(LifeSiteNews) — South Carolina Representative Nancy Mace cannot be allowed to influence the GOP’s agenda on abortion in a post-Roe America.
A year after the reversal of Roe v. Wade and a year-and-a-half before the next presidential election, it is important that pro-lifers ensure the next GOP presidential ticket is firmly against abortion. I am not sure the best ticket to do that, but we can start by crossing names off the list of people who definitely are not the best choices.
Mace’s name is being floated as a potential vice presidential pick for President Donald Trump. I don’t put much stock into vice presidential pick rumors, particularly after ostensible political insider Matt Drudge claimed in 2012 that Mitt Romney would pick David Petraeus to be his running mate.
But I do take Politico at its word when the outlet reports that Mace is getting over her opposition to Trump, and has his ear. It would be a mistake for Republicans and Trump to allow Mace to influence the GOP, which needs to be bold in eliminating abortion.
The pair get along in part because both are unwilling to pursue stronger protections for preborn life. Mace is a regular on liberal news stations, talking about how the Republican Party needs to moderate on abortion and pursue limits closer to 15 or 20 weeks. She, like Trump, explicitly opposed Florida’s new law to protect preborn babies from abortion once a heartbeat is detected, which is usually around six weeks.
Politico noted:
Mace is now championing the former president’s policy positions, too – in particular, abortion, an issue on which Mace has publicly criticized her party. She has called for easier access to birth control and legal abortions until an unspecified time period between 15 and 20 weeks of pregnancy.
‘The only candidate that I’ve seen articulate a message in that regard, that I think is more reasonable, is Donald Trump,’ Mace said. ‘So imagine my surprise, you know, seeing that I agree more with him than many of the other candidates because some of the candidates haven’t articulated their position, or they’re vague or they don’t want to answer the question.’
My prediction is that a Mace-Trump abortion agenda would give peanuts to the pro-life movement and would largely shy away from restrictions and instead favor new protections for pregnant workers and money to pregnancy resource centers. Those are not bad, but they are not going to significantly move the needle on ending the human rights atrocity of abortion in the same way actual legal protections for the preborn will.
Mace is weak on other important social issues too – she supports same-sex “marriage” and the “Fairness for All Act,” which would “take scholarships from female athletes, as well as allow men in girl’s locker rooms, female prisons, and even women’s shelters,” according to the American Principles Project.
Her position on the LGBT agenda is the same as most moderate Republicans – basically let LGBT-identifying people do whatever they want, let men enter women’s locker rooms but then leave a small exception for religious institutions. Has any Republican ever explained why it is okay for men to enter a female locker room at a public high school but not okay for them to do it if the high school is Catholic or Protestant?
Mace is the perfect sort of Republican for a party that has no interest in winning elections but wants to put up a good act and get a few claps from the hosts of “The View.” She is the point guard for the Washington Generals of politics – a team that likes the game but is mostly there to play an act so the other team can win.
Trump would be wrong to pick her as a vice president and to let her have any influence in his campaign.
