Difference between revisions of "Response to National Review"

National Review, through Ed Whelan, has posted a series of articles criticizing the effort by Andy Schlafly and 70 pro-life leaders for fulfilling Trump's pledge to nominate pro-life justices to the Supreme Court. By way of background, Whalen's criticisms disparage the very concept of appointing a "really pro-life" justice to the Supreme Court, so he is a weak candidate to talk about satisfying the pledge. Indeed, Whalen himself may not even support Trump's pledge, and earlier Whalen stridently opposed Trump and even insisted that Catholics should not back him at all.

President-Elect Trump morally, emphatically, and repeatedly made a welcomed "read my lips"-style of campaign pledge to American voters, to nominate pro-life judges to the U.S. Supreme Court so it can overturn Roe v. Wade. Trump even reiterated his salutary pledge in a 60 Minutes interview after the election. The pro-life movement must speak out now to ensure fulfillment of this all-important pledge.

Enter Ed Whalen, who reports to Leonard Leo, a director of the D.C.-based think tank where Whalen works. Leonard Leo is executive vice president of the Federalist Society, which is not a pro-life organization and which has never had a pro-life presentation at its annual conference for decades. Mr. Leo is steering Trump away from his pledge to nominate a pro-life justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, just as advisers to the first President Bush steered him away from his "read my lips" pledge with disastrous political results.

Obviously there are Republican senators and other Trump advisers who want to avoid a confirmation fight over abortion, and who would prefer to ignore the pledge. The ostensibly pro-life adviser to Trump, Leonard Leo, is not even helpful in honoring the pledge and has recommended candidates who are not pro-life and who will not overturn Roe v. Wade. Mr. Leo even stated on Bloomberg Law radio that he does not envision the new Court, with Trump-nominated justices, overturning Roe v. Wade:

"There are lots of follow-on regulations to abortion involving partial-birth abortion, fetal pain and other issues that the court hasn’t fully resolved," Leo, who met with Trump on [November 17], said on the Bloomberg Law radio show. "When he talks about Roe v. Wade, that’s probably the way he’s thinking about it." [1]

The Bloomberg Law reporter then correctly explained in the same article how Mr. Leo's own statements are at odds with Trump's pledge to the American voters:

During the third presidential debate with Hillary Clinton in October, he said that overturning Roe v. Wade would "happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court."

In a "60 Minutes" interview that aired Nov. 13, Trump discussed the prospect that, with Roe overturned, some states would be able to ban abortion altogether.

Mr. Leo has been pushing candidates who are not pro-life and who would not overturn Roe v. Wade. These candidates are Judges Diane Sykes, Steve Colloton, Neil Gorsuch, and Raymond Kethledge, and Justices Joan Larsen and Allison Eid, as explained here. These candidates must be rejected by the pro-life community, and Trump should nominate a justice who has a solid pro-life record, such as Florida Supreme Court Justice Charles Canady.

Andy Schlafly