Will Anti-Trump Pro-Lifers Elect Harris? – Jonathan Van Maren

*This is an AI generated transcript, and may contain errors*

Mark Harrington (00:00):

Here are a few questions for you. Will a Trump loss actually be better for the pro-life movement and conservatives going forward? Or will anti-Trump pro-lifers and conservatives elect Kamala Harris? We’re going to talk about it today on the Mark Harrington show. Well, hello everybody. Mark Harrington here, your radio activist behind the microphone, and we’re talking about the election again as we are honing in on November 5th. Early voting’s already begun. I think we’re 48 days away from the presidential election here in the United States, so I’ve been spending a lot of time on this as we should because it’s funny, every four years we say, well, this is the most consequential election in our lifetime. Well, I think this one is, we say it every time, but this one certainly is a big one, and we’re going to go through some stuff today, especially the thing that has been of concern, let’s say for your radio activists.

(01:15):

That’s me radio, and that is pro-lifers and Christians dumping Trump lately and the implications that that might have on the outcome of this election. Now, my position on Donald Trump, I’ve been a supporter of Trump politically. I think that he is probably the most consequential political figure in the 21st century. Now, the story is yet to be completed with Donald Trump, but he certainly has risen to the occasion that is and just look at how the guy is treated by the rest of the mainstream media and his opponents. He just survived a second assassination attempt. So I recognize the impact that this man has had, and for that reason, I support him among other reasons, and we’re going to talk about this today because we have Christians for Kamala, we have evangelicals for Harris. We’re going to talk about these people, and then we have guys like David French who wrote in the New York Times recently, why he thinks he that to save conservatism, we have to vote for Kamala Harris. I mean, this is the kind of, I guess, confusion that’s being sown out there in the pro-life and Christian world. So we’re going to be talking about that with my good friend Jonathan Van Marin from the Canadian Center for Bioethical Reform. Jonathan, thanks for being on the program once again. We appreciate you being here.

Jonathan Van Maren (02:51):

Always. Awesome.

Mark Harrington (02:53):

So Jonathan, the reason why I want to have you on here, we’ve been talking about Trump. We don’t completely agree on everything. We do agree, at least at this point, that Christians should be throwing the lever for him, and I think maybe you might disagree with me on that, but from what I can tell according to your blog here, and we’re going to go through some of that, these other folks who are saying either we’re going to sit it out or we’re going to vote for Harris, I just think are, I don’t know, ill-advised maybe or ignorant on what the implications of that might be. Listen, I’ve been clear on this program that I understand for conscience reasons why people have a trouble voting for Donald Trump. I get it, but strategically, I don’t think there’s any choice honestly. But what I want to do here, let’s talk a little bit about these groups, Christians for Kamala. Let’s start with them. First of all, can you be a Christian and vote for Kamala Harris? Now, I’ll lead into this and just say, well, yeah, you can be saved. You can be say, Hey, I believe in Jesus Christ and vote wrong. We get that, but can you really be a Christian and vote for the most pro-abortion presidential candidate that we’ve ever seen in American history? What’s your thoughts?

Jonathan Van Maren (04:12):

I think, no, obviously for the same reasons you do, but I also think that Christians for Kamala is different than Christians for Barack Obama, right? Michael Weir, you remember that guy? He’s a writer and he’s an activist and he worked on rounding up evangelical votes for Barack Obama, but that was back when Obama, Elise played deceitful lip service to the idea that abortions should be rare. He ran on a campaign supporting traditional marriage, and so Obama really tried to pretend like he wasn’t scary, tried to pretend that he was one of us just before he sued a group of nuns called the Little Sisters of the Poor to make them pay for contraception with Kamala Harris. The mask is completely off. She’s not Christian. She supports abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy and afterwards voted against the Born Alive Survivors Act and every opportunity in the Senate and her campaign is about abortion. This is not something that just as a Democrat she supports. She did a 52 tour stop plugging for this kind of thing. So you’re essentially voting for an abortion salesperson,

Mark Harrington (05:20):

And I don’t know if you watched the Democrat National Convention, but that first night was all about abortion. When she speaks on abortion, she lights up.

Jonathan Van Maren (05:29):

Yes, she

Mark Harrington (05:29):

Does. I mean, you can tell it’s not just a talking point about immigration or any of the other economy or inflation where you can tell she kind of stumbles, which she does a lot, but she doesn’t stumble on abortion. She’s got it down. She’s got the talking points, and that’s because she’s a true believer. She’s the first sitting vice president to visit an abortion center.

(05:51):

I mean, she went to the basically place where the children are sacrificed. So this woman has thrown in 100%, and I think that’s a really good point about other presidents who have, as you say, like Bill Clinton who said that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. Well, that went out the window with Kamala Harris. We’ve got evangelicals for Harris. Now, I don’t know what’s the difference between Christians for Harris and Evangelical for Harris, but if you would, Mr. Per pop up, this is their webpage. They talk about Donald Trump overturning Roe versus Wade, which by the way, I am thankful that the man has not caved on that. When he talks about overturning Roe, he talks about the justices that he put up for the US Supreme Court that overturned Roe. He says he’s proud of it. He continues to say that and I’m thankful for that. But what they’re saying here at the Evangelicals for Harris that miscarriages are going to be criminalized.

Jonathan Van Maren (06:47):

Yeah, it’s

Mark Harrington (06:47):

Insane. Of course. Insane.

Jonathan Van Maren (06:49):

They false. They’re bearing false witness already.

Mark Harrington (06:52):

Yeah, and IVF is going to be banned. Now, I don’t know about you, but I have not heard of you that single case in the United States where a woman who is having a miscarriage is being thrown in jail or criminalized. Have you?

Jonathan Van Maren (07:07):

No. Alexander Desus wrote a definitive essay that all of your listeners and viewers, if they’re facing questions like this, should look up where she went through the laws on all 50 states

Mark Harrington (07:16):

And

Jonathan Van Maren (07:16):

Emphasized the fact that a woman can get help when her life is in danger. She can get miscarriage care. These are actually lies that are being told by abortion activists. They’re risking the lives of women just to make a political point,

Mark Harrington (07:30):

And they’re running ads they did in Ohio. Now they’re running on them in Florida saying that miscarriage care is now going to be illegal if you don’t vote yes on amendment four, for example, and they’re making Donald Trump, he’s going to be putting pregnancy monitors on women and stuff like this. This is all fear mongering. It works for them, I guess. And the IVF question, I mean we all understand what happened. I believe it was in Alabama where the Supreme Court ruled that IVF was illegal based on the abortion law that was passed there, and within days, the legislature reversed course and protected IVF. Again, IVF is not being threatened, is it?

Jonathan Van Maren (08:16):

No, I wish it was. I wish we were having a cultural discussion about the personhood of the child and the womb because IVF ends the lives of millions of embryos and I think an embryo as a human person created in the image of God, but unfortunately, no, we’re actually looking at sort of like a blob when it comes to IVF. Everybody supports it and everybody’s campaigning for it,

Mark Harrington (08:40):

And unfortunately, once again, Donald Trump’s position on that is not pro-life. He says that he’s going to fund IVF. I don’t know how you do that, but he says he’s going to do that. Guys like Ted Cruz of all people pro-life, Ted Cruz is now promoting a bill in the US Senate that would protect IVF. I’m like, Ted, it doesn’t need protected. It’s already protected, friend. This is just crazy. The way that the GOP led by Donald Trump, I would say has so-called moderated its position on abortion, to be honest with you. They’re throwing the babies under the bus. I mean that’s going on here. And so we had Christians for Kamala, we’ve got evangelicals for Harris seizing on the fertile ground that abortion is a liability politically, at least many people believe it is. I’m not so sure myself. And of course, Trump not being an ideologue on abortion.

(09:40):

He doesn’t really care one way or the other, to be honest, I think has seized that and said, well, politically speaking, he thinks he needs to moderate his position. And this has just led to people like these folks to make these positions to make the case. The thing I want to vote to focus on a little bit here, Jonathan, is the article by David French, and if you would pop up this graphic, Mr. Barus, this came out I think mid August, David French, who historically has been very pro-life, right? I mean a conservative social conservative. Now he’s in the New York Times writing about how to save conservatism from itself. We got to vote for Kamala Harris. I mean, I’ve just shaking my head and thinking, this guy’s gone off the reservation so many. By the way, why is it that conservative Christians or Christians never get more conservative? They always lean to the left and become woke. What’s going on here?

Jonathan Van Maren (10:38):

It’s really weird to me. So this article that you just pulled up on the screen here is really important for a couple of reasons because let’s steal man David French’s argument to the best extent that we can. He’s basically making the case that the GOP is tied right now to the personality of Donald Trump, that he’s such an incredibly powerful personality and he has such a cult following among so many people that basically the policy of the GOP is going to be whatever he decides, and so we can’t get back to adherence to a set of principles outside of a personality until Trump is gone. I think that’s true. Whether or not you like that or not is a different thing on the 1984 Pro-life plank and the GOP platform. I don’t like it. However, this is what is insane about this column because he’s basically using this column as Tinder to set the rest of the arguments he’s been making for a decade on fire because he basically made the case that nobody could in good conscious vote for Donald Trump because of Donald Trump’s character, because of his lifestyle.

(11:36):

That’s a horse we’ve all beaten to death. We know what we’re talking about, and I think that you can make the case, as you said earlier, I’m sympathetic to the idea that some people couldn’t in good conscience vote for him. I think there’s a number of ethical positions and we agree on which is the most strategic, but I think it’s ethical to write in or vote third party. I think it’s ethical to vote for Donald Trump. I think it’s ethical not to vote at all. I think it’s unethical and downright sinful to vote for Kamala Harris. That’s my view, and reasonable people can disagree on what the ethical approach is. He’s blowing past all of those and picking the only option that I think you cannot make a Christian Case for and in doing so is destroying all of the arguments he made against voting for Trump.

(12:18):

He said you couldn’t vote for Trump because he had a sexually assorted past. Okay, well, Kamala has got him beat there pretty much. He was Willie Brown’s side piece in San Francisco for years. He said, Trump, he actually said this. Trump is going weak on the abortion issue, and if you’re not pro-life, you don’t get my vote. So you’re going to give it to her. It actually hurts. It hurts the brain to try and figure this out. And then he cited in a debate about this column with Ross do it. He actually said, well, you Kamala Harris isn’t that progressive? She’s not a burn it down defund the police type. She came up through law enforcement. This is the prosecutor that actually met with Planned Parenthood, took money from them and then sent the feds to David Deen’s apartment after he exposed Planned Parenthood for selling baby body parts and then confiscated his property with incriminating evidence on it. So to actively bring up the fact that she came up through law enforcement without actually stating that she weaponized her office on behalf of the abortion industry, either he’s unaware of that, which is criminal for somebody who’s writing at such a high level or B, he’s cherry picking his facts. My view is that Trump did make a lot of good people lose their minds, and I think David French was the last of them. Trump got him in the end too.

Mark Harrington (13:37):

Yeah, he’s suffering from Trump derangement syndrome as well. Jonathan, you’ve written a blog here if you would, Mr. Producer, pop that up here. It’s on the Bridgehead website folks, and I’ll put this in the show notes so you can reference it. And this is Jonathan’s response to David French and why obviously he thinks that David French is wrong in trying to make a case for Kamala Harris. Lemme just say up front, I’m going to bust your chops a little bit on Trump. I don’t agree with you on him, on everything. I kind of disagree with the characterization of Trump being lacking a bunch of now character. Of course, sexually, we know his history and all of this. Does he tell the truth all the time? No. Does he lie as much as Harris? I don’t know, but I’ll say this. I said earlier, he I think is the most consequential political figure in the 21st century.

(14:33):

There’s a reason for that because Donald Trump is opposing all the people that we oppose, and as you can tell, I mean the minute he came down the escalator there in Trump Tower and they were out to take him down, I mean they were out to impeach him. He suffered two impeachment votes. We see the weaponization of the Department of Justice coming after him. All their political enemies are now are in line to be also attacked by these people. He survived them all. I don’t let you. I’m not sure I would have. And now he’s survived two assassination attempts. To me, that’s character. I dunno about you, but if I were him, I’d be crawled up in a fetal position begging for mercy from these people. And frankly, I put up with a lot of crap during my years. So I kind of see the character side a little different. I don’t overlook his sorted past, as you say, but a man is an American, he believes American values. I believe in that he believes in the founding principles of the country, and I just wanted to put that out there. But

Jonathan Van Maren (15:38):

What

Mark Harrington (15:39):

I really want to deal with you on is these questions of Harris and Trump because we do have people that you and I very much respect too, not a David French, which I think has just gone off the deep end who are vocally saying they’re not going to vote for Trump.

Jonathan Van Maren (15:57):

Well, let me emphasize something you said there. I don’t disagree with the specific things that you said. I think that Trump’s great virtue is courage, and I think that his great vice is vanity. And so true, ed Feer broke it down really well. What he said was there are some people who think Trump is a bad man who’s done a lot of good things, and there’s others who think he’s a bad man who’s done a lot. So yeah, he’s a bad man who’s done a lot of good things or a good man who’s done some bad things. I would think that Trump’s a bad person who’s done some really good things. Others who are pro-life think the opposite, that he’s actually is a good man and that the mistakes we’ve seen are just examples of bad things. And so I think that kind of encapsulates the divide pretty well, where I would really push back on people saying, well, nobody can vote for Trump in good conscience or for a strategic reason. I think that when we last had our, you and I have been debating Trump back and forth for eight years at this point, but one of the things I think where we agree is that during the debate, we saw him back down, I think for the second time on the abortion issue, which highlights the fact that the pro-life movement has the capacity to pressure him, and we have no such leverage with Harris, and that fact matters and has to be factored into any discussion around strategy by an honest person.

Mark Harrington (17:18):

Good, good point. And I would agree with you that they both have flawed character, but one has really bad policy. Yep, I’d agree with that. That’s the difference, right? That’s the difference. And Harris has made abortion a centerpiece of her campaign. As you write in your Bridgehead article here, I would make the case to those who might be considering sitting out this time or trying to find some third party alternative that which is worse, digging out of four to eight years of a Harris administration, which we may not recover from as a pro-life movement. Be honest, I don’t know if we will. I’m not sure America can survive it to honestly where they’re going to jail opponents that they have. I mean, we know what that will look like or reforming the GOP, which one’s easier? Digging out of the policies in eight years possibly of Harris or reforming the GOP, which to me is the strategy. We’ve got Trump, we’ve got to get through this next election, but we need to start looking beyond 2024 to 2026 and 28 primary, the planos, the rhinos, all those who have softened their positions on abortion, primary them get involved in local politics with the central committee. Let’s nominate a true believer, a true social conservative next time around, let’s win in 24, let’s win in 26. That’s my view.

Jonathan Van Maren (18:53):

Well, so you and I even agree on who the best candidate would’ve been in this election cycle, right? Ron De, the New York Times did a massive expose on Ron DeSantis, and the only thing they could come up with was that he wouldn’t shut up about abortion even when he was a history teacher teaching students, which just made me like the guy more and Florida, you and I both remember when Florida wasn’t a solidly red state, and yet he went all the way to a six week ban. Why? Because Rhon DeSantis is such a committed pro-lifer that he thought, I’m going to buy everybody’s votes with a bunch of policies that they really support, and then I’m going to use that political capital to do my best for pre-born babies. That’s why I like him. We all agree on who should come next. I do think so.

(19:34):

My view, view is sort of if you had asked me right after Trump came out and appeared to say he was voting for Amendment four, when he said, I’m going to be voting for more than six weeks, I would’ve said, Kay, you can’t vote for him after he says that because you’re essentially endorsing your own servitude and expulsion from the Republican party. But my view changed when the next day he did three interviews, came out and said, actually, I’ve changed my view on this, which was an indication that he can be pressured by pro-lifers, which was incredible news. And then during the debate, this is significant, and I think,

Mark Harrington (20:09):

Hold on. Can I say something here? I’m not sure Donald Trump understood when he said, I’m going to vote for more weeks. I just don’t think the guy’s being briefed. I don’t think he does any show prep or any debate prep. Honestly, he shoots from the hip on everything. I just don’t think he understands what’s going on. I mean, when he says, I’m going to vote for more weeks, I’m not sure he meant amendment four. I think people are saying, oh, he’s going to vote yes on amendment four. I’m not certain that was the case, but I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt. Go ahead and continue, but I just wanted to throw that out

Jonathan Van Maren (20:41):

There. Yeah, so either way, the point that he’s susceptible to pressure stands, and one of the things that wasn’t really mentioned about the debate last week with Kamala Harris is that I basically watched the debate to see what he was going to say on abortion because he’s been caving to the left on abortion for two years, and I was incredibly nervous that he was going to say something basically overtly pro-choice, talk about how his administration’s going to be great for reproductive rights or something like

Mark Harrington (21:07):

That, which he did tweet,

Jonathan Van Maren (21:09):

But instead

Mark Harrington (21:10):

Troubling.

Jonathan Van Maren (21:11):

He did two climb downs that I found encouraging. The first one

(21:14):

Was that he actually basically threw JD Vance under the bus and was like, I don’t know who JD is talking to, but I never said I’d veto a national abortion ban. And then when pushed consistently refused to answer the question and the easy thing to do would’ve been to say, look, I hold a federalist position on abortion. I will veto a ban. I thought he was going to do that. He didn’t. That indicates he realizes that he can’t keep screwing pro-lifers over and win, and that he is being pressured by pro-lifers and that he’s listening to their pressure. That was a big deal. The second thing was basically using the language of exposing light term abortion again and turning to Kamala and saying, do you support abortion through nine months? And she went from passionate about abortion to on her face, you could tell, I want this subject to be over now I want to move on. Because she realized that Trump had found the sweet spot, which is he could hammer her on her extremist position that is opposed by most

Mark Harrington (22:06):

Americans. That’s right. And I think in 2016 when he said that you could rip the baby out of the womb, and I’m not for that about Hillary, I think that was a turning point. I think he did as good as you could expect, I guess based on where he is right now. On the abortion issue, during the debate in your piece here, you say, Jonathan, by the way, folks, you can go to the Bridgehead website, you can check out Jonathan’s work. Also, Jonathan worked for the center, the Canadian Center for Bioethical Reform. I want to make sure that you can go to their website at end, the killing ca. They’re great partners in our battle here and we’re looking forward to being with some of them in Florida here and not going to talk about that later. Something you say here, which I think is, I just want to challenge you a little bit, and I don’t know if you’re saying this or this is just a sentiment out there that there are some that say a Trump loss would be better. And this is what, what’s his name? French is saying for social conservatives, and I can’t go there, friend. I mean, I don’t know if you’re thinking that, but I don’t think political nowheresville or nowheres land is a good place to be. Honestly. We are right now on the verge of not having a political party. If we lose and people think that’s good for our movement, I’m not willing to play, I guess Russian roulette with the lives of babies.

Jonathan Van Maren (23:45):

No, so that’s fair. I was actually just describing the case. So Ed Feer wrote a great piece called Trump a Buyer’s Guide. Let me Steal Man, that case, so people understand the argument, and I think this argument, I would’ve actually held this position right after he came out and supported Amendment four. At that point, I’m like, or appear to be fair, maybe he wasn’t brief, but at that point I’m like, okay, pro-lifers basically vote for their own marginalization. The argument essentially is, so the GOP base shrinks every single year. The last time the Republicans won the popular vote was George W. Bush in 2004, and before that it was quite a bit back. So you can’t win running on a hundred percent pro-life agenda. But the GOP also has to realize that you can’t win without pro-life votes true. We’re a pretty significant, we are not the majority in America, but we are a significant constituents of the Republican party, and if they take us for granted, we can make them lose.

(24:38):

And the argument they’re essentially making is that if Trump loses the election because he screwed over pro-lifers, the GOP will learn their lesson. That’s not an argument. If it wasn’t Kamala Harris, I might share that argument. Good point. But my biggest concern, if this was just a flaky Democrat, some of your normal Bill Clinton, ask one, I might not be too worried. What I’m worried about with Harris Wall’s administration is court packing. Now, Biden has just endorsed a bunch of court reforms. Now he did so before they ejected him from the presidential race, I think in a bid to shore up his progressive flank. So I don’t know where that’s going to go, but it’s still just sort of sitting there. Let’s remake the Supreme Court if they were remake the Supreme Court, say, kiss goodbye to all of your religious liberty precedents, and we’ll have bigger fish to fry at that point.

Mark Harrington (25:27):

Yeah, I think it presupposes or assumes that the pro-life movement has enough clout win or lose to have an impact. And I don’t know. I mean, I guess we’ll find out. I mean, we’ll find out this time around if Trump’s able to prevail, he’s going to say, well, I didn’t need pro-life votes. Maybe if he loses, maybe he’ll say, well, I needed them and we shouldn’t have done what we did. I guess to me, the jury’s still out on that. I think we do still have clout. He does take our phone calls as he did, as you mentioned, when it came to Amendment four, and he reversed course immediately. I think that’s true, but I mean, we need to flex our muscles. That is, we got to go to the polls, but the honest this, our culture is heading in a different direction here in the United States as relates to abortion because we’ve lost the last seven constitutional amendments, and we’re probably poised to lose a few more this time around.

Jonathan Van Maren (26:23):

The Russian roulette that I agree with you is, so I steal manned the case that non David French people are making because they’re not making the case that people should vote for Kamala Harris. They’re making the case for the American Solidarity Party or whatever. That’s what Karen swallow Pryor would say, I’m voting for American solidarity, but she would never vote for Harris. So her and Frenchman are in different categories,

Mark Harrington (26:43):

Different categories,

Jonathan Van Maren (26:44):

But I think the Russian roulette is also, it’s not just how bad would Harris be? The Russian roulette is will the GOP learn the right lessons of pro-life or stay home? And I don’t actually trust the GOP to learn the right lessons ever. Now, my vote doesn’t really matter much. My vote is in Washington state since I was born in Seattle. So my vote in the presidential election doesn’t matter one way or another. You’re in Ohio, so yours is really important, but yeah,

Mark Harrington (27:07):

Yeah. I tell when people say, I’m not voting for Trump. I ask ’em where they live. They’re like, oh, I live in Wisconsin. I’m like, oh man, you can’t do that. Or Oh, I live in California. Oh, go ahead. I don’t care. You can have

Jonathan Van Maren (27:21):

Your Californians can keep their conscience.

Mark Harrington (27:24):

Father Frank Pavone said this, and I dunno if you saw this, and I think I’d like to get your take on this, and he said, we’re not voting this time for who is most pro-life. We’re voting for who is most pro-American. And his case is this, without the founding principles being intact, free speech, all of the things that we as Americans and the pro-life movement relies on, if those go away, we have no way back. I mean, there is no redress of grievances. Social reform depends upon free speech and freedom of the press and the law matters. And he’s talking about that Trump is more American say than he is pro-life because we know what will happen if Harris gets in. She’s going to go after her political opponents, which is people like myself. And she went after David de delight, and what more do we need to see? And so to me, do we want to protect and secure our founding principles? We know who to vote for that.

Jonathan Van Maren (28:37):

Yeah. So I have two comments on that. I understand that the case that’s being made there, and I think in some ways it’s a solid one, two things. One is that pro-lifers need to start keep talking about abortion nonstop. We need to never shut up about it. And one of the things that I don’t like when pro-life leaders is like this election isn’t about abortion, we need to focus on these other issues. Every election is about abortion as far as I’m concerned, because I don’t think that a nation will survive long-term blessed by God if we’re murdering babies in the womb. And so it may be true that America might not survive under Harris. It’s definitely true that America will not survive long-term, in my view, if both parties are endorsing child sacrifice. And

Mark Harrington (29:17):

So No, that’s true. I would a hundred percent agree with you on that.

Jonathan Van Maren (29:20):

And the second piece is I have not cared for some pavones strategic advice because when Trump caved on a couple of the pro-life issues, he came out and said, we need to support him no matter what. And other leaders said, this is the time when we need to pressure him. He still needs it. And those leaders are the ones I believe that extracted the concessions on amendment four. And we’re probably responsible for the fact that he backtracked his position on vetoing a national abortion ban. And so my view is that right now, Trump is the only one who takes pro-lifers calls. He’s the only one susceptible to pressure. But we need to pressure, and I did not care for Pavone saying, guys, right now is the time to shut up and support him. No. Now is the time to extract as many concessions on life as possible because a nation that kills its babies will not have a future even if Paris loses.

Mark Harrington (30:09):

Yeah, it’s interesting. I’ve had some conversations with abolitionists and where they stand on Trump, and I had someone come up to me recently and said that they wanted to apologize to me, believe it or not, saying they’re going to vote for Trump. Why? Because the threat of Harris is too big. Like you say. I mean, we have never faced a candidate like this before. And if she gets in the White House, I mean it’s all bets are off when it comes to the pro-life movement. It comes to free speech. We know she’s going to go after political enemies. And that to me is something that’s untenable, that’s not discussed very much. I’m not saying let’s minimize and forget about the pro-life issue. I’m saying, well, this is what it is. It’s kind of baked in the cake this time around. Which would you rather have somebody who is kind of given in on some pro-life things, but is very strongly pro-American in the founding principles and will work to protect those and actually be a bulwark against the administrative state, if you will, a deep state, if you will. You can go on and on about that. And that’s where I think Donald Trump does offer that to voters.

Jonathan Van Maren (31:24):

Yeah, I agree with you on that. I think the primary case that just needs to be made is as, I don’t like the idea that, so Trump, my view is Trump is a means to an end. He’s a bad person who’s done some good things and he’s the only option right now on the ticket. Unless you’re voting American solidarity, that doesn’t hate us, which I think is important. Matt Frat often says, I’m going to vote for the guy who hates me the least, which I think is an accurately pessimistic analysis of the current political environment, but also kind of a path of lease resistance, easy choice to make. Okay, well, that guy doesn’t hate us, right? Trump doesn’t understand us, but he certainly doesn’t hate us, whereas

Mark Harrington (32:01):

Harris

Jonathan Van Maren (32:01):

Very much does. And so the problem with Trump is that he isn’t passionate about abortion. And the problem with Harris is that she is

Mark Harrington (32:08):

Amen. Amen to that. So what are our options here? Are we going to vote for Trump? We’re going to sit it out, or we’re going to vote for a third party.

Jonathan Van Maren (32:17):

So I would say that both third party and Trump are ethical, and that depends on what your strategy is. Some people really do by the sort of the steel man argument that punishing him for going pro-choice is important. The reason I think that’s such a

Mark Harrington (32:31):

Gamble. Can I stop you there for a second?

Jonathan Van Maren (32:32):

Yep.

Mark Harrington (32:33):

I mean, I see that as a protest vote. A protest vote to me is not a strategy.

Jonathan Van Maren (32:40):

Well, it depends if you think the protest vote is actually going to have the impact of making the guy lose the election so that you reform the whole party. But it is true that a protest vote is premised on the idea that you’re giving up this election. That’s true,

Mark Harrington (32:52):

But there’s no strategy going forward. I would say if I’m not going to vote for vote for Trump, give me a plan going forward as to how we’re going to reform the GOP as part of that protest vote. You follow me?

Jonathan Van Maren (33:03):

Yeah, no, totally. And David French didn’t actually lay out any of that at all in either the column or the debate. It was just like, I don’t like him. I think that he needs to go for the GOP to improve, which I think is true in the long term, but so just, I’m not going to vote for him. I think that based on the risks to the court and based on who Kamala Harris is, that voting against her in the most effective way possible is the most important thing to do. Full stop.

Mark Harrington (33:26):

Yeah. I guess where I differ, not with you, but generally speaking without voting for Trump is I’m not willing to gamble the lives of unborn children with the hopes that things might get better and they might learn their lesson. I mean, I don’t know the future well enough to be able to predict that friend. I just don’t, all I know is rights before me. I can save lives that might not be saved if Donald Trump does not get into office. I wanted you to finally comment on this. I think it’s a little bit comical, to be honest. And I love this man, and I wouldn’t be in this movement without it, but without him, and that is Randall. Terry’s running for president, so to speak, and he has been upfront about it upfront saying that he’s not trying to be elected president of the United States. He’s doing this in order to get abortion, victim photography on television.

(34:11):

I support this type of effort. Michael Bailey, way back in the day in Indiana and other candidates around the country have done this, and they just run to get these ads because the federal laws in the United States allow this. They say there’s no limitations on what you can say or do in putting these ads out. So Randall Terry is doing this. I hope to see these ads actually get on television. I have yet to see any, to be honest with you. But I dunno if you saw this article, maybe this is a hoax, I don’t know, but it says, Democrats are now hoping to siphon votes from Trump by pushing to get any abortion third party candidate, candidate on the ballot. Maybe this is a joke. Maybe they are actually trying to get him on the ballot. I don’t know. But the minute, if I were Randall Terry when I saw this, I would drop out. I was just like, listen, I’m not going to be a foil for Donald Trump losing.

Jonathan Van Maren (35:03):

If you were going to plant a pro-lifer to siphon votes from Trump, you wouldn’t pick Randall Terry. Right? That’s true. I know who he is because I’m fascinated in pro-life history and the history of Operation Rescue and stuff like

Mark Harrington (35:15):

That. And I owe a debt of gratitude as all of us do in his

Jonathan Van Maren (35:17):

Work. Most people don’t know who he is anymore because he was at his heyday 25 years ago when he was working with the rescue movement, which was a really huge, I think it’s true. The a DP ads thing is a great idea. He did this once before in 2012. I remember those ads. They were very powerful ads. And as far as I’m concerned, getting victim photography on TV in front of eyeballs is, of course, this is an incredible work. Do it. I think that the power of a VP on TV is worth the non-risk of Terry Siphoning votes off from Trump, to be honest.

Mark Harrington (35:52):

And he’s made it clear that he’s not trying to win the presidency, which we all knew he wasn’t going to. Anyway. I just find it interesting that the left is seizing upon the division in the pro-life movement saying they see the threat too. They see the threat of pro-lifers staying home.

Jonathan Van Maren (36:10):

I’ll put money on it, that that headline is the work. So Randall Terry has hung out a lot with the progressive anti-abortion uprising, which is the weirdest pro-life partnership I’ve ever seen in my life. And they’re very anti-Trump and pro democrat, but a very pro-life and anti Harris. So this strikes me as the sort of headline planted by the Powell folks to exaggerate their influence in the political process.

Mark Harrington (36:34):

Yeah, well, I just threw it. Want to throw it out there. I found it interesting in hopes that Randall would, if it’s true, that he would pack it up and then not go ahead with any of this. I think it does pose a threat, pro-life for sitting home to Donald Trump. I hope it’s not enough to make a difference. I think it’s a bad political bargain. I think he’s wrong, that he thinks he’s going to pick up. I mean, really, where else are they going? They’re going to vote for him. No, that isn’t going to happen. I don’t understand the calculation, to be honest with you.

Jonathan Van Maren (37:10):

That’s the weirdest aspect of it. We have this, and this is true in Canada, in France and the uk, where you have once conservative leaders who will stab pro-lifers in the back, pro-lifers who want to have good reasons to vote for them and appeal to voters who are never in a million years ever going to cast a ballot for them. And I’ve never understood the political calculus, especially because if anybody should understand that the left doesn’t give an inch, it should be Trump. He should understand that these people are not going to give him an inch, and he should react that way. Trump is actually in the unique position to double down on this issue because his negatives and his positives are pretty much baked in. And all the polling indicates that most people already have a very entrenched view of Donald Trump, and they have a very fluid view of Kamala Harris, and that’s why the election is so close. If Trump could define Harris, he’ll probably end up winning. If he can’t, he’ll probably end up losing. And so what he should be doing is shoring up that base because that’s the only way forward according to the data.

Mark Harrington (38:10):

Well, and I think you might be seeing some of that now. I hope as the election gets closer, my good friend Jonathan Van Marin’s, been my guest today. You can go to end the killing.ca. That’s end the killing.ca and pick him up. You can also subscribe to his blog posts that he writes. I think on a regular basis, Jonathan’s one of the most clearest thinking guys out there when it comes to the abortion issue. And although I don’t agree with ’em a hundred percent on Trump, we do agree that this time around we’re going to have to throw the lever and hold our nose in hopes that he wins, and we can spare our nation from four to eight years of Harris campaign. That would be devastating to our movement and the baby. So Jonathan, thanks for being on the show.

Jonathan Van Maren (38:56):

Always a pleasure, mark.

Mark Harrington (38:58):

Well, friends, I hope you enjoyed the interview there with Jonathan Van Marin from the Canadian Center for Bioethical Reform, talking about the American election. By the way, Jonathan has dual citizenship, so he is actually an American who can vote in the United States elections, so he has a stake in this as well. Jonathan’s one of the most clear thinkers out there when it comes to the pro-life issue, one of the best writers as well. And I hope you enjoyed listening to him in the debate over this presidential election. We are going to be launching our Battleground States tour here soon. In fact, we’ve already started in Pennsylvania, and what this is, is we are going to put on the road two large LED billboard trucks showing abortion victim video and pictures in battleground states such as the state of Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Michigan, Missouri, Wisconsin, South Dakota, Arizona, Montana, and Nebraska.

(40:06):

All those states are either going to get a visit from our billboard trucks or we’re going to be flying our airplane tow banners over those selected cities. Now, these states are comprised in states that are going to be essential when it comes to the presidential election. That is, they’re the battleground states that the candidates need to win in order to gain the White House, and also they are the states that are facing pro-abortion constitutional amendments. So we’ll be launching this soon. And friends, if you can help us out, I’d appreciate it very much. We need financial support for this tour for our drivers. We need money for housing that is motels. We need fuel, we need to pay the insurance. We need to pay some of the travel expenses. And you can support the Battleground States tour by going to create equal.org/donate. That’s created equal.org/donate.

(41:09):

Give to the Battleground States tour so we can hit these battlegrounds and show the truth about abortion. So when people are going to the polls, they know what they’re going to be voting on. Also, beginning on October seven, we will be visiting the Battleground state of Florida. I’m taking a group of young people, including some of our friends from the Canadian Center, bioethical Reform, to hit the streets, to hit the doors, and to be doing some door to door canvassing, as well as public outreach in downtown areas like Orlando, going to college campuses as well. So that’s October 7th through 12. You can support that again by going to create equal.org/donate and give us a gift to help us with the Florida campaign. Florida is, in my opinion, it’s for all the marbles. I mean, this would be, as I’ve said, the crown jewel for the abortion industry. If they were to win in Florida, we can’t allow that to happen, especially because there is a 60% threshold in that state. We have a lot of things going for us there, and hopefully we can win that one among others. So friends, please help us out. Go to create equal.org to find out more. And if you want to subscribe to the podcast, please do so by going to mark harrington.org. Share it and like it leave us a five star review. We’ll see you next time. God bless you. God bless America, and remember America to

Outro (42:45):

Bless God. You’ve been listening to Mark Harrington, your radio activist. For more information on how to make a difference for the cause of life, liberty and justice, go to created equal.org.org. To follow mark, go to Mark Harrington show.com. Be sure to tune in next time for your marching orders in the Culture War.