After the fast-tracked platform adoption at this month’s Republican National Convention, pro-lifers are still reeling. Social conservatives like Princeton’s Dr. Robert George, a preeminent legal mind, are appalled at the hollowing out of the party’s guiding document, which abandoned the GOP’s core principles and specific vision for the unborn. In a candid conversation with Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on last Thursday’s “Washington Watch,” Dr. George outlined how devastating the RNC’s rewrite is to the cause of life, marriage, and family — and where Christian voters go from here.
TONY PERKINS: When Donald Trump first ran for president in 2016, he aggressively courted the Christian vote, declaring himself personally pro-life as well as a supporter of federal legislation to protect unborn babies. As president, he followed through. He did exactly what he said he was going to do, appointing three justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, which led to the overturn of Roe v. Wade. As the 2024 election approaches, former President Trump’s team changed the tune a little bit, aggressively pushing through the 2024 platform, refusing to allow amendments or even debate which, frankly, makes this statement by Senator J.D. Vance last night ring a bit hollow.
J.D. VANCE (video clip): My message to my fellow Americans, those watching from across the country is, shouldn’t we be governed by a party that is unafraid to debate ideas and come to the best solution? That’s the Republican Party of the next four years, united in our love for this country and committed to free speech and the open exchange of ideas.
PERKINS: Well, I embrace that as an ideal, and I think it’s essential. But it didn’t happen last week at the RNC Platform Committee. And it’s not just the process that’s problematic, it’s actually the product could have been much better had we been able to amend it and change it. The platform waters down and walks away from bedrock principles that define the modern Republican Party and have made it a competitive party. Supporters of the new platform say it well. It’s succinct and it’s clear. But is it clear? Is it succinct? Joining me now to discuss this [is] Dr. Robert George. He is the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. Dr. George, welcome back to Washington Watch.
SUPPORT LIFENEWS! If you want to help fight abortion, please donate to LifeNews.com!
PROFESSOR ROBERT GEORGE: Great to see you, Tony. It’s been a long time. Thanks for inviting me on to the broadcast.
PERKINS: Well, before we get into a discussion of where the Republican Party may be now on the life issue, marriage, and family, I want to step back for just a moment, because I think we’ve gotten here by maybe a misrepresentation of what happened two years ago at the Supreme Court in the Dobbs case. Did the Supreme Court say that the issue of abortion, of life, was now a state issue, and that the federal government had no role?
GEORGE: It did not say that. And in fact, when the Supreme Court has had occasion to actually rule on federal legislation, for example, the so-called Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, the Supreme Court has actually upheld federal intervention. And that was even before the Dobbs decision. So the Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs does not say that the federal government has no role. … Certainly it’s true that responsibility begins with the states and our system. But if states fail to fulfill their constitutional obligation under the 14th Amendment to accord to each and every person the equal protection of the laws, then that same [14th] Amendment to the Constitution, in its fifth section, in the clearest possible terms, says that Congress shall — not may — shall by appropriate legislation enforce the guarantees of the amendment, including the guarantee of equal protection for all. So the federal government indeed does have a role, and the Supreme Court has not said otherwise.
PERKINS: Well, you brought up the 14th Amendment. Let’s go right to that, because the platform — that’s the only thing that it really mentions in this 2024 platform. Gone is a Human Life Amendment. But the platform mentions the 14th Amendment. But as I read it, some thing’s [were] missing that [had] been there in the past.
GEORGE: The reference to the 14th Amendment is incoherent, Tony, in the platform language, and it’s really inexcusable. We’ve had good platform language for 40 years, protecting unborn children over the period of that 40 years. Liberal Republicans, so-called moderates, pragmatists have worked night and day to try to water down or eliminate that strong pro-life language. People like [former Pennsylvania Senator] Arlen Specter, the late Arlen Specter. You’ll remember this, of course, but it was only when Donald Trump and his operatives this year decided that they wanted rid of that strong pro-life language, that the language was taken out of the platform. The reference to the 14th Amendment invokes the Due Process Clause, not the Equal Protection clause. That’s a mistake, and it claims that the 14th Amendment simply empowers states to protect unborn children. That’s not true either. The authority of the states is plenary. Their governments have general jurisdiction. They exercise what we in constitutional law know as police powers to protect public health, safety, and morals and to advance the common good. The 14th Amendment was enacted by the Republican Party — after slavery was abolished in the 13th Amendment — to give the federal government power to protect people … when states failed in their obligation to protect them. The 14th amendment doesn’t empower states. They don’t need empowerment by the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment empowers the national government, what we call the federal government. This is really inexcusable. This kind of incoherence in the platform language is an embarrassment.
PERKINS: But I want to go back to something that’s missing in terms of the past. Since the mid-80s, we’ve had a call not only for … the Human Life Amendment. But then there was the application of the 14th Amendment to the unborn because.
GEORGE: Via the Equal Protection clause. Tony, that’s what I was saying.
PERKINS: That’s not in here. The unborn is left out.
GEORGE: That’s right. What you have is an incoherent reference to the Due Process Clause. And even then, it does a botch job, because the Due Process Clause is invoked as if it empowers states to do what they can already do. …And what the 14th Amendment … does is empower the national government to protect rights when the states fail in their constitutional obligation to protect them.
PERKINS: I actually had an amendment in the process to clarify and fix a part of that. But there was no debate. There was no discussion. This was forced through. And I go back to something you said a moment ago, [which is] what the moderates and liberals in the party couldn’t do, the conservatives did.
GEORGE: Well, I don’t know if he’s a conservative, but Donald Trump and Trump’s operatives did it. That’s exactly right. We fought that effort off for 40 years when it was people like Arlen Specter. And now, unfortunately, our party, my party, your party has caved in.
PERKINS: But what to me, Doctor George, which was so egregious, was not I’ve been you know, we’ve known each other. I mean, you were a part of the initial interview that I had when I came to the Family Research Council. That’s right.
GEORGE: I was on the board when we hired you. Pretty good decision as things turned out.
PERKINS: Twenty-one years ago. And look, I’ve been in the minority on many issues in the legislative process, but we’ve always had rule of law in debate. And what was so troubling to me was the process in which there was no discussion, no ability to fix this. And not only is it the life issue, but marriage, which is something you and I have worked on as well. All it says here is we support the sanctity of marriage. What does that mean?
GEORGE: It doesn’t define marriage. Past platforms have called for the overturning of bad Supreme Court opinions, which supported the redefinition of marriage, the so-called Obergefell opinion, for example, that has now been taken out. There’s nothing in the party’s platform that calls on our nation to return to the basic principle of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife. Social conservatives, moral conservatives, religious conservatives, Christian conservatives have nothing to cheer about here. This has been an unmitigated catastrophe for the causes, the values in which we believe.
PERKINS: [These were] hard fought battles over decades wiped out in hours.
GEORGE: That’s exactly right. With no serious debate discussion, it was rammed through. I know that you did your best, Tony. I know that you worked hard to try to protect the language that supports our values. But you were not given a fair opportunity, nor were your colleagues.
PERKINS: Well, the media was kept out. Now I know why they did not want to see. They did not want the world to see what they were doing. They didn’t want conservatives to see what they did behind those locked doors. … There’s been some pushback. Now, of course, the assassination attempt over the weekend kind of shifted the focus, and unity became the focus. And I understand. So that debate kind of diminished. But it has popped up a little bit during the course of the week, and mostly surrogates for the president saying, ‘You know, people don’t pay attention to the platform. We’ve got to move on. We’ve got to get voters. This will help us win.’ What do you say to that? W
GEORGE: Well, Tony, I saw yesterday an interview with Eric Trump. And if anybody’s a surrogate for Donald Trump, it’s certainly Eric Trump. And it was a liberal journalist who was interviewing him. And she made the point that this new platform language seems to water down the party’s commitment to protect unborn children against abortion, and it seems to eliminate the call for marriage to be defined as the union of a man and a woman. And she asked Eric Trump, ‘Doesn’t this represent a change in your father’s views?’ And Eric Trump replied by saying, ‘No, these have always been my father’s views. This is who my father is.’ And then he went on to say, ‘This reflects the views of my wife, Lara Trump,’ who … is co-chairing the Republican National Committee. So was President Trump and his surrogates, were they telling us the truth back in 2016 and 2020, or are they telling us the truth today? The story has changed.
PERKINS: Dr. George, you’ve been a part of not only teaching, raising up many wonderful leaders, but part of [engaging] the culture with ideas, with truth from conviction — moral conviction — that comes from faith in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I entered into this arena, the political arena, because of the issue of life. I would have been happy to stay as a police officer, but these things compelled us to move forward. What do those who are compelled to engage because of their faith do when a party departs from a really long held position that runs parallel to or in concert with their faith?
GEORGE: Two connected answers to that, Tony. Number one, tell the truth. Tell the truth. In season and out of season, whether it’s convenient or inconvenient, whether it brings you applause or the opposite of applause — tell the truth. And I know you’re doing that. And I am bound and determined to do it. I’m going to tell the truth. Whether it’s a Democrat, whether it’s a Republican, if someone is failing in their obligation to stand up for the sanctity of human life and marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife and religious liberty and our core values, then I’m going to tell the truth about that. Number two, what we need is fidelity, fidelity, fidelity, no matter what the party does, no matter what the leadership does, no matter what the leadership of groups that are supposed to be dedicated to our causes, whatever they do when it comes to us, we have to remain faithful, faithful to our fundamental values. Now notice, by the way, Tony, that these values that we’re defending — the sanctity of human life, marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife — yes, they are in line with our Christian faith, to be sure, for those of us who are Christians like you and me. But these are not Christian dogmas. These are not principles that are only available for affirmation by virtue of the biblical revelation or witness … which is why lots of people who are not themselves Christians, lots of Jewish people, lots of people of other faiths also affirm these principles.
So we’re not trying to impose our religion on anybody. Quite the contrary, any more than Martin Luther King, who invoked God and the Bible a lot, was trying to impose his Christianity on those who opposed segregation. We’re not trying to impose our religion on anyone, but we are motivated ourselves in part, precisely by our faith and our sense of duty growing out of that faith. And so we have to tell the truth in season and out, and we have to be absolutely faithful to those principles. And it’s going to cost us, by the way, Tony, it’s going to cost us. You and I are going to be pushed to the margins. We’re not going to be insiders. We’re going to be made outsiders. You and I both had experience being insiders. Uh, you and I both sat in the Oval Office of the president of the United States at different points, uh, and given advice and had our opinions, uh, solicited and so forth. Uh, when we stand up for what’s right, when we’re faithful, when we tell the truth about our own party, just as we do about the other party, uh, we’re going to pay a price for that. But it’s a price that we are required to pay.
PERKINS: The truth of God’s Word does not change, and it’s rooted not only rooted in the Word of God, but as you pointed out, nature speaks to this. The natural law reveals this, and we have to stand firm on that regardless. And these are not just other issues. I mean, this is not the marginal tax rate. This is not inflation. These are foundational issues. And there’s really no room for compromise.
GEORGE: Yeah. I mean, I do think that we’re right to pursue, as you and I have pursued for many, many years, for example, on the pro-life front, an incremental strategy. But it’s got to be a strategy of moving forward, right? We get what we can get today, and then we move to work for further protection until someday down the line, we achieve our goal of every child being welcomed in life and protected in law. That’s the goal. We can move incrementally, but we can’t give up. We can’t say, ‘Well, there are some unborn children we’re not going to protect. We’re just going to cut them loose. We’re going to leave them aside.’ We’re going to protect every child we can, when we can. And our goal will always be to protect every child, every child.
PERKINS: We must always move forward. No retreat. Dr. Robert George, thank you so much for joining us.
GEORGE: My pleasure. Tony, good to be with you.
LifeNews Note: Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand, where this originally appeared.
The post Princeton Professor: Federal Government Can Pass Laws Protecting Unborn Babies From Abortions appeared first on LifeNews.com.
