On Abortion, Bill Weld is blinded to science
By: Jeff Quinton
Tags: Abortion, Donald Trump, 2020 Presidential Race, William Weld, Pro Life

I

Former Governor William Weld has never been a conservative (not that there is any conservative running for president, including the incumbent.)

So it’s really no surprise his quixotic attempt to beat an incumbent president is coming from the far left.

Weld is not a serious candidate for the nomination and because of his views, he’s not someone I could re-register as a Republican to vote for in the 2020 primary.

Weld turns his support for abortion into an attack on conservative Christians and and their religious beliefs in a recent opinion piece published at USA Today.

Weld shows how clueless he is when he writes “hard-right leaders” including Tomi Lahren opposes the recent Alabama law. This ignores the fact that Tomi Lahren was fired by Glen Beck, partly because she supports abortion.

While this may be a way for him to curry favor with the media and people who hate both the president and the pro-life movement, it ignores the fact that there are plenty of pro-life Americans who are principled pro-lifers who don’t blindly support the president. I’m not saying that’s a large number, but Weld needs all the help he can get if he wants to actually get votes in a GOP primary.

Weld writes:

Both Alabama’s and Georgia’s recent anti-abortion laws put forward the hypothesis that unborn fetuses are persons or human beings entitled to legal protection. But this is their hypothesis — a position they have chosen to adopt, not an indisputable and scientifically proven fact. Frankly, this is religion, not science.

As a friend of mine, Kelsey Hazzard (founder and President of Secular Pro-Life) has written:

For decades, the abortion industry has depicted the pro-life cause as a narrow, out-of-touch religious crusade. As an atheist pro-life advocate, I know better. I am proud to work alongside compassionate people of every faith and none. We are a human rights movement, protecting human beings in the womb from senseless destruction and offering their parents empowering, peaceful solutions.

Be sure to read more about Secular Pro-Life’s positions on abortion.

Let’s look at some of the other facts about Roe v. Wade as well as in science in the pro-life arguments.

As my friend and former colleague Clarke Forsythe at Americans United for Life has written on the Roe decision:

Well-documented briefs were filed showing the growing medical data on fetal development. Dorothy Beasley, the attorney representing Georgia in Doe v. Bolton, told the justices in December 1971 that “the State has a greater obligation to protect that fetal life” than ever before. “There are more methods now that can be used to protect it,” she added, “including blood transfusions and surgery while it’s still in the womb.” Unfortunately, Justice Harry Blackmun’s majority opinion in Roe casually dismissed the science and “the well-known facts of fetal development,” and instead stated, “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins.”

As you will recall, Bill Weld was the Libertarian Party nominee for Vice President in 2016. He apparently never had any exposure to Libertarians for Life, or this paper — When Do Human Beings Begin? “Scientific Myths” and Scientific Facts — written by Dianne N. Irving, Ph.D.

Libertarians for Life also notes:

One popular misconception is that libertarianism as a political principle supports choice on abortion. And major elements within the libertarian movement (the Libertarian Party, for example) take abortion-choice stands. Nonetheless, libertarianism’s basic principle is that each of us has the obligation not to aggress against (violate the rights of) anyone else — for any reason (personal, social, or political), however worthy. That is a clearly pro-life principle. Recognizing that, and seeing the abortion-choice drift within the libertarian movement, Libertarians for Life was founded in 1976 to show why abortion is a wrong under justice, not a right.

Another LFL piece — Atheist, Secular, and Pro-Life — features Ms. Hazzard of Secular Pro-Life.

Another great resource for information on the science related to abortion, and other pro-life issues, is the Charlotte Lozier Institute:

Science has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that each human life begins at conception. From this point on, the developing being is a unique, irreplaceable member of our human family. Sound public policy must reflect this definitive scientific consensus, safeguarding the right to life for every human being at every stage of development irrespective of his or her age, health, or utility to others.

While I think there are parts of the pro-life movement that need to work on their messaging, and adopt some of the proven tactics that Trent Horn talks about, it doesn’t change the fact that Bill Weld is parroting talking points of NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and others who favor abortion.

Weld and the others who support abortion-on-demand for any reason up to full-term are ignoring the science because it doesn’t fit their own biases while bashing the ignorant “bitter clingers” who follow their religious beliefs is what they base their arguments on.

While John Kasich is a mixed bag on the life issue, I wouldn’t register as a Republican again to vote for him either. Larry Hogan falls somewhere between Kasich and Weld on pro-life issues, but he is generally spineless and isn’t running after all.

While I won’t be voting to re-elect President Trump in 2020, I understand why some of my pro-life friends are even if I don’t agree with them. I didn’t vote for him, or anyone else for president, last time and have little interest in doing the same next year thanks to the awful ballot access laws in Maryland.

I had someone accuse me of being a single issue voter recently over a state issue, and I pointed out that’s simply not true. I am pro-life from the point of conception all the way through life to a natural death, however.

I will discuss more on my beliefs on a lot of different issues soon, as well as more on persuasion versus “owning the libs” as the recent dust-up surrounding criticism of David French centered upon.