Fox News personality Tomi Lahren is facing significant criticism from her fans––and many of President Donald Trump's supporters––after she said that overturning Roe v. Wade “would be a big mistake.”
Lahren acknowledged that her statements would likely anger many of her viewers; she said that any attempts by the Trump administration to overturn the landmark 1973 ruling that legalized abortion across the United States would be “unlikely to succeed” and would only further divide an already tense country.
“This president is winning for the American people on the economy, foreign policy, and tax reform,” she said. “These are areas that benefit all Americans regardless of religion or social beliefs. If we continue to focus on these things and immigration, we’ll sail into 2020 with all three branches in our control. That’s how we get things done for the American people, that’s how we win,” she said.
“We lose when we start tampering with social issues. "Do we really want to fight for this, alienate Democrats, moderates and Libertarians all to lose in the end anyway? That’s a risk that I don’t think is worth taking.”
While Lahren said that she's personally pro-life, she stressed that she believes “it’s not the government’s place to dictate" what women do with their own bodies. She also cited a recent Quinnipiac poll which found that most Americans want Roe v. Wade to remain on the books.
“Those are my thoughts. Feel free to disagree,” she said.
And disagree is exactly what many conservatives did.
@TomiLahren Some day we will ALL look back at Roe v. Wade and shudder at the inhumanity of abortion. Democrats scr… https://t.co/vVm0Tb5MZw— Roger Felton (@Roger Felton) 1530998195.0
Lahren’s “lack of clarity on this simple issue in & of itself is cause for nearly complete disqualification from th… https://t.co/2eyFqLxFv5— Ned Ryun (@Ned Ryun) 1531083248.0
@TomiLahren What is your point??? That Trump should appoint a Ginsburg clone? If Roe is overturned it just goes ba… https://t.co/UlPNaZRhsD— Matt Henderson (@Matt Henderson) 1531092641.0
@TomiLahren Standing up for the most vulnerable among us is winning.— Mandy ☕🦋🌼 (@Mandy ☕🦋🌼) 1531097863.0
@TomiLahren I love you Tomi, but in this case, I disagree. The job of gov’t is to protect the nation & the job of… https://t.co/sHybePtRwQ— Alexandra (@Alexandra) 1531103429.0
Lahren later fired back at her critics and defended her statements.
Who are you to tell me what I should believe in? Who are you to tell me what my moral fiber is made of? Who are you… https://t.co/nXADlqZqY0— Tomi Lahren (@Tomi Lahren) 1531083601.0
I don't believe government regulation accomplishes that but I respect your view. We disagree- last time I checked t… https://t.co/WTW96QPBTw— Tomi Lahren (@Tomi Lahren) 1531090796.0
Do I form my political beliefs based on acceptance from the self-appointed thought wardens of either political part… https://t.co/JF55wFtGDW— Tomi Lahren (@Tomi Lahren) 1531095622.0
End of the day I don’t think government legislates morality well. If you do, great. I’m not dumb or uneducated beca… https://t.co/Uq7fmEvC2b— Tomi Lahren (@Tomi Lahren) 1531124467.0
But in a piece for The Federalist, writer Georgi Boorman said Lahren holds a "weird position" for "someone who 'loves the Constitution":
Yes, I am trying to tell Lahren (and others) how to think. I want to convince her of the correctness of the pro-life position on Roe v. Wade. Vigorous debate is a wonderful American tradition. It is the Left who largely refuse to entertain others’ ideas, as she has made a career of pillorying, so I am confused as to why Tomi is so hostile to interacting with broadly orthodox conservative beliefs, and thinks that helps define her as an anti-leftist.
As for her “moral fiber,” anyone is free to make a judgment about it just as she and I are free to make a moral judgment about the character of Hillary Clinton. It’s a free country. Yet I will make the case on Tomi’s own values first, and then on the values that should be universal.
She further stresses that should Lahren reassess her opinion on Roe v. Wade, she would conclude that the ruling was "social justice activism of the most egregious and dangerous kind."
Lahren stated on “The View” that she is pro-choice and that the government should “stay out of my guns, and stay out of my body as well.” She has also said she is an anti-social-justice-warrior, supports limited government, and she describes herself as “someone that loves the Constitution.”
If Tomi truly holds these opinions and read the majority opinion of Roe v. Wade, beginning to end, she should come to the conclusion that Roe was social justice activism of the most egregious and dangerous kind. This wasn’t a bunch of “snowflakes” huddling in safe spaces and complaining about others exercising their free speech. These were seven black-robed justices in the highest court conspiring to bind all states to uphold a right that can be found nowhere in the Constitution. Not only that, they told the states exactly how that right must be upheld.
Fears that abortion rights could wind up on the chopping block have persisted since Justice Anthony Kennedy's sudden announcement that he will retire from the Supreme Court.
Shortly after Kennedy made his announcement, Jeffrey Toobin, a staff writer for The New Yorker and CNN’s Senior Legal Analyst, weighed in: While Toobin is far from the only analyst to posit that Kennedy’s retirement places Roe v. Wade at risk, he was far more specific: He predicts abortion will be illegal in almost half of the country within 18 months.
Anthony Kennedy is retiring. Abortion will be illegal in twenty states in 18 months. #SCOTUS— Jeffrey Toobin (@Jeffrey Toobin) 1530122805.0
Responses to Toobin’s tweet were rife with alarm with some likening the death knell of abortion rights to the rise of a society as depicted in Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, in which women are forced to bear children against their will. Others pointed out that banning abortion would not necessarily get rid ofabortion––it would only make the procedure less safe, as history has shown us. Still others railed against Kennedy for not waiting to announce his retirement until after November’s midterm elections.
Toobin elaborated further during an appearance on CNN’s “The Lead with Jake Tapper,” where he was joined by other legal analysts with some observations of their own.
“Any Supreme Court nomination is important, but this one is the most important because it will change the partisan makeup of the court,” he told Jake Tapper. “Anthony Kennedy… was mostly with the conservatives, while on a couple of key issues, most notably abortion rights, he was the vote that was keeping Roe v. Wade the law of the land. That is done. Roe v. Wade is going to be overturned. There is no doubt that the people advising President Bush-uh, President Trump, in making this nomination is to pick someone who will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.”
The states, Toobin continued, “know this”:
They will start passing right now bills banning abortion altogether, and I guarantee you in the next year, the Supreme Court will have cases that will challenge Roe v. Wade, and I think it is doomed. Abortion will be illegal in a significant chunk of this country within 18 months.