Erika Bachiochi, a pro-life legal scholar who refused to vote for Donald Trump in 2016, has penned an essay for the New York Times expressing gratitude that other pro-life voters did vote for him.
While she once advocated against pro-lifers casting a vote for Trump, Bachiochi softened after reflecting on the ramifications of the Dobbs v. Jackson Supreme Court case. Thanks to the pro-life justices nominated by Trump and confirmed during his presidency, Dobbs could lead to a dramatic victory for the pro-life movement when the Court issues its ruling next year.
Bachiochi lives in a blue state (Massachusetts) where Republican presidential votes are virtually guaranteed to make no difference, she wrote. During the past two presidential elections, however, “I felt a strong sense of relief that I was free from the hard trade-offs of voters in battleground states and could just cast my vote for a write-in candidate.”
“Yet listening to oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization last week, I realized more clearly than before how grateful I am to those pro-lifers who did what I did not, would not, could not: cast a vote for Donald Trump,” Bachiochi wrote.
Judging from last week’s oral arguments, Bachiochi noted that “Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, all appointed by Mr. Trump, seem ready to join Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito (and perhaps Chief Justice John Roberts) in sending the issue of abortion back to the people to resolve.”
“But it’s not only that,” Bachiochi went on. “Mr. Trump’s economic populism (at least in rhetoric) blasted through the libertarianism that has tended to dominate the G.O.P., a libertarianism that has made the party’s alliance with pro-lifers one of strange bedfellows indeed.” She added that in a “post-Roe world,” the GOP will “have to offer the country the matrix of ethnic diversity and economic solidarity that Mr. Trump stumbled upon, but without the divisiveness of the man himself.”
Full story at Catholic Vote.
One does not have to like Mr. Trump in order to appreciate the accomplishments of his administration. He tried to keep his campaign promises (even if one might not agree with all of them). That’s unusual in itself. And, he accomplished quite a bit for life, liberty (including religious liberty) and a more Constitutional judicial system. And, regardless of one’s opinion of the COVID vaccines, it was his “Operation Warpspeed” that made vaccines available in record time. We should give credit where credit is due. And, our fellow Catholic, Mr. Biden, has done more to, among other things, promote the killing of babies, oppose religious liberty and promote the perverse and dangerous transgender agenda than any previous president. Who would’ve thought?
Interesting- the premise I am observing is that so long as a person running for President asserts their power to a given agenda item of this readership, he is considered still “good” I’m not going to devolve into the various sins of President Trump, but how many of his supporters seem to go with the “So long as he gets us SCOTUS appointees who will destroy Roe V Wade, we can back him”. Well, ya’ll got what you wanted: Trump appointed three candidates who were fairly open about their pre-opinion on RVW, and tried to obfuscate enough in order to secure their nomination. So now my high school students AND their families are of the opinion that, if RVW is taken down or rendered moot by SCOTUS, then judges are not appointed for their law knowledge nor character, but rather if their opinions on a personal level or conviction will supercede a judge’s obligation to remain neutral when hearing testimony, etc. I would not want to enter a court of law if I knew the judge had openly spoke of their distaste for a group, as there would be the assumption that their ruling would be biased toward that distaste. By packing the court, there is the potential that many of the freedoms we enjoy may become in jeopardy, with shades of The Handmaid’s Tale’s Gilead, wherein a theocratic take over of the country manifests itself, and suddenly women were once again relegated to baby incubators, mothers, wives whose value is based on if they could conceive, their attractiveness, etc. Imagine if these three SCOTUS then ruled against Catholic teachings because they were not keen on some aspect of it because their Christian/Evangelical friends finally felt they had the judges to make such rulings.
What an absurd post, m. “… judges are not appointed for their law knowledge nor character, but rather if their opinions on a personal level or conviction will supersede a judge’s obligation to remain neutral when hearing testimony, etc. …” So you think RvW is an exercise of outstanding law knowledge or outstanding character? There was nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support RvW. The Court simply fashioned and announced a new constitutional right. The Fourteenth Amendment, to which the majority appealed, was not intended to create any new rights, but to secure to all persons, notably including freed slaves and their descendants, the rights and liberties already guaranteed by the Constitution. Moreover, a “privacy right” large enough to encompass abortion could also be applied to virtually any conduct performed outside the public view, including child abuse or using illicit drugs.
Outstanding character? To deny the Hippocratic Oath is therefore good character? To deny humanity to unborn children and permit their slaughter is good character? Your problem, m, is that your character is scarred and tainted and corrupted by abortion. You fail to acknowledge that the Democratic party has a litmus test for all nominees to the Court as this overturns your charge of Court packing, the very thing the Party of Death desires at this moment.
More nonsense from m: “…I would not want to enter a court of law if I knew the judge had openly spoke of their distaste for a group, …” Poor m: you think the pro-life position is based on distaste for pregnant women? I have never read such an outlandish tale, void of understanding, anywhere in all pro-life literature or proclamations. You have made this charge out of thin air, just as the Court in RvW created the abortion right out of thin air. And the irony of all this is missed upon you — the Court openly denied the humanity of the unborn child and permitted their slaughter up until birth. If that is not distaste for a group, then nothing is.
m, personal sins are not the same as public policy.
And, sins, especially those from years ago, may well have been repented of. God only knows.
And, to bring up the Handmaid’s Tale as relevant is absurd.
” So now my high school students AND their families are of the opinion that,…” M, do us all a favor and teach your high school students the virtues of self-control and that self-sacrifice that is fundamental to love in relationships. Teach them that any sex that would lay open the possibility for abortion is evil. Not bad, but evil. Then you would be teaching your students true virtue, and you would gain the supreme gift of a clear conscience.
President Trump helped the pro-life movement by appointing these conservative justices. Catholic-in-name-only Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi have consistently promoted legislation for the murder of pre-born babies. These two politicians find nothing wrong with their support of abortion on demand.
Trump should be eligible for communion.
Should he enter the Church and go to Confession, he would be.
Isn’t that what we want for everyone?
Why can’t we just post anonymously? People still do it. You add a name. What is the purpose of that?