President Trump to address March for Life crowd live via satellite

A President Donald Trump supporter is see seen at the annual March for Life in Washington Jan. 27. (CNS photo/Tyler Orsburn)A President Donald Trump supporter is see seen at the annual March for Life in Washington Jan. 27. (CNS photo/Tyler Orsburn)

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders announced at her daily press briefing Jan. 17 that President Donald Trump will become the first president to address the March for Life live from the White House Rose Garden via satellite.

The annual pro-life event marks the Supreme Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade and its companion case, Doe v. Bolton, that legalized abortion. "Love Saves Lives" is the theme of the 2018 march.


"Since his first day in office, President Trump has remained steadfast on his campaign promises to the pro-life cause and has actively worked to protect the unborn. ... We welcome our 45th president, Donald Trump, to the 45th annual March for Life," said Jeanne Mancini, president of March for Life.

"Over the past year, the Trump administration has significantly advanced pro-life policy, and it is with great confidence that, under his leadership, we expect to see other pro-life achievements in the years to come," she said in a statement.

Last year, at the request of Trump, Vice President Mike Pence addressed the March for Life from the speakers' stage. He became the highest-ranking government official to address the crowd in person.

During their tenure in office, President Ronald Reagan, President George H.W. Bush and President George W. Bush all addressed the march via telephone or a radio hookup from the Oval Office, with their remarks broadcast to the crowd.

During their tenure in office, President Ronald Reagan, President George H.W. Bush and President George W. Bush all addressed the march via telephone or a radio hookup from the Oval Office.

This year's speakers include House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin. The Catholic congressman will be joined by two other Catholic congressmen, Reps. Dan Lipinksi, D-Illinois, and Chris Smith, R-New Jersey. They confirmed their attendance in early December.

Because the National Park Service has a refurbishing project that makes it too expensive to be on the grounds of the Washington Monument, this year's event begins with a rally on the National Mall between Madison Drive and Jefferson Drive.

Following remarks from several speakers, participants will march down Constitution Avenue toward the U.S. Capitol and then proceed to the area outside the U.S. Supreme Court.

Another speaker this year is Pam Tebow, mother of former football player Tim Tebow. Her doctors told her she had to have an abortion to save her own life, but she refused and delivered a healthy boy.

Speaker Kelly Rosati, a March for Life board member, will share her story as a mother who has adopted four children previously in foster care.

In addition to focusing on the sacrifice involved with bringing life into the world, the March for Life organization also wants to highlight the work done by pregnancy centers and maternity homes that help women who find themselves in an unplanned pregnancy.

"The March for Life is nonpartisan, or bipartisan, we're also nonsectarian, we always try to get people from both sides of the political aisle to speak at the March for Life," Mancini said, adding that it's not always an easy task.

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
go go
1 year 2 months ago

There is nothing pro-life about 45 except when its useful for riling up the extremists in his base.

Jay Zamberlin
1 year 2 months ago

When they go 'high' - you go low. .

Lisa Weber
1 year 2 months ago

Absolutely! I would like to see him address his pro-life, family-friendly behavior of having an affair with a porn star when his third wife had a new baby at home.

James Hickman
1 year 2 months ago

When determining whether President Trump (45) is pro-life, we should consider his policies more than his past personal behavior. Having an imperfect past makes him like the rest of society. Or would you cast the first stone? He's a sinful man. OK. But does he promote reform of society by signing legislation from Congress, undoing harmful Executive Orders that have forced foreign nations to promote abortion and contraception in exchange for financial support, and does he appoint Supreme Court and other Federal Judges who seem to be in favor of curbing so-called abortion rights? If so, then he's a Pro-Life president. That's how we use reason, especially as Christians. We look at his actual policies. I hope I'm not judged on here based on my own sins, whether they are ones I've confessed sacramentally or ones I might have failed to confess due to a limited examination of conscience. We should not attack his person either.

M P Callaghan
1 year 2 months ago

Boy o boy what a lame response trying to legitimize 45. You may as well leave out your cover up comment that "He's a sinful man. OK", because your double talk is absurd, OK. The Jesus I know would attack Trump's personal behaviour and persona as should our pope, cardinals, bishops. priests and lay people rather than turning a blind eye. So wrap yourself up in your own excuses and politics but don't try include all Christians who do consider and place great importance on his personal behaviour and completely reject it. I guess you got it half right about 45 about his imperfect past but you fail to include his imperfect PRESENT danger. I suspect 45 has never ever examined his own conscience nor has any idea what that means.

James Hickman
1 year 2 months ago

1. M P Callaghan, I admit that my comment was poorly worded. I wish ill will neither toward you or the original commenter (someone anonymous). I wish neither to condone sin, whether the accusations against President Trump are legitimate or not, nor to attack him in a public forum. I disagree with your position: that "the Jesus [you] know would attack Trump's personal behavior and persona as should our pope, cardinals, bishops, priests and lay people rather than turn a blind eye." I trust that Our Lord hates evil of all kinds, but I wonder whether he would encourage the use of an internet comment box to speak disparaging against another man's personal sins and his good name. How well do you know Trump’s past history or his current soul? What are your intentions here? I've responded with a consideration of the moral theology of Saint Thomas Aquinas in the Secunda Secundae of the Summa Theologiae and the providential selection of first readings in the lectionary from yesterday's and today's Mass in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. My comment is too long for a single entry, so I’ll summarize here what will follow below in separate comments.
1. St Thomas Aquinas on a) reviling (ST II-II q72 aa1-2), b) backbiting, aka detraction (ST II-II q73aa1-3), and c) tale-bearing (ST II-II q74 a1)
2. Sacred Scripture on a) David’s repentance for harming King Saul’s person (1 Samuel 24:3-21) and b) David’s mourning of the death of King Saul, a corrupt king (2 Samuel 1:1-4,11-12,19,23-27)

James Hickman
1 year 2 months ago

2. Saint Thomas Aquinas on Reviling: one man injures another by words openly (to his face - it is unlikely that Trump reads our comments)
"Reviling denotes the dishonoring of a person...when a man publishes something against another’s honor, thus bringing it to the knowledge of the latter and of other men" (ST II-II q72 a1 respondeo). "I answer that, As stated above (A. 1), words are injurious to other persons, not as sounds, but as signs, and this signification depends on the speaker’s inward intention. Hence, in sins of word, it seems that we ought to consider with what intention the words are uttered. Since then railing or reviling essentially denotes a dishonoring, if the intention of the utterer is to dishonor the other man, this is properly and essentially to give utterance to railing or reviling: and this is a mortal sin no less than theft or robbery, since a man loves his honor no less than his possessions. If, on the other hand, a man says to another a railing or reviling word, yet with the intention, not of dishonoring him, but rather perhaps of correcting him or with some like purpose, he utters a railing or reviling not formally and essentially, but accidentally and materially, in so far to wit as he says that which might be a railing or reviling. Hence this may be sometimes a venial sin, and sometimes without any sin at all. Nevertheless there is need of discretion in such matters, and one should use such words with moderation, because the railing might be so grave that being uttered inconsiderately it might dishonor the person against whom it is uttered. In such a case a man might commit a mortal sin, even though he did not intend to dishonor the other man: just as were a man incautiously to injure grievously another by striking him in fun, he would not be without blame" (ST II-II q72 a2 respondeo).

James Hickman
1 year 2 months ago

3. St Thomas Aquinas on Backbiting: one man injures another by words in secret (since Trump probably doesn't see our comments, our conversation considers backbiting)
"On the other hand, he that speaks against another secretly, seems to respect rather than slight him, so that he injures directly, not his honor but his good name, insofar as by uttering such words secretly, he, for his own part, causes his hearers to have a bad opinion of the person against whom he speaks. For the backbiter apparently intends and aims at being believed...the backbiter injuring his good name." (ST II-II q73 a1 respondeo). "I answer that, As stated above (Q. 72, A. 2), sins of word should be judged chiefly from the intention of the speaker. Now backbiting by its very nature aims at blackening a man’s good name. Wherefore, properly speaking, to backbite is to speak ill of an absent person in order to blacken his good name. Now it is a very grave matter to blacken a man’s good name, because of all temporal things a man’s good name seems the most precious, since for lack of it he is hindered from doing many things well. For this reason it is written (Sir 41:15): Take care of a good name, for this shall continue with thee, more than a thousand treasures precious and great. Therefore backbiting, properly speaking, is a mortal sin. Nevertheless it happens sometimes that a man utters words, whereby someone’s good name is tarnished, and yet he does not intend this, but something else. This is not backbiting strictly and formally speaking, but only materially and accidentally as it were. And if such defamatory words be uttered for the sake of some necessary good, and with attention to the due circumstances, it is not a sin and cannot be called backbiting. But if they be uttered out of lightness of heart or for some unnecessary motive, it is not a mortal sin, unless perchance the spoken word be of such a grave nature, as to cause a notable injury to a man’s good name, especially in matters pertaining to his moral character, because from the very nature of the words this would be a mortal sin. And one is bound to restore a man his good name, no less than any other thing one has taken from him, in the manner stated above (Q. 62, A. 2) when we were treating of restitution" (ST II-II q73 a2 respondeo). "Therefore backbiting according to its genus is a more grievous sin than theft, but is less grievous than murder or adultery. Nevertheless the order may differ by reason of aggravating or extenuating circumstances. The accidental gravity of a sin is to be considered in relation to the sinner, who sins more grievously, if he sins deliberately than if he sins through weakness or carelessness. In this respect sins of word have a certain levity, insofar as they are apt to occur through a slip of the tongue, and without much forethought" (ST II-II q73 a3 respondeo).
St Thomas Aquinas goes on to say that listening to a backbiter is sinful, though one's motivations (delight in the gossip, fear, shame) will alter the kind of sin. Finally, St Thomas considers tale-bearing and distinguishes this from backbiting (detraction).

James Hickman
1 year 2 months ago

4. St Thomas Aquinas on Tale-bearing: to blacken a neighbor’s good name with the intention of severing friendship
"I answer that, The tale-bearer and the backbiter agree in matter, and also in form or mode of speaking, since they both speak evil secretly of their neighbor: and for this reason these terms are sometimes used one for the other...They differ however in end, because the backbiter intends to blacken his neighbor’s good name, wherefore he brings forward those evils especially about his neighbor which are likely to defame him, or at least to depreciate his good name: whereas a tale-bearer intends to sever friendship...Hence it is that a tale-bearer speaks such ill about his neighbors as may stir his hearer’s mind against them" (ST II-II q74 a1 respondeo). Interestingly, we can look below to consider David as a model for us to have a friendship with a ruler who is far from perfect, namely the way that David feels toward King Saul. And here we could argue that you and the anonymous one wish to sever citizens from their "friendship" with President Trump rather than seek to reform Trump's behavior.

James Hickman
1 year 2 months ago

5. Daily Mass Readings

I'd also like to point to Sacred Scripture, specifically the first reading of Mass yesterday and today. Yesterday we read that King Saul pursues David unjustly and in the cave where Saul enters to relieve himself David cuts off a piece of his garment, then repents for having touched the Lord's anointed. Saul was the Lord's anointed, but he was also a wicked king. David was the Lord's anointed at that point, yet he felt bad for having attacked the king's person. Today we read of King Saul's death in battle and the death of his son Jonathan, David's friend. David mourns the death of both men, rending his garments and fasting until evening. This is how much David loves his ruler. We, too, should love our President. We should not love his sins, but we should love his person and his office (whether we consider Christ's command to love our enemies or David's example, the message is clear). We should also consider that David himself had moral problems in his own personal and public life. He, too, was an adulterer and had his own men killed in battle to avoid his secret sin being known publicly. Yet God showed him mercy when he repented. We should pray that our President be given a good conscience that he might repent of his sins and lead us well to prosperity and peace. That I argue is our duty and role as citizens. We are not called by the Lord Jesus Christ to revile, detract, or tale-bear against the President or any other public figures by anonymous or somewhat named comments online.


The latest from america

Even in our relationships with family and friends, forgiveness can be hard to come by.
Pope Francis has accepted the resignation of Cardinal Ricardo Ezzati, the archbishop of Santiago, Chile, the Vatican announced on March 23.
Gerard O’ConnellMarch 23, 2019
Sister Bibiana Emenaha
A combination of a rapidly growing population, extreme poverty, unemployment and armed conflict push people to cross Nigeria’s porous borders in search of a better life.
Linus UnahMarch 22, 2019
As we come to grips with a national history of violence, greed and racialized privilege, this fable of noblesse oblige rings hollow.
Brandon SanchezMarch 22, 2019