Slavery, Abortion, and the MAGA Republican Platform

In a July 8th 2024 article, the Washington Times reported that “the Republican National Committee took cues from presumptive presidential nominee Donald Trump…and made a giant step toward passing a party platform that softens its stance on federal abortion limits,” describing the new platform as a “Trump-inspired vision that omits the party’s embrace of a human life amendment to the Constitution and a 20-week federal ban on most abortions.”

The writers of the 16-page document have dedicated the new platform to the “forgotten men and women of America” but chose to intentionally “soften” its provisions that protected America’s forgotten unborn children.

According to the Washington Times, since the overturning of Roe v. Wade Trump’s position on the issue of abortion is that it is an “emotional issue better left to the states to decide,” and that “pushing the issue too hard hurts the party’s chances of winning.”

A generous but fair treatment of the platform committee’s thought process is that the principles of conservatism demand that the Republican Party be completely against any federal interference where the federal government does not have an explicit Constitutional role.  Its authors might argue that the refurbished plank does not abandon the issue, but rather acknowledges the recent Dobbs decision and supports putting the question back into the hands of the states where, as a matter of federalism and conservatism, it should rightly be.

We would humbly remind the reader that slavery was also once considered to be properly a state issue.  It required a war and several Constitutional amendments to finally recognize the personhood of every American, and to secure the God-given inalienable rights (as defined in our Declaration of Independence) of a people who for centuries had been labeled as “property” for the sake of conscience, convenience, profit, and political expedience.

To this day, our Founders are vilified and maligned for their initial compromise regarding the institution of slavery; for “softening” their position and leaving – as Federick Douglas described it – “a venomous serpent coiled in the country’s bosom.” 

We believe abortion is a second cousin to that venomous serpent.  It remains coiled in our country’s bosom, and we refuse to let it go.  As with slavery, we should rightly fear the consequences of the approaching judgment that a just God must eventually visit upon our nation for its indulgence of this equally abominable “national transgression.”  

In his second inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln skillfully connected the dots between the size and scope of the Civil War’s cause and consequence, describing the deadly bite of that venomous serpent.

“The Almighty has his own purposes. ‘Woe unto the world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.’  If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through his appointed time, he now wills to remove, and that he gives to both North and South this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to him?  Fondly do we hope—fervently do we pray—that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away.  Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, ‘The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.’’” 

God is a meticulous Accountant.  Lincoln believed that the devastation from the Civil War was indeed the payment extracted from this country for the presumptuous sin of enslaving some 12 million people over a period of 250 years.  If that is true, it remains to be seen what judgement the Almighty has in store for an unrepentant and remorseless nation that has slaughtered more than 60 million children in the womb since 1973.  Will God accept as a valid excuse that “it was a state issue”?

As for political platforms, abolition and abortion have much more in common than we may wish to admit.  At their center, slavery and abortion are both rooted in identical principles: both of these abhorrent institutions subjugate a voiceless, faceless, helpless group of people placed in a vulnerable position through no choice of their own, deny them their rightful status as human beings, and then exploit them for personal, economic, and social benefit. 

Thankfully, slavery – in its most blatant and brutal forms – has been effectively dead in this country for many years, and no political party feels it necessary to include its position on that topic in its platform.  But if either party were ever to recommend bringing it back, or returning it to the states to decide, do we think for a moment that the other party would not loudly proclaim its opposition to it as part of their platform?  Should we not be just as bold in our opposition to abortion, until that day in which it is equally as unthinkable and abhorrent to the public conscience as the evils of slavery?

A party’s platform outlines not just its goals, but its identity – not just at the national level, but at the state and local levels as well.  It is the banner under which every candidate and nominee at every level (local, state, and federal) rallies.  Placing value on the sanctity of life should be a part of who we are, and we should be able to advocate for it without inferring a design for a federal overreach.

For any Constitutional conservative, the words “ban” and “mandate” have no place in proper governance; all matters should be either properly addressed by laws or Constitutional amendments adopted by a representative legislature, or left alone.  We contend that including (retaining, not adding) this plank in the party’s platform does not infer a design for unconstitutional federal interference.  It is merely a statement of underlying principles that inform a political worldview and value system, which is important for the American people to know.  The strategy is no doubt an attempt to appeal to a wider voting population through a more tempered approach to a very emotional and divisive issue, but it is likely that the move will alienate far more voters than it will attract.

At present, the matter must properly reside with the states; but if America is to preserve its soul, we believe it must eventually be elevated to a Constitutional issue and resolved with an amendment in favor of life, which is what the former platform advocated.

The question is who will be our William Wilberforce?  Our John Quincy Adams?  Our Frederick Douglas?  Our Abraham Lincoln?  

Judging by this newly proposed platform, the new Republican Party has no such leadership.