Donald Trump has called Roe v Wade into question in a show of support for the evangelical stance against abortion.
The argument
Most evangelicals oppose Roe v Wade and contraceptives as a matter of principle. Trump took a strong pro-life stance from the primaries in the 2016 election, whereas Hillary Clinton supported abortion rights and increased funding for Planned Parenthood. Many Republican presidents have been more devout than Donald Trump, but they are often seen as having compromised on their, and evangelicals’, ideals. This is particularly relevant in cases of abortion laws and LGBTQ+ rights. Trump has been seen by his supporters as a candidate who will not compromise and will follow through on his promises. His repeated attacks on his political opponents and members of his own party when they refuse to fall in line only increases this sentiment. Furthermore, the presence of an empty chair on the Supreme Court after the death of Antonin Scalia in February 2016 pushed many conservatives to action to ensure it was filled by a pro-lifer. On the campaign trail, Trump talked of criminally prosecuting women who had abortions or the doctors who performed the practice. His appointees to the Supreme Court, Judge Gorsuch, Judge Kavanaugh, and potentially Judge Barrett, should she be appointed, would be enough to reverse the vote should they get the chance to overturn Roe v Wade.
Premises
Counter-arguments
Critics, such as evangelical pastor Robb Ryerse, say that Trump is cynically using pro-life voters to increase his base with little care for protecting lives both of unborn children and their mothers.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] The stance was recent and the premise treats it as a settled position. He had described himself as pro-choice before entering Republican politics and the shift dated to the primaries — which is what critics, including evangelical pastors, point to in arguing the alignment is transactional rather than held. The premise also overstates the evangelical position, since opposition to contraception is a Catholic teaching rather than a general evangelical one, and American evangelicals broadly use and accept contraception. [Rejecting P2] "Refusing to compromise" is a reputation rather than a record. Deals were struck across the term and positions moved, and the difference from earlier Republican presidents is better described as one of manner than of substance. The premise measures reliability by combativeness, which are not the same thing. [Rejecting P3] This is the strongest premise and it does not support the conclusion drawn. Judicial appointments are a reason to vote for a party's nominee whoever he is, so they explain support for the office-holder without establishing that he holds the evangelical position, which is what the argument's title claims. The question asked is why evangelicals support him, and the appointments answer it in a way fully compatible with the criticism on record — that the constituency is being used rather than represented.