OPINION:
Former President Donald Trump has outlined his position on the right to life. It is, as expected, gently tilted toward the right side of the center. He thinks states should make the determination about the legality or illegality of abortion. The usual folks have lined up in the usual configurations.
Democrats pounced immediately, claiming that the former president was really in favor of a nationwide ban. Republicans were either relieved or disappointed, depending on whether they actually care about the right to life or merely use the issue for political purposes.
Unfortunately, the emphasis was on, as always, the legalistic, punitive edge of the issue. Make no mistake: Boundaries are needed. The only nations that allow abortions up until birth are China and North Korea. In Europe, most nations preclude abortion after 12 or 15 weeks. There is a recognition among people in the civilized world that, at some point, society has an interest in protecting nascent life.
At the same time, we need to recognize that people must change before kingdoms change. If humans want something intensely enough — drugs, alcohol, revenge, etc. — they will eventually find it. The law is not able to prevent bad decisions at all times. The best way to reduce abortions is to address demand.
Protecting and advocating the value of life is not just another sad, transactional political issue, like who will pay how much in taxes or how many semicolons are in a regulation. Without the protection and preservation of life, every other right and freedom becomes purely academic.
As he often does, Sen. Marco Rubio has shown the way forward. The Florida Republican recently made a compelling case that creating a pro-child, pro-mother, pro-family agenda is one of the best ways to affect the hearts and minds of those faced with what can be an incredibly difficult decision.
He’s right. At the precise moment in her life when a young mother needs support and guidance from her community, our public policies essentially leave her to bear the weight — and consequences — of her decision entirely alone.
In her essay this past week, my colleague Kelly Sadler made an excellent point: Very few women want to have an abortion. It is not a happy moment in anyone’s life and is usually the terminal point in a series of difficult and sometimes poorly made choices.
We need to ensure that mothers have the material and emotional support — and know they have the support — necessary to make the best decisions for themselves and their children.
Does that mean state-sponsored maternal health care, state-sponsored child care or child support for those in the womb? Maybe. It certainly means that private programs like Mira Via at Belmont Abbey College, which allows expectant mothers to start or continue their education while bringing their children into the world, are essential.
Congress has been considering an extended child tax credit. While there are some valid concerns about the legislation weakening work requirements, it is difficult to say with a straight face that we can’t solve the equation for work requirements while extending and improving the tax credit. That extension currently scores at about $30 billion between now and 2026, or, for purposes of context, less than 10% of the cost of the energy tax credits embedded in the Inflation Reduction Act.
What’s more important to our society than having and raising children? What, exactly, does this society value?
Apart from the substantial moral and humanitarian reasons to discourage abortion, there is a simple utilitarian reason: People are going to be the most valuable, important and scarce resource in the next century. Nations that grow, especially organically, will have a decided advantage on the planet. Nations that are literally dying — with birthrates below replacement level — will not become or remain world powers.
Finally, and most importantly, as Mr. Rubio notes: “We occupy the high ground, and it’s time to act like it.” Our national goal should be to achieve a day in which there are no abortions in the United States. A good first step would be to reframe the conversation and policy approaches in ways that prioritize empathy and support.
• Michael McKenna is a contributing editor at The Washington Times and a co-host of the podcast “The Unregulated.”
Please read our comment policy before commenting.