Is Ted Cruz’s Position on Abortion the Least Bad Since Barry Goldwater?

Radical capitalists long for a U.S. presidential candidate who understands that rights are observation-based moral principles that apply only to individuated human beings in a social context—the very context in which historically the principle of rights was formed to apply. (Note that John Locke and the American Founders were not wondering: “How can we protect fetuses?” They were wondering: “Given that people and especially governments can use force against individuals and thereby stop them from acting on their judgment, how can we stop this from happening?”)

Such a candidate would see that a woman has a right to life and liberty because she is an individual who needs freedom to think and act on her judgment so that she can live. He would see that this right includes a woman’s moral prerogative to act as she sees fit regarding the contents of her body. Accordingly, he would see that neither the federal government nor a state government can have a moral right to outlaw abortion. And he would seek to uphold these truths in office.

Unfortunately, no candidate of either party today holds such a position.

The leftist Democrats (but I repeat myself) do not hold that a woman has rights. Leftists deny the very existence of rights, which is why they call for the state to control practically every aspect of people’s lives. The fact that leftists claim to be for a woman’s “choice” regarding abortion has nothing to do with rights. It has to do with (a) moral subjectivism and political pragmatism, which together constitute the essence of the leftist creed—and (b) the power leftists seek to gain and wield by employing those means.

As for the viable Republican presidential candidates today, Cruz’s position on abortion is, all things considered, the least bad of the alternatives. In fact, his position on this subject is one of the least bad since Barry Goldwater.

Consider the positions of the following candidates and presidents in relation to Cruz on this matter:

Ted Cruz believes, on religious grounds, that rights begin at conception and thus that abortion should be illegal. At the political level, however, he opposes a constitutional amendment that would outlaw abortion. Instead, he advocates leaving the legality of abortion up to each state to decide.*

Barry Goldwater held that “a woman has a right to an abortion”; that this is “a decision that’s up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right”; and thus that abortion should be legal nationwide.

Ronald Reagan held that “unless and until someone can prove the unborn human is not alive, we must give it the benefit of the doubt and assume it is [alive]—and, thus, it should be entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” On the basis of this belief, Reagan advocated a constitutional amendment that would prohibit all abortions except when “the unborn child threatens the life of the mother.”

Gerald Ford opposed abortion and called for a constitutional amendment outlawing it. As he put it during a debate in 1976: “I support the Republican platform which calls for a constitutional amendment that would outlaw abortions.” Ford’s position, however, was mixed. In that same debate, he said he favored a “constitutional amendment that would permit each one of the fifty states to make the choice.” (That latter position is essentially the same as Cruz’s today.)

George W. Bush, of course, opposed abortion and supported a constitutional amendment to ban it. He even signed into law the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

Mitt Romney, while he was running for president in 2012, supported “a federal ban on all abortions,” saying, “That would be wonderful. . . . I’d be delighted to sign that bill.”

Donald Trump doesn’t have a position on abortion, as he doesn’t have a position on anything (unless you regard “Trust me—it’s gonna be great” as a position).

So, although Cruz’s position on abortion is light years from the ideal, it is better—as in less bad—than practically any candidate since Barry Goldwater. And given Cruz’s many substantial virtues in the areas that bear most heavily on the rights of Americans and the future of America, his position on abortion certainly does not, in today’s context, disqualify him for the presidency—at least not by any objective standard.

*Update: I recently discovered that although Cruz sometimes says the legality of abortion should be left up to the states, he also signed a pledge saying he supports a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. So Cruz unfortunately is sending contradictory messages on this issue, as Gerald Ford did in 1976. Even so, as I argue in Ted Cruz for President, given his substantial virtues regarding the most pressing issues of the day—such as freedom of speech, foreign policy, government spending, and government intervention in the economy—he is by far the best candidate in the running. —CB


Return to Top

Comments submitted to TOS are moderated and checked periodically. Commenters must use their real names, and comments may not exceed 400 words. For a comment to be approved, it must be civil, substantive, and on topic. Ad hominem attacks, arguments from intimidation, misrepresentations, unsubstantiated accusations, baseless assertions, and comments that ignore relevant points made in the article are not permitted. Comments that violate these rules will not be approved. Thank you for helping us to keep the discussion intellectually profitable.

5 Responses to Is Ted Cruz’s Position on Abortion the Least Bad Since Barry Goldwater?

    benkrug April 25, 2016 at 2:24 pm #

    A constitutional amendment is not the only worry here. I believe that the issue of abortion may be one of the main reasons Republicans are refusing to consider any nominations to the Supreme Court. As we’ve seen already, the next nominee could be a swing vote, and there may be more positions opening during the next terms, as well.

    • craigbiddle April 27, 2016 at 4:15 pm #

      Benkrug, I agree that a constitutional amendment is not the only worry in this count, but nor is the only worry the damage that can be done by a religious Supreme Court appointee. What kind of Justice would Hillary or Bernie appoint? Shudder to think of it.

      The Supreme Court can’t overturn Roe v Wade. Only an act of Congress can do that—and this isn’t going to happen, at least not anytime in the near future. The damage another leftist Justice could do, on the other hand, is immense and could be immediate.

    John Donohue April 27, 2016 at 4:23 pm #

    I don’t understand how the position “let state governments decide” on abortion is better than “let the Federal Government outlaw it.” Isn’t the Federal Government supposed to protect citizens of the entire nation from violations of citizens’ rights by state governments?

    It’s pretty bad if the argument is, “well, the Feds won’t protect women’s rights, that’s not its job any more, but if we’re lucky one state out of 50 will, so women needing abortions could drive to that state.”


    • craigbiddle April 27, 2016 at 4:58 pm #

      John, in one respect, there is no “worse” in regard to whether the federal government or a state government forbids a woman to act on her judgment; in each case, her rights are violated. In another sense, it is worse, as you imply, for the federal government to fail to protect a woman’s rights and to say, in effect, “We’ll let the states decide whether to protect or violate rights on this issue”—because that is the federal government relinquishing its very purpose for being. In a third respect, however, a woman being free to get an abortion somewhere in the United States is better than her being forbidden to get an abortion anywhere in the United States. If you think about your own daughter (real or imagined) needing an abortion, you’ll immediately see the vital importance of accounting for this third respect. Also, as I mentioned in a comment above, Roe v Wade isn’t going to be overturned anytime soon.

      We face much more pressing issues than the remote possibility of abortion being outlawed anytime soon, and on virtually every one of those issues, from a pro-reason, pro-freedom perspective, Cruz is by far the best candidate running.

        John Donohue April 27, 2016 at 5:11 pm #

        I agree with your logic in the last paragraph. But it hurts that to reach it one must climb over the “hope” that at least one state would protect women, the Federal Government of the Unites States of America having failed.

Leave a Reply