The GOP’s Positive Platform Shift on Abortion with Richard Salsman

[00:00:00] Speaker A: Scott I'm Scott Schiff with the Atlas Society. We're very pleased to have Atlas society senior scholar Richard Salzman with us today on the GOP's positive platform shift on abortion. And after Richard's opening comments, we'll take questions from you. So please request to speak if you have a question. We'll try to get to as many of you as possible. Richard, thanks for doing this topic. [00:00:25] Speaker B: Thank you, Scott. And thanks, everyone, for joining me. I thought I would bring attention to what I think, as a lifelong Republican, is an important and positive development on the GOP's attitude toward abortion, and specifically as codified in the recent July 8 GOP platform. So what I thought I would, which is much more moderate and much more lenient toward abortion. But what I thought I would do tonight is go through fairly quickly the evolution of the GOP platform just on this particular issue. And just, and by the way, if anyone's interested in digging deep on this, there's something called the american presidency project. I think it's out of Uc San Diego. If you go online and look for that website, they have an enormous amount of material on the presidency. But one of the great subsections they have is every major and minor, by the way, including libertarian american party platform ever produced. So it's a wonderful database and any issue, and searchable as well. So if you're just curious about the evolution of these parties, the evolution of their views on various issues, the republican platforms go all the way back, of course, to the founding of the party in 1856. So I've used that, and that's one of the methods I've used for tracing the GOP's views on abortion. [00:02:08] Speaker A: Now, Richard, can you get just a hair closer to your mic, if possible? [00:02:12] Speaker B: Is this better? [00:02:14] Speaker A: Yes. [00:02:14] Speaker B: Okay. And now the other thing I want to stress is, and we can leave this to the end if you wish. I, but I have already, in other spaces and clubhouses, talked about the philosophic aspects of why women have a right to abortion, why embryos, fetuses, and zygotes are not persons, they're not human beings, they're not individuated individuals. Therefore, they don't have individual rights. We can go there if you wish, at the end. But really, my intent tonight was to be more focused on the particular position taken by the GOP on this issue. One of the reasons also I want to focus on it is not only has there been a positive shift, but I'm of the view that of the two parties, the thing most holding back the Republicans in terms of electoral success, is exactly this issue. If anyone has watched the Democrat convention of recent days, especially last night, where their theme was freedom, it was, to me, almost incomprehensible that they could be parading around in every speech using the word freedom. Freedom, freedom, therefore, freedom, therefore, the freedom of the individual. I estimate that they used the word probably ten times as much as the Republicans did, even though I consider the liberal, quote, liberal Democrats some of the most illiberal people we see today. But they are right on abortion, that they're not philosophically correct, they're very philosophically mixed about it. But the actual political position they have is for freedom of the woman to decide whether to abort a fetus or not. The Republicans are terrible on this, but on every issue other than that, the Democrats are against freedom. So I believe that if the Republican Party, and it does have opponents of the religious view of Nancy Mace, would be one example, a rep from South Carolina. There is a very small part of the republican party that wants to be pro choice. There are pro choice Republicans. I'm one of them. And they just have not had much grip until Donald Trump, of all people. Donald Trump, who appointed three justices who eventually contributed to the Dobbs versus Jackson decision in 2022 by the Supreme Court, which overthrew Roe v. Wade. That was largely condemned as an anti woman move. But in many cases, we could talk about this particulars in the Q and A as well. There are at least 710, I count maybe even twelve, states who, as a result of the Supreme Court throwing it back to the states, have more lenient and liberal and pro rights oriented abortion treatments at low states than prior to Roe v. Wade. California being an obvious example. But you can imagine the others, New York and Minnesota and others. Now, of course, in the south, there are some that are more restrictive than the first trimester protection that Roe v. Wade gave. But I think the first group outnumbers enormously. The second group in my review, this is a right, so there is absolutely no reason to leave it to democratic vote at the state level. But on the other hand, the overturning a Roe v. Wade, sending it back to the states, has not been an unalloyed bad thing for women's rights. All right, having set the stage in that regard. And again, so on the specifics of this and what the states are doing, but also on the more philosophic aspects, if you want to talk about in the q and A, I'm glad to do it. There are wonderful essays by Ayn Rand about abortion and the right to abortion. There's an excellent 2013 Huffington Post of all places essay by Leonard Peacock called abortion rights are pro life at the Atlas Society. Will Thomas in 2011. If you look up Will Thomas in an essay on abortion, it was a q and A. What is the objectivist view on abortion? How would one defend this view? That's another source to look at, and the last source I want to name before I dig into the platforms. Andy Bernstein's book Capitalist Solutions, which I think is about 2009 or so, has a very good chapter, only 9810 pages or so, on the philosophic and political aspects of defending a woman's right to an abortion. All right, so clearing. Clearing the landscape, so to speak. That way, I thought I would do something that I'm not sure anyone has done, namely, go into the weeds and go back and look at what the GOP has said in its platforms and its official positions every four years on abortion. Now, I didn't go back all the way to 1856 because it wasn't even an issue. And I checked in 1972, and that's a year before Roe v. Wade. And of course, there's no mention. When does it start getting mentioned? After Roe v. Wade, 1973. So now get this. 1976. This is not Reagan. This is Ford is the president, and he's going after, he's going against Carter. Here's the only section, the only section mentioning abortion in the platform, quote, because of our concern for family values, we affirm our beliefs in many elements that will make our country a more hospitable environment for family life. It goes on to say, educational systems that include and are responsive to parents concerns, a welfare policy to encourage families to stay together and quote, well, that was a quote as well, quote, a position on abortion that values human life, unquote. I don't even know what that means. That's it. That's the only mention of abortion in the 1976 platform. Jerry Ford lost to Carter, as you know, in 76. Okay, now go to 1980. Who is it? It's Reagan versus Carter. Now, Reagan was widely criticized, broadly, repeatedly, I think in some cases, actually unfairly criticized by both Ayn Rand and Leonard Peacock and others for bringing religion into the republican party, but specifically bringing in the idea that abortion is murder. Although we never did say that. Actually, when he was governor of California, Reagan had very liberal treatments of abortion, and Nancy was pro choice. Not many people know that her doctor father, Mister Davis, was pro choice as well, and did abortions. Now look at the platform, though, from 1980, I'll quote, and by the way, some of this later and later problems will repeat. So I'll just say it repeats. Okay, so, 1980, this is seven years after Roe v. Wade. But the second platform I'm talking about after 76, quote, there can mean no doubt. I'm quoting from the platform that the question of abortion, despite the complex nature of its various issues, is ultimately concerned that with equality of rights under the law. While we recognize differing views on this question among Americans and within our own party, we affirm our support of a constitutional amendment to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children. We also support congressional efforts to restrict the use of taxpayers dollars for abortions, unquote. Right here, I want to indicate a phrase which comes up over and over and over again over the next 40 years, which is completely contradictory. But to its great credit, the GOP just dropped this language, and it's the language of unborn children. Now, philosophically and epistemologically and conceptually, that is a contradiction in terms. So just to say briefly, before I return to the platforms, if you think to yourself and you know anything about the gestation process, think of zygote, embryo, fetus, newborn baby, infant. Why did I just go through that sequence? The first three are in utero. The first three are not independent of the. I'm not even going to say mother. I'm going to say would be mother. They're potential humans. They're not actual humans. The phrases we use for those who are born, baby, even, we say newborn baby, infant child, adolescent. You simply cannot. And it's not just a semantical thing, by the way, it's metaphysically anchored. You cannot ever get away with using the phrase unborn children because unborn is in utero and children are extra utero. I mean, it's equivalent to saying a fetus rides a bicycle. It is so absurd on its face. Leonard Peacock actually once said, if you want to use the word unborn child, I get to use the word undead corpse, and therefore you can start vivisecting the corpse. It's a contradiction in terms. It's ridiculous. Now, 1984, it's still Reagan because he won the first election. This is 84. I think he's against Mondale. All right, so. But by the way, I want to throw in some historical interesting features. Who was his first supreme court nominee? Answer. Sandra day O'Connor. Did he actually know her view on Roe v. Wade? I don't think he did. He either did or I don't know if he did or not. But guess what? She, in her time on the court, although wobbling at some point upheld Roe v. Wade. Reagan very rarely got criticized for this. He certainly was not praised for it by objectivists for picking O'Connor. But O'Connor Upheld Roe v. Wade two or three different times when it came up, when it was challenged, another point I'll make, in 1987, he nominated Kennedy, Anthony Kennedy. This was after the Bork disaster. Kennedy was pro choice. So O'Connor, Ann Kennedy, two of the Reagan appointees, ended up being pro choice, the most important case being 1992, when it was challenged with Planned Parenthood versus Casey. Kennedy and O'Connor both upheld Roe v. Wade in those decisions. So on his actual Supreme Court nominations, and those weren't his only ones, he had more than those two. They were pro choice. All right, the 1984 platform, quote, here's the language again. The unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed. We therefore affirm our support for a human life amendment to the constitution. That's new language. They want an amendment to the constitution now. And, quote, we endorse legislation to make clear that the 14th Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. Now here's new language as well. We oppose the use of public revenues for abortion, and we will eliminate funding for organizations that advocate or support abortion. That would be things like Planned parenthood. And then it has language saying, we commend efforts by individuals and groups to provide positive alternatives to abortion, like adoption and support for pregnant women. All right, what about, oh, by the way, a little more on 1980. Well, I gave you some context there. 1984. That's enough. O'Connor and Kennedy by 1987. Okay, by 1988. Now, what does the platform say under the section? By the way, there are usual sections in the GOP platform about the family and the importance of the family, which are perfectly fine. They're perfectly good sections. But I find it's very interesting that they always put the abortion language under sections titled Constitutional Government or individual rights. They don't include it in the family section, which I think is quite interesting, but it's also more philosophical. I mean, I think it has to do with rights. All right, here's 1980 eight's language. It pretty much repeats 1980 four's language. What's 1988, by the way? Bush won versus Dukakis. So Reagan is offstage by now, quote, the unborn child has a fundamental individual right which cannot be infringed. We therefore reaffirm our support for a human life amendment. You see how the language is similar to 84? It's not much different than 84, but what's interesting is Reagan's off stage. So Bush won. Did not take the opportunity to change the abortion position, whereas, as we'll see, Donald Trump did. 1992. What is the election? Bush versus Bill Clinton. Here's the section of the GOP platform. This is under the section called individual rights, good homes and safe streets. That's weird. Quote this. We renew the historic republican commitment to the rights of women. Dot, dot, dot. We believe the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed. Sounds similar. They're repeating it. We reaffirm our support for a human life amendment. Same language. But here's an addition. This is new. In 1992, we affirm our support for the appointment of judges who respect their traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. So here in 1992, Bush Sr. Is pushing further to the idea that we should have a litmus test for the Supreme Court justices that a GOP president picks. Well, how interesting, because who did he end up picking? Souter. And Souter joined in 19. I forget the date now. It's not in front of me. Well, I guess a year later in upholding Roe v. Wade. So George Bush, who in the platform of 92 said, we're going to appoint judges who questioned Roe v. Wade, actually appointed Suter. Was he from New Hampshire? I think it's from the northeast. Yeah. Who joined Kennedy and O'Connor, the Reagan appointees to uphold Roe v. Wade in 1992. Interesting. All right. 1996, Bob Dole and Jack Kemp was the VP versus Clinton. Who's the incumbent? What was the language there? This. It's the same old language. I'm not going to repeat it. It stills use unborn child. It still talks about the 14th amendment. But here's what I think is very interesting, because this is a, partly a softening and partly a tightening quote, we oppose abortion, but our pro life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion, unquote. Now think of that. Notice how that has never been addressed so far. If this has always been a problem in this position, if it's murder, why aren't we prosecuting the women who do it? Why aren't we punishing them? Why aren't, I mean, they always say, go after the doctor, but who's aiding and abetting it more than anyone? The woman. If the woman doesn't show up at the abortion clinic, there's no abortion. So in many ways, from their side, you could argue that the woman is more guilty, the would be mother is more guilty than the doctor. But of course, they would never go there electorally, right. Philosophically, they're so mixed, they claim it's murder, but they won't put murderers in jail like the woman. Anyway. They go out of their way because they were being pushed. At this point, what are you going to do, punish women? No, they say we're not going to punish women. But then, quote, this was happening in the mid nineties, partial birth abortions. For those of us old enough to remember, these were, quote, late term abortions, not first trimester, not second. They were third. By the way, true is today and true even then, it's only like 10%, even less of the cases. But here's the section of the platform, quote, we oppose President Clinton's veto of the ban on partial birth abortions, a procedure, now listen to this. A procedure denounced by the American Medical association and rightly branded as four fifths infanticide, unquote. Wow. That's in the platform. Now in infanticide is the killing of an infant. You understand, right? And an infant is extra utero. It's an infant is outside the womb. So there could be nothing crazier than the idea of a four fifths infanticide. What they're really talking about is the pregnancy is four fifths into it. So it's late term. But that's not an infant. That's a fetus. Anyway. If it was truly infanticide, then that would be murder. You're killing an infant. But that's not actually what late term partial birth abortions were. But I just want to comment that what this, what's happening here is as the right to abortion becomes more and more established and Roe v. Wade in 1973 is more and more in the rearview mirror, the Democrats are now, you could say, becoming more bold about, well, women can do it. If the women can do it, then they can do it right up until birth. And even the objectivist position, I think properly is, although I wobbles on this, she says it's most important in the third, first three months, first trimester, as does Doctor Peacock. In other words, they're, they're echoing the Roe v. Wade stance. I would say human life begins at birth, not at conception. Then they should have a right to abort right until the end, so to speak, of the pregnancy. And that's what Republicans are now starting to worry about. So in the 1996 platform. So, so they've given up the idea of opposing abortion per se, and they're just trying to oppose this, quote, extreme version of it. Okay, now, 2000, I'm going to go faster after this. 2000 this is George W. Bush versus Gore, 2000. Quote, the Supreme Court. This is from the platform of 2000. The Supreme Court's recent decision prohibiting states from banning partial birth abortions, a procedure denounced by the AMA and rightly branded as four fifths infanticide, shocks the conscience of the nation. As a country, we must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That's why we say the unborn child has a fundamental right to blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. They just insert the same language that they had used previously, but here they're bringing in the current events of wow. Now, the Supreme Court has recently, I think that would be 1999 or so has said now even partial birth abortion is okay. Now I'm going to do 2004, then I'm going to skip to 2016. But I found in reading these that the Bush w. That the Bush W. Years were the most anti abortion and religious language in the platforms. It was not the Reagan years. It certainly wasn't the Bob Dole years, but George W. Bush in 2000, 2004. And I assume these candidates had control over the language. It's really not only virulently anti abortion, but it goes on and on forever. There's long passages in the platforms. Now, in the 2004, this is Bush versus John Kerry uses the unborn language again. But now, by this time, the president had signed something called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. I didn't even know about this until I read the platforms, which ensures that every infant born alive, including those who survive an abortion procedure, is considered a person under federal law, unquote. Now, I would consider that a person under federal law as well. So apparently, there were cases where late term abortions were tried. The infant came out of the womb. Well, the infant came in, they came out of the womb and became an infant, and then someone tried to kill it. That is infanticide. That should not be allowed. And then it says, quote, we praise congressional Republicans for banning partial birth abortions, unquote. I haven't had time to go look and see whether that was actually a law, because if by partial birth abortion, they simply mean late term abortions, those are legal, but infanticide is not. All right, I'm going to fast forward now to 2016, because here's the shift that's happened. Then I'll, then I'll take questions that they come 23 minutes into this year. The language in 2016 is very interesting because Donald Trump is obviously the nominee, and I don't think he spent much time and attention looking at this language, because it goes on forever that the longest language in any GOP platform on abortion occurs, actually in 2016. I'll quote some of it, and then some of it's new, but some of it's old that I'll just, I'll tell you about. But it's interesting because they start shifting to the declaration as a justification. Quote, the constitution's guarantee, this is the 14th amendment, by the way, that no one can be deprived of life, liberty, and property deliberately echoes the Declaration of independence, is proclamation that all are endowed by their creator with the inalienable right to life. Accordingly, that's the next line. Accordingly, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed. And then blah, blah, blah, they repeat the language of prior platforms. Okay, here's what's interesting to me. The declaration, of course, says, quote, all men are created equal. All men actually, individuated, living men are created equal and have rights. It's so bizarre that in 2016, the GOP says the proclamation that all are endowed by the. Not all what? Including all embryos. It's bizarre that they would invoke the declaration for this, but that's what they tried to do. Now, the only new thing in 2016 I could find, and the shifts are very interesting. One, we affirm our obligation to assist rather than penalize women who get abortions, unquote. You get that previously, they had been condemned for saying, well, if it's murder, why don't you penalize the women? And their platform said, well, we oppose abortion, but we're not going to penalize women. You see that? You see the contradiction. What, are you letting murderers go away at this point in 2016, they're actually saying, we affirm our obligation to assist to help them rather than penalize them. Well, that sounds like aiding and abetting murder. You see how crazy and inconsistent the positions are becoming at this point. They're still using the language of unborn child, which I've said is contradictory. And now they're saying they're going to assist rather than penalize these would be murderers. And the other thing which is also interesting in 2016, is it, of course, it changes with the time and what the new controversies are. Right? So now here it says, we not only oppose public funding of abortions, that's a repetition of many, many years, but then it says, and make it a crime to harvest. We want to make it a crime to harvest and sell fetal body parts. We oppose sex selection abortions. We oppose embryonic stem cell research. We want to ban on human cloning. I'm just taking out, this is the 2016. And then there's a whole section condemning the Democrats, which is new. It says, quote, democrats are extreme on abortion. They give it almost limitless support. They even oppose abortion clinic safety regulations and support public funding. They have reduced the old Bill Clinton mantra that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare, and now it's just legal. We're proud to be a part of party that protects human life and offers real solutions to women, unquote. All right, finally, here we are in 225 2024. I mean, so a month and two weeks ago, the GOP platform, and of course, now we have the context of, as I said before, Dobbs versus Jackson 2022, the overturning of Roe v. Wade, sending it back to the states made possible by the three appointees of Trump. I'm not going to name who they are because I'll probably forget each name anyway. That, and everyone knows that his three appointees made that possible. But here's the language. And think how concentrated that is and how condensed and different the language is. This is all there is in the current GOP platform on this issue. Quote, we proudly stand for families and life. Hmm. It doesn't say unborn child, does it? We believe the 14th amendment guarantees. So it does mention the 14th amendment again, that no person can be denied life or liberty without due process. Notice the word person. It's not unborn child. But the 14th amendment already refers to persons. So philosophically, this is perfectly fine because a zygote, an embryo and a fetus is not a person. And the 14th amendment does use the word person. Quote, that. There's more, though, and here's the addition, and that states are free to pass laws protecting those rights. I'm still quoting now after 51 years. This is referring to Roe v. Wade being overturned because of us Republicans. That power has been given to the states and to a vote of the people. The only other language is this. We will oppose late term abortion while supporting mothers and policies that advance parental care, birth control, and IVF. IVF, which is in vitro fertilization, unquote. Well, if you read the headlines, you'll see left, right, and center reporting. Wow. GOP drops, basically drops anti abortion language. How interesting. At a time when the GOP is being criticized for taking away a woman's right to choose. I'm just going to end with the following. I don't know if this is going to endure. I don't know whether four years from now, whoever is putting together the GOP platform, and whoever is the nominee will go back to the old language. That might happen. I sure hope it doesn't happen. I sure hope that this is a sea change and that one of the great legacies, they haven't always been good legacies that Donald Trump has left to the GOP is this issue. And it is kind of mixed and kind of ironic, because on the one hand, he's going to be seen as, and known as from the other side, as the guy who got rid of Roe v. Wade and violated women's rights. On the other hand, having done that, he had the fortitude. And if you read the reports, he definitely insisted on this language, that the 2016 language be thrown out. And I'm very glad, philosophically, that we no longer see the word unborn child. It could be one of his more influential and enduring legacies. And my hope is that the Republican Party becomes, well, if nothing, pro choice, at least not this anti life, very, very vicious policy that they've had for so long. I'm going to stop there. [00:31:51] Speaker A: Great. Thank you. If any of you would like to participate, you can request to speak. We'll bring you up. I've got some questions of my own. I mean, I did a little volunteering for Rudy Giuliani in 2008, and my recollection was that it was the, you know, being kind of nominally pro choice that cost him the nomination. And I think to at least some degree, it was like Trump wasn't really anti abortion in his heart, but he was just the type of guy that's gonna, you know, fulfill his promises to the base, and that's what led to these justices. I remember during the 2016 campaign or the primaries where he had said at one point that maybe women should be punished. And I think he was just taking it to its logical extension. And then, you know, that was, he got some flack for that. And then that may have been what caused the platform to be that way. I think after all the culture wars of 2020 and 2024, that, you know, he now has such command of the party that he's actually able to lead the electorate into being more moderate. Plus, some of the people he was running against, like DeSantis, he felt were too anti abortion, and he was trying to run to the center knowing what, you know, he was going to face in the general election. [00:33:14] Speaker B: Well, you're absolutely right. Your memory of all those things, Scott, is very good. And I do recall in 2016, some kind of town hall forum where I cringed because an interviewer on the left, I'm gonna been CNN or something did press him on the idea of, well, if this is a murder, why don't you prosecute the woman? And Trump fell for the trap and said, yeah, yeah, I guess I would. Yeah, I should. Not just the doctor, which is interesting, because if he had known the position of the platforms prior to him, they went out of their way to say, even though we're against abortion, we will not penalize the woman. So he didn't even echo, it's an inconsistent position, but he didn't even echo that view. So you're absolutely right. And I think, yes, I think what's happened here is, and again, I'm not praising Trump for being, you know, some principled advocate of individual rights and recognizing the objectivist view, you know, on the metaphysics of protoplasm versus humans. No. However, I think right now he's thinking, I gave you three, I gave you, you religious anti abortions. I gave you three justices who overturned Roe v. Wade, which Bush and Ray, the two bushes, and Reagan had for years said they wanted and never gave you. And I gave it to you. And I'm done with you. I'm done with you. It's back to the states. It's not an issue anymore. We're going to shrink this language from, I don't know, a thousand words or whatever they used in 2016 to these very few words that, more importantly, the words don't include unborn child. I don't know if he knows that philosophically, but whoever wrote it, I'm glad they took that word out, at least. It's an embarrassment. And maybe, I think that's what's going on. He's basically saying this should not be an issue anymore, which is so interesting, because prior to dodge versus Jackson going on the 50th, it wasn't quite the 50th, was it the 49th year. People were starting to think about this as a done deal. In other words, a lost cause, an issue that shouldn't be brought up anymore because, you know, it's settled, as they used to say, settled law. And the Supreme Court, especially if it's a conservative for, is the idea of, we don't do radical things. We're not judicial activists, and even though we may not like Roe v. Wade, we're not going to overturn it. And yet, then it was overturned. So it kind of shocked the world and shocked the nation and threw the cards on, you know, the 52 cards in the deck, up in the, up in the air again. So. But I think that's what's happening. It's not so much I think we know actually for years, Trump, as a New York Democrat was pretty much pro choice. I mean, that was fairly obvious if you go back. So he is somewhat of a chameleon. I think he does have some principles about loving America and loving the Constitution and loving freedom, but he's not the kind of guy who thinks about, thinks these things through. And yes, wants to get support from those who are, you know, maybe more religious oriented. But this is a huge thing. Anyone, you don't have to read all the platforms I just gave you. All you have to read is 2016 and then 2024. By the way, the reason I skipped over 2024, there wasn't any in 2020, I should say. There wasn't any in 2020 at all. There was Covid. And remember, for both parties, the conventions didn't meet and there really wasn't any platform. That alone is weird. So the only reason I skipped from 2016 to 2024 is there's nothing in between. But, Scott, you mentioned Giuliani. There are other cases of Republicans who were pro choice, and they didn't get far, but it was hard to detect whether they didn't get far because of that position or whether because of other defects they might have had. But, but I'm just hoping that a whole, that that's very now very small wing of the republican party that's pro choice grows. [00:37:41] Speaker A: Well, we also saw Nikki Haley during the debates talk about, you know, advising Republicans to moderate their position. [00:37:50] Speaker B: Yes. [00:37:51] Speaker A: You know, with Nancy Mace. I mean, you see it come from women. I don't know if either having pregnancy scares or even, you know, maybe men who've paid for an abortion tend to be a little more pro choice. [00:38:07] Speaker B: I think one of the best positions they've had in the platform over the years is this idea of no public funding. They're wrong philosophically. I think the other side actually is not giving a good philosophically consistent rights based argument for women's rights. Andy Bernstein points this out in his chapter. He's very good. He says, notice how both sides invoke rights. So the other side invokes the rights of women to do what they will with their bodies, and the other side invokes the rights, quote, of unborn children. And they both have a problem. They both are weak in their arguments about what rights are and who they pertain to. They pertain to individuals who are individuated. So they're not. Rights don't go to groups of individuals. There's no, like black rights or women's rights or capitalist right, labors right but neither do they go to pieces of individuals. So it's neither parts of individuals nor groupings of individuals that have rights. Only individuals have rights. Anyway. If you can philosophically disentangle all that, you can see that both sides have weak arguments. And Leonard Peacock's point I thought was very prescient in 2013 was he said at one point, the right of women to make reproductive choices, he says, is actually at risk because the advocates of a woman's right aren't giving a good argument. And how prescient is that? That is exactly what happened. The Supreme Court, by the way, one of the worst parts of the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs, shockingly bad. I think Alito wrote the opinion said something like, it's not in the constitution. Now, they're originalists right. So they're going to say, unless I find the right to abortion in the constitution, it's not a right. Now, the air force also is not in the constitution. I mean, the navy is in the army, right? But I mean, if you, if you had a Supreme Court justice who said the air force is unconstitutional because it's not listed in the. It's ridiculous. What is in the constitution is the government should provide national defense and a country should be able to grow and develop technology and new whole army, you know, military divisions that are high tech and stuff. The 9th and 10th amendment. For anyone who knows the constitution covers the idea of just because we have not enumerated every right in the bill of rights from one to seven doesn't mean there are other rights. And that covers abortion. You do not have to name it. The difficulty with the construction of the US constitution, as the Hamiltonians pointed out, is you do not need a bill of rights. Why? Because the document from article one to six was a enumerated powers, meaning this is all the government can do and no more. So when the Jeffersonian said, no, we need a First Amendment talking about a right to speech and a right to religious liberty and assembly and all those things, Hamilton said, quite correctly, the federalist said, there isn't any enumeration of powers that allows the government to do that. So by implication, they don't have the right to violate your free speech and all these other things. And no, the anti federalists wanted to make it very explicit. They wanted to write down, as they did in all the Bill of Rights, the particular rights we have. But they knew they couldn't enumerate them all because there are many. That's why they wrote the 9th and 10th Amendment, which, as I said, is a catch all for basically says if we haven't mentioned it, you still have these rights. And that unfortunately, that problem in the constitution has been exploited by this current court by saying, I don't see abortion in there, so it doesn't exist as a right. [00:42:11] Speaker A: Great. Well, let's go to our founder, David Kelly. Doctor Kelly, thanks for joining us. You have to unmute yourself. I don't know. [00:42:24] Speaker C: Can you hear me now? [00:42:25] Speaker B: Yeah, I can hear you, David. [00:42:28] Speaker C: Okay, great. [00:42:29] Speaker B: Thanks for joining. [00:42:30] Speaker C: Oh, absolutely. This is an issue I thought about for many years. Richard. I have two questions, but I'll preface it by saying thank you for this review of the republican platforms over the years and especially the 2016 one and 2024 one, because like all the rest of us, I'm faced with a choice between two. What kind of sounds like two bad choices? Trump and Kamala Harris. But be that as it may. [00:43:10] Speaker B: The. [00:43:10] Speaker C: Two points I want to make are, first of all, you mentioned Will Thomas's 2011 article. I worked with him on that. And one of the things that impressed me at the time was that a lot of discussion about abortion and the unborn children and so forth, obviously had a religious background that, you know, man and woman have sex, they conceive. The embryo already starts out as a human being because why? Not by nature, not by any rational argument, but by God. So there's a religious element in it. But if you think of it in secular terms, the birth of a human being is a process. It goes through stages. And somewhere, if you're applying, you know, we can describe that stage in descriptive physiological terms, fine. But we have to draw moral distinction at some point in a system of rights. In addition to your summary of the evolution of thought about this over in recent decades. I mean, think back. I think there's a much longer history in ancient Greece. You know, poor families without contraception had children and that they couldn't support, and they exposed them. They left them on some hill or other infants, humans by our standards. And so there's a kind of historical relativity here. We now have the technology to. [00:45:01] Speaker B: You. [00:45:02] Speaker C: Know, even for, you know, late birth abortions in many cases, but in any case, for preventing a birth in many different ways or enhancing or creating a birth through IVF or other means. So there's a kind of relativity here. But you got to draw a line, and line drawing is very difficult in law. [00:45:28] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:45:29] Speaker C: And, you know, we're applying a philosophical, philosophical framework to that based on objectivism and which I totally agree. And I just, I think the, but I think the historical aspect the relativistic aspect of you're picking a stage in a continuous process of development. [00:45:54] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:45:55] Speaker C: I think you and Rand and I draw the line in the right place when someone becomes subject, a subject of rights. [00:46:06] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:46:07] Speaker C: But anyway, I just want to add that historical perspective. The other thing is, the other point I want to make is, do you think there's an argument for saying that the Dobbs decision was actually proper not because it was anti Roe v. Wade, but because it properly returned an issue to the states that the federal government had no business legislating on? [00:46:37] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, go ahead. [00:46:41] Speaker C: The counterargument to that is, well, this is an issue of rights. So the federal government, through the 14th amendment, has to be the ultimate us arbiter of what counts as a right and what doesn't. But, you know, there's something about the federalist structure and the separation of powers between, in particular this case, the federal, and the federal government and the state governments. That part of me thinks, you know, this is actually a good decision, although I disagree with, you know, the abortion advocates completely. But should it, what I'm asking, what's your view? Should it be a state issue or federal issue? [00:47:27] Speaker B: Yeah, I, in prior discussions of this, Tas and others, I've said it this way, if it's a right, and I think it is, to, for the would be mother to choose what to do with their body, then the federalism issue is irrelevant. It's not an issue of what level of government can control it. And Trump actually argues it that way in the bad way. He'll say, well, who can oppose what I did? I put it back to the vote of the people. Well, as we know, David, you know, the majority vote of the people should not determine rights. You might as well, you could throw the First Amendment back that way and say, well, let's take a vote on whether we have free speech or not. So the, so the first cut of the deck, so to speak, has to be, is it a right or not? If it's a right, then, then you can vote it away. And it's improper to vote it away. Now that the, the problem with Roe v. Wade is you have a court in 1973 concocting not an illegitimate biological distinction of the trimesters. But they did introduce the trimester idea. And the idea is very weird, but it kind of fits your analysis. The trimester idea was, well, a woman really, really has rights in the first three months. The second three months, they start, it starts withering away. It starts becoming, starts becoming diluted. And then in the final trimester. This is the whole late term abortion or partial abortion abortion debate. The state intervenes. The state can intervene. The state can come in. And I find there's a problem with that. Objectively. One of the things, both metaphysically and philosophically and even politically, that attracts me to the idea that birth creates a human is. It's so goddamn objective. I mean, I think it's way more objective than things like conception. And, you know, what's the difference between a zygote and an embryo and a fetus? And, you know, it's different for different women, it's different for different times. And even science can detect, you know, heartbeats at this point or that way. It becomes arbitrary. But there's nothing more fixed than the idea of it's outside of me now. It's not a part of me now. There's an umbilical cord being cut. There's a. And if individuation is a thing and that that's what makes a person a person, I can, then that should be the standard. And, of course, if you go all the way back, David, you know that Aristotle has helped us with the idea of the potential versus the actual. So if an acorn is a potential oak tree, it is. But an acorn is not an oak tree. They're not a. A is not a. And a fetus is a potential human, but not a human. And that's the whole question, right? That the woman has the right to choose whether she shall make it into a human or not. And I think all those things are relevant. But I like your idea that once you realize that it's a process, that not intervening certain things will happen kind of makes it harder to judge. Makes it a little more difficult to judge. I. David, I wonder what your view is on. I'm looking here from Ayn Rand in 1975, one of the last Ayn Rand letters. She says, listen to this. Now, because Leonard echoes this. In 2013, she says, quote, never. This is after Roe v. Wade, of course, is two years after Roe v. Wade. And she never directly commented on Roe v. Wade, which I think is interesting. But in 1975, she says, never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a right to life, a piece of protoplasm has no rights and no life in the human sense of the term. Now, here's the key phrase. 1 may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. Yeah. Unquote. Now that's. Wow, that's interesting. And then Leonard in 2013, in the essay called abortion rights are pro life. He says, quote, the status of the embryo in the first trimester is the basic issue that can't be sidestepped. The embryo is clearly pre human and only mystical notions of religious dogma treat this lump of cells as constituting a person. Now I'm skipping down here. An embryo is a potential human being. It can, granted the woman's choice, develop into an infant, but what it actually is during the first trimester is a massive, relatively undifferentiated cells that exist as part of a woman's body. We must acknowledge, here's the key. We must acknowledge that the embryo under three months is something far more primitive than a frog or a fish, unquote. This language is very interesting because the whole time you're asking, okay, what about after three months? Are you aren and Leonard actually saying there's something to the argument that the second trimester and the third trimester, we're getting closer to human and maybe it's a taking. They don't say that, David, but their focus on the first trimester, I think, is very interesting and rarely brought up by objectivists. [00:53:42] Speaker A: Yeah. There's something about her alluding to it being immoral in the third trimester, even if she wouldn't want to. Law against. [00:53:51] Speaker B: Yeah. The immoral versus the illegal. Yeah, but I, I've often, I've often put it as something like this, that it's not, it should not be illegal to abort right up until the end. But in the, the self interest, the self interest of the would be mother says, don't do that. It's ridiculous. It's dangerous to your health, everybody. Doctors do concede this, that late term, late term abortions are dangerous physically, but I think they're also. This will sound weird, but I think they're also psychologically dangerous. Harmful. I think it's wrong because everyone knows what happens over time. Right. I think it's really harmful for a woman to wait. I understand why she might wait. Other things are happening in her life. Right. But it. They report. They will report. They feel terrible aborting, you know, at eight months. But the issue here is not, is she murdering some human being? No, she's not. But I want to, I want to revert. Revert to the self interested angle of, I want the woman to be self interested. And there are so many ways to have birth control and prophylactics that this is like one of the most ridiculous and irrational and unsafe and psychologically harmful way to do it. But that, but see, a quote, religious person listening to me would say you're monstrous because you're still only focusing on the egoism of the woman. See what I mean, David? [00:55:38] Speaker C: Yeah, I do. But I also want to say, add another point here, which is, you know, a child is born, okay, we now have an infant, but the whole philosophy of rights is based on, is really articulated in Rand's theory and most other theories of rights in terms of a mature adult, the ability to reason, the, the right to choose, the value of achievement. An infant has none of these things, is it cannot reason, it cannot support itself, it cannot produce. It's totally at the mercy of its parents. [00:56:26] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:56:27] Speaker C: And so in what sense? At best, you could argue that if infant, once, an infant, once born, has the right to life, but I don't know any parents who would say, oh, if a child, you know, once he gets language after two or three years, wants to do something and the parent thinks that, you know, that's going to harm you, the parent will say, no, you can't do that. [00:56:53] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:56:55] Speaker C: That's not the way adult rights work. And so even rights have a gradualist, you know, sequential time, time relevant application to human beings even after birth. So. [00:57:18] Speaker B: And David, what do you make of the legal, not really moral, but legal distinction between minor and major, where the, where the line is usually drawn at, what, 18 years? But so it sounds like. Yeah, it sounds like a bright line. And that actually is very helpful. You know, in many probate courts and child custody, you know, the things like that. Even today's disputes about gender, whether you can inform the parents or nothing, and. But even 18 years, David, you might say, well, lifespans have expanded from, you know, 40 years to 80 years. So why is the. All right, so that's changed. Right? That's what you mean by the relativist aspect of it. So why is 18 still a bright line? Why isn't it 17? Why isn't it 16? Why isn't it? Or maybe it goes the other way. I don't know. If life is becoming longer, why hasn't that legal standard of 18 changed to 19 or 20 or 21? Have you thought about that? Remember, it comes up with things like the draft and whether you can drink and whether you can drive. There's a bunch of things surrounding the 18 year line. [00:58:34] Speaker C: Oh, it comes up with gender transformation. Yeah. That's the most recent thing and the hottest debated there are. So we're talking about another legal line. The law has to protect rights and that, first of all, it has to define them in order to do that. So it's got to draw lines at infancy. This is a human being right to life, but not yet a right to, you know, opinion or freedom of owning. I'm think of a child claiming, okay, this is my toy. It's my property. Well, they don't really have property rights, but, and then it has to say when, when a human being has developed the point where they no longer have to in a set, the 18 year old issue is mostly, you know, okay, you no longer have to listen to your parents. You're no longer under the control. You can make your own decisions. [00:59:33] Speaker B: Right, right. Right. [00:59:36] Speaker C: Not just about driving, but there's even. [00:59:39] Speaker B: A, one of, one of the things I love about the language of the law in probate, there's even a language that speaks of the age of emancipation. When I was going through a divorce, someone used that phrase and they said, well, your kid won't reach the age of emancipation until XDev. And I said, what do you, what? I never heard that before. What are you talking about? Because it sounds like what? He's a slave until he's a man and no legal decision. But it's also related to this topic, isn't it, David? Because the minor, in legal terms at least, but maybe morally as well, is still under the control of the major of the parent. [01:00:23] Speaker C: Right. [01:00:24] Speaker B: And it hasn't, quote unquote, been emancipated yet. And that is similar to the argument of, hey, I am the would be mother. This fetus is inside me. I'm controlling or not what to do with you. And you could say the same thing about a 14 year old. Now this is not going to be. [01:00:47] Speaker A: A whole separate topic. [01:00:50] Speaker C: Yeah, but this is, they're all connected and it's an I, it's a really important issue. And I'll just end here. I think objectivism as a philosophy could use a lot more development on this sport, and we've worked on that with will Thomas and others, diagnostic society and Richard. But I'll just end by saying, richard, what you've talked to us about tonight is really, really interesting politically. So thank you. [01:01:24] Speaker B: Thank you, David. [01:01:26] Speaker A: Great topic. Thanks to everyone for joining us. Thank you, Dr. Kelly. Thank you so much, Richard, for doing this. It was a great conversation. [01:01:37] Speaker B: Thanks, Scott. Thanks, David. Thanks, everyone.