Can Trump salvage the pro-life vote?

This article was first published in the On the Trail 2024 newsletter. Sign up to receive the newsletter in your inbox on Tuesday and Friday mornings here. To submit a question to next week’s Friday Mailbag, email [email protected].
Hello, friends.Happy college football season. Will this be the year for my BYU Cougars?
The pro-lifers’ Trump problem
Late last year, a Deseret News/HarrisX poll asked voters whether they thought certain U.S. politicians — Trump, Biden, Harris, Mike Pence, Mitt Romney — are “people of faith.” A majority of Republicans said they thought Trump was, more so than any other politician on the list. When we ran the question again two months later, Trump was still atop the list for Republicans: Nearly two-thirds said they saw the former president as a “person of faith.”
In that second poll, we attempted to ask why. We found there was some difference when we asked whether a politician was “religious” — i.e., models religious values, adheres to religious beliefs or is involved in a faith community — versus broadly being a “person of faith.” Less than half of Republican voters — and less than one-third of all U.S. voters — said they thought Trump was religious. But there was something about Trump’s appeal to religious voters that made him, in their view, a fellow person of faith.
That was due in part, the data showed, to his defense of pro-life policy. When asked why they believe Trump is a person of faith, Republican respondents pointed to his policy stances: he “supports policies focused on families,” or he “defends people of faith in the United States,” or, a response selected by 41% of Republican respondents, “his position on abortion.”
It’s a refrain I’ve heard from conservatives, many of them religious, all across the country over the past year. Some are repelled by Trump’s moral character and his brashness; others don’t see eye-to-eye with him on trade or foreign policy. “And yet, you have Donald Trump, who did a lot for religious freedom, who did a lot by putting good conservatives on the courts that helped overturn Roe v. Wade,” one staffer on Vivek Ramaswamy’s short-lived Iowa campaign told me last year. “Give credit where credit is due.”
Give him too much credit, though, and Trump may be locked into an untenable policy position. Early in his campaign, Trump seemed to come to the conclusion that he couldn’t both cheer his three Supreme Court nominees’ decision on Dobbs and support a federal ban on abortion. Either abortion would be turned back over to the states, as the conservative-controlled Court ruled, or Trump would uphold pro-life federal policy.
Trump largely sidestepped the issue during the GOP primary. It cost him some support from evangelical kingmakers in Iowa, but it was no matter — he romped through that state’s caucuses and scooped up the party’s nomination with little problem. Come spring, he managed to fix his general election race against Biden on the economy and immigration, pivoting away from abortion whenever possible. (It’s a tactic Trump’s acolytes down-ballot used heavily, too.)
But now, with Harris atop the Democratic ticket, Trump is out of political options. He’s running against a staunchly pro-choice candidate — who leads the White House’s reproductive rights initiatives — and is seeking votes from an increasingly pro-choice populace. Common campaign wisdom would instruct Trump to moderate his stance. Moderate, he has: he’s promised to not restrict access to abortion pills; his running mate said he would promptly veto any federal abortion ban passed by Congress; and Trump himself vowed his administration would “be great for women and their reproductive rights.” When asked by The Bulwark’s Andrew Egger if Trump really meant all this, his campaign doubled down, emphasizing he “will NOT sign a federal ban” and instead defer to “the rights of states.”
The “pro-life justification for supporting Trump,” The Atlantic’s Peter Wehner declared, “has just collapsed.”
Many pro-life activists are, understandably, furious. Lila Rose, the anti-abortion activist and social media influencer, told Politico she would not be voting for Trump if the election were held today. “We’re over two months out, so there’s a lot of things that can change,” she said. “I think that it’s the job of the pro-life movement to demand protection for pre-born lives. It is not the job of the pro-life movement to vote for President Trump.”
As for rank-and-file pro-life Christians? “They’re totally confused,” said Chad Connelly, the founder and CEO of Faith Wins and a key architect to Trump’s landslide victory among evangelicals in 2016. Terry Amann, an Iowa pastor who helped vet candidates early in the GOP primary, called Trump’s comments “very disappointing but not surprising.” Trump, Amann told me, is “surrounded by consultants who think only politically, rather than theologically and politically.”
“A campaign which would build on the theme of ‘The most pro-life President in our lifetime yesterday and today’, would energize Evangelical Christians in a way never seen before,” Amann said.
Even if Trump doesn’t change his tone, evangelicals may still flock behind him come Election Day. In an essay, the Washington Examiner’s executive editor reminded his fellow conservatives that not all Republican nominees have been staunchly pro-choice, and compared to Harris, there isn’t much of a choice. Amann seems to agree. “There is no other choice for the Evangelical Christian voter,” he said.
Or is there? At least nine states — including two battlegrounds, Arizona and Nevada — will vote on ballot measures that would enshrine a constitutional right to abortion. Can the pro-life political machines turn out voters for those measures, while expecting them to ignore those views when voting for the top of the ticket?
The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 has monopolized the Trump transition conversation. But at least one other organization is working to prep for a second Trump term: the America First Policy Institute, a conservative think tank led by Trump allies. According to Politico’s reporting, Trump has personally discussed the think tank’s transition plans with its top leaders, and the group’s board chair was recently placed atop Trump’s official transition team. Meet the think tank planning a second Trump administration (Hailey Fuchs and Meridith McGraw, Politico)
Democrats, the party of Reagan? That’s the argument Matt Lewis makes here, sizing up the DNC’s appeals to American exceptionalism and patriotism, and contrasting them with the new-look Republican Party’s stances on federal spending, foreign policy and even reproductive rights. Would Ronald Reagan have run as a 21st-century Democrat? Probably not, but he seems no more likely to have found a home within the GOP. Are the Democrats now the party of Reagan? (Matt Lewis, The Hill)
Questions about polling? This helpful explainer from Pew Research Center dives into what makes a good poll and how political polls have changed since the 2016 election. Read more: Key things to know about U.S. election polling in 2024
See you on the trail.
Editor’s Note: The Deseret News is committed to covering issues of substance in the 2024 presidential race from its unique perspective and editorial values. Our team of political reporters will bring you in-depth coverage of the most relevant news and information to help you make an informed decision. Find our complete coverage of the election here.