informed and be engaged.
Jack Graham does not want to criticize Trump. Of course not:
The theobros are holding their ground:
Having said that, one of them still appears to be voting for Trump. Apparently it has something to do with “gay communism” and a dislike of Peter Wehner:
As I have noted before, the real story here may be just how many pro-Trump evangelicals have been silent on this issue.
UPDATE (9:20pm): Albert Mohler’ weighs-in: