Almost every single congressional Republican has embraced the pro-life movement on the campaign trail at one point or another. But very few have the courage actually to follow through once they reach the halls of Congress. Sen. Josh Hawley wants to change that.
During an interview with the Washington Post this weekend, Hawley vowed not to support a Supreme Court nominee unless he or she has a proven pro-life track record. Indeed, the nominee would need to have publicly stated before his or her nomination that Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that solidified abortion rights, was “wrongly decided.”
“I don’t want private assurances from candidates,” Hawley explained. “I don’t want to hear about their personal views, one way or another. I’m not looking for forecasts about how they may vote in the future or predications. I don’t want any of that. I want to see on the record, as part of their record, that they have acknowledged in some forum that Roe v. Wade, as a legal matter, is wrongly decided.”
In practice, Hawley’s litmus test could become a problem for the pro-life movement, as my colleague Quin Hillyer wrote yesterday. It leaves no room for growth or change and could even discourage thoughtful jurisprudence. Justice Clarence Thomas, for example, would not have passed Hawley’s test at the time of his confirmation. Thomas specifically stated during his hearing that he had not made up his mind about Roe v. Wade, and dodged most other questions about abortion. He did, however, argue in written opinions prior to his nomination that Roe was a “fatally flawed” doctrine, which suggests that Thomas’s hesitance to address the matter directly before the Senate was not due to a lack of conviction, but because of the contentious situation in which he found himself.
Several decades later and Thomas does not hesitate to speak his mind on matters of abortion. He is the most fervent pro-life justice on the bench and often the only one willing to challenge the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey directly, which suggests that nuance is important, even in regards to abortion, and sometimes exceptions must be made.
Still, Hawley’s commitment is encouraging for two reasons: It serves as a reminder that the Democratic Party has long applied a pro-choice standard to all judicial nominees, and it challenges the congressional GOP to get serious about the pro-life movement.
It is no secret that Democrats instinctively oppose any judicial appointment who questions the legality and/or morality of abortion. During their confirmation hearings, Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh were depicted as anti-women’s rights crusaders who would rescind Roe v. Wade if given the chance because abortion was the only debate that mattered to Democrats and liberal voters. Surely, Republicans should show just as much conviction when it comes to vetting and voting for a nominee who will advance conservatism’s legacy.
But they’re not — at least, not in practice. I can count on one hand the number of senators who have routinely introduced pro-life legislation. And even during President Trump’s first two years in office, when Republicans held the House, the Senate, and the White House, abortion remained on the back burner.
Hawley is at least willing to do more than pay lip service to a movement that desperately needs congressional support. Should he jeopardize the Supreme Court’s potential for a pro-life majority? No. But that’s not what he’s doing. Rather, Hawley is challenging his party to pick judges who are worthy of the nomination and to make pro-life issues a top priority moving forward. How many Republicans can say the same?
