{"id":272,"date":"2016-07-21T22:39:35","date_gmt":"2016-07-22T02:39:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/?p=272"},"modified":"2017-02-14T15:05:28","modified_gmt":"2017-02-14T19:05:28","slug":"sabotages-peace","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/index.php\/2016\/07\/21\/sabotages-peace\/","title":{"rendered":"Inconsistency Sabotages the Peace Movement"},"content":{"rendered":"

Remin<\/em>der: The Consistent Life Network\u2019s blog is for the airing of a wide variety of views connected to the consistent life ethic. Therefore, the views are those of the author and not necessarily of the organization. Political elections are especially likely to elicit sharply differing perspectives from consistent-lifers.<\/em><\/p>\n

On t<\/strong>he Occasion of the 2016 U.S. Democrat Party Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n

by Rachel MacNair<\/p>\n

There are many reasons to think Donald Trump\u2019s electability is low. The alienation he causes is deep, including among conservatives who normally are comfortable voting Republican (see for example columns of Ross Douthat, David Brooks, George Will, and the National Review<\/em>). Still, as long as he\u2019s on the ballot, Trump winning possible, as polling is showing (though it\u2019s not normally reliable until after Labor Day).<\/p>\n

Several endorsers of the Consistent Life Mission Statement have signed on to an open letter entitled \u201cCalled to Resist Bigotry<\/a>,\u201d documenting that we have a candidate who\u2019s far more problematic than usual.<\/p>\n

What about Single-Issue Abortion Opponents?<\/strong><\/p>\n

I know from two recent pro-life conferences that many pro-life activists that Trump\u2019s nomination is a harmful turn of events. So why might single-issue pro-lifers still vote for him?<\/p>\n

Reason 1: The Supreme Court <\/em><\/p>\n

The U.S. Supreme Court has become a political football ever since it made a political decision in Roe v. Wade<\/em>, taking the decision regarding abortion laws away from the state legislatures and taking away the right of the citizenry \u2013 including women who\u2019ve had abortions \u2013 to petition their legislatures for a redress of their grievances.<\/p>\n

Roe<\/em> was a profound betrayal of democracy. The struggle to restore democratic debate, rather than imposition of top-down policy preferences, by elite judges who are out of touch with the harsh realities of abortion, is not a minor thing. Of course, even having the very right to life of human beings subject to democratic debate is a problem, since it should be a given. But at least that would be an improvement over the current intolerable elitist situation.<\/p>\n

Trump knows the Supreme Court justice issue is crucial to a large portion of voters, which is why he\u2019s already released his short list of names he might appoint to the U.S. Supreme Court, ones who may be anti-Roe<\/em>. And even if he\u2019s unreliable on doing what he said he would \u2013 he actually prides himself on being unreliable \u2013 at least he might<\/em> still appoint one of those. And he might<\/em> fight for their ratification, and not decide to negotiate them away in a deal.<\/p>\n

But Clinton can be pretty well counted on to appoint judges that will strengthen Roe<\/em> for decades.<\/p>\n

(Neither candidate, of course, is likely to appoint consistent-life judges, which is what we naturally advocate for, but I\u2019m discussing the reasoning of single-issue voters).<\/p>\n

\"blog<\/p>\n

Reason 2: Fear of Clinton<\/em><\/p>\n

Aside from court appointments, what could happen under Clinton?<\/p>\n