Former President Donald Trump issued a video presenting his position on abortion and IVF. On Monday, Trump posted the four-minute video to Truth Social, his social media platform where he has amassed nearly 7 million followers.
Regarding abortion, Trump said that he is “proudly the person responsible for the end of Roe v. Wade,” and that abortion restrictions and regulation is now “all about the will of the people.” We are grateful for Trump’s Supreme Court choices and that the Court’s blockade of pro-life laws is now lifted, but we have to question whether the recent spate of state amendments reopening the child-killing floodgates is genuinely the will of the people, or rather the will of the abortion industry and its wealthy donors. By massively outspending pro-lifers, abortion advocates have, with the help of the media, used deceptive messaging to pass constitutional amendments that legalize abortion through birth.
We completely agree with Trump’s calling out the Democratic Party for its fanatical support of unrestricted abortion through birth – and beyond. In California, for example, the abortion lobby pushed through a bill that prohibits prosecuting women for any “pregnancy outcome” including “perinatal death due to causes that occurred in utero.” Perinatal death is the period up to one month after birth – and the California law has become a model for other states. As Trump described it, this is “execution after birth.”
It was regrettable, however, that other than decrying very late term abortion, Trump did not condemn abortion or express support for any pro-life measures, such as gestational limits, parental involvement for minors, or bans on discriminatory abortion. He chose instead to make more general statements about “the miracle of life” and the “creation of strong, healthy, thriving American families.”
In that vein, Trump also praised the Alabama legislature for passing a bill granting full immunity to IVF clinics and individuals after the Alabama Supreme Court held that embryos created through IVF are “extra-uterine children.” At issue in the case was whether parents could sue an IVF clinic after their embryos were accidentally destroyed. The court’s ruling raised questions as to the legal status of IVF embryos and whether they were legally protected from deliberate destruction, a common practice in the IVF process. Just the raising of those questions was enough for IVF clinics in Alabama to pause their operations until the legislature stepped into shield them from liability.
Trump did not address the ethical concerns inherent in IVF, including the reality that 80% of embryos created through IVF do not survive implantation and that hundreds of thousands of “surplus” embryos remain frozen, often for decades, before being destroyed. Babies conceived through IVF are also more likely to suffer complications, including premature birth, lower birth rate, and long-term disabilities, than babies conceived naturally. While we agree with Trump that the miracle of life should be celebrated, we do not believe IVF is an ethical solution to infertility.
Trump also stressed the importance of voting and the need to “win elections to restore our culture and save our country.” While it never sits comfortably to hear that the right to life of innocent human beings will be determined at the ballot box, that is the practical political reality, and it is a reality far superior to a handful of unelected judges exercising that power. While Trump’s emphatic shifting of the responsibility for restricting abortion to the states has disappointed some pro-lifers, Trump’s stance is overwhelmingly preferable to President Biden’s actions putting the full weight of the executive branch behind protecting, promoting, and expanding abortion. Thanks to President Trump, we now have the chance to cast our own votes for life and to win the hearts, minds, and vote of others for the same cause.
Trump also recently criticized the Arizona State Supreme Court for upholding strong 1846 ban of the sort all pro-lifers should support. His critique was unwarranted. There was no constitutional basis for striking down the law, and courts should not be making policy.