A political party betrays its principles if it replaces them with electoral calculations, and that is happening with the US Republican Party.<\/p>\n
The Republican National Committee renounces its defense of the right to life of unborn children<\/big><\/p>\n Through Francisco Jos\u00e9 Contreras<\/a> I have reached an article published today by First Things<\/a>, in which Jonathon Van Maren points out the following:<\/p>\n \"The Republican National Committee<\/strong> proposed its 2024 GOP party patform in Milwaukee on July 8, and for the first time in forty years, this platform does not include support for a national abortion ban<\/strong>. Instead, the GOP\u2019s anti-abortion positions are softened and many of the party's previous pro-life commitments have been removed. In particular, the committee stripped a key line included in every GOP platform since 1984: \u201cThe unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed.\u201d<\/strong> Instead, the platform states that the power to pass laws on abortion is the purview of the states. It only commits the GOP to opposing \u201cLate Term Abortion\u201d<\/strong> and it supports access to \u201cBirth Control and IVF.\u201d\"<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n A change of position in line with Trump's turn on this issue<\/big><\/p>\n This unfortunate change of position of the Republican Party is not coincidental: this is a position in line with the approaches put forward by Donald Trump in September 2023<\/a>, when he criticized the fetal heartbeat laws approved by some states governed by Republicans, calling them \"a terrible mistake.\"<\/strong> Let us also remember that in June 2024, Trump stated that he would not support a national ban on abortion in the US<\/a>.<\/p>\n What does the appointment of pro-life James David Vance mean?<\/big><\/p>\n Paradoxically, this abandonment of the Republican Party's pro-life positions is known hours after Donald Trump's choice of James David Vance as vice presidential candidate<\/a>. Vance is Catholic, senator from Ohio and declares himself pro-life<\/a>. It is logical to wonder if Trump has chosen Vance because of his harmony with his way of thinking or to avoid a demobilization of pro-life voters dissatisfied with the turn of the Republican Party<\/strong>.<\/p>\n The risk for the conservative right of focusing on a single issue<\/big><\/p>\n I fully agree with the diagnosis<\/a> that Francisco Jos\u00e9 Contreras makes on this: \"The new right can be reduced to nationalism and \"anti-globalism\"<\/strong>.\"<\/em> Coincidentally, it is about a warning that I already pointed out here on June 25<\/a>. I already commented then that it is true that the institutions, political parties and media that are usually described as \"globalist\" are promoters of abortion, but that does not mean that the so-called \"anti-globalism\" necessarily implies a defense of life<\/strong >. There we have examples as clear as Vladimir Putin's pro-abortion positions<\/a> and Marine Le Pen<\/a>.<\/p>\n Among those who call themselves \"anti-globalists\" there is a growing tendency to claim that ideologies no longer exist and the division between right and left would no longer be valid<\/strong>, and that everything boils down to a confrontation between globalists and sovereigntists . A simplification of the political debate that could lead to an emptying of principles very similar to that carried out for years by centrism<\/strong>.<\/p>\n The precedent of the Popular Party in Spain<\/big><\/p>\n Let us remember that in Spain, the Popular Party began opposing abortion and ended up abandoning those positions to become, today, another pro-abortion party<\/strong>. If this is the path that a part of the conservative right is going to take, no one can count on me to follow that path. The defense of human life is one of the bases of our civilization<\/strong>, and renouncing it is what explains many of the alarming events that we are experiencing in the West.<\/p>\n ---<\/p>\n
\n