On Wednesday night, the Daily Beast reported that the anonymous woman who said Herschel Walker paid for the abortion of a child they conceived together is also the mother of one of Walker’s children who is still alive today.
The new detail makes a claim that was already very credible — in light of the reported receipt for the abortion and the subsequent check and card from Walker to the woman — almost certainly true.
One reason this new detail was originally withheld might have been to see if Herschel Walker and Rick Scott were dumb enough to climb out on a limb and flatly deny the allegation. They were. They are.
There is a real moral cost to the witness of pro-lifers who endorse an apparently unrepentant Walker. The GOP Senate candidate could have immediately responded to the original story with honesty and contrition, and pro-lifers could have honestly welcomed the convert — as they have welcomed millions of other converts who have been complicit in perpetuating a culture of death over the past five decades. Instead, Walker apparently chose to lie, and many in a movement that is supposed to be built on truth accepted (or pretended to accept) Walker’s claim at face value. Walker could still tell the truth, of course, and it would still be the right thing to do. But after apparently lying about it, few would believe he was acting out of a sense of genuine regret. (I keep writing “apparently” because I suppose there is a very small chance that Walker, who has a history of mental-health problems, is simply in denial.)
Nothing I’m about to say negates anything in the preceding paragraph, but it is also true that almost everybody condemning all pro-lifers who would still vote for Walker would themselves behave the same way if they faced a similar situation.
There is a preponderance of evidence that Bill Clinton forcibly raped a woman in a hotel room in 1978, and if Bill Clinton were a Senate candidate today, there is no doubt that almost all Democrats would justify a vote for the rapist in order to “protect women’s rights” and “protect democracy.” As pro-lifers see it today, congressional Democrats are perhaps one Senate seat and a continued House majority away from implementing a policy — unlimited taxpayer funding of elective abortions for Medicaid recipients — that will cause an additional 60,000 unborn children to be killed each year. Many will therefore justify a vote for a man who almost certainly paid for an abortion in order to prevent an additional 60,000 abortions each year (even if it isn’t certain that Walker’s vote is necessary to stop it and even though it is possible that the GOP’s rallying behind Walker hurts the party’s chances of ending Democratic control of the House). But try explaining that rationale to an average nonideological American. Pro-lifers shouldn’t pretend there aren’t moral costs to endorsing Walker and potentially elevating him to a seat in the U.S. Senate.