Abortion

Trump Wants Changes to Republican Party's Abortion Platform

Trump told reporters he supports changes to the GOP abortion platform and thinks transgender people should use whatever bathroom they wish.

|

screenshot/Today.com

On the Today Show Thursday morning, Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump expressed support for changes to the GOP platform on abortion. As it stands, the Republican Party holds that "the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed" and supports legislation "to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children" with no exceptions. Trump told Today Show hosts, however, that he would change the platform to allow exceptions in cases of rape and incest or instances where a pregnant woman's life is at risk. 

Asked whether he supported these exceptions and changing the official Republican platform to include them, Trump said "absolutely, for the three exceptions, I would." 

Pressed whether he would also support an exception based on non-life-threatening risks to a mother's health, though, Trump said no. "I would leave it for the life of the mother," he said, "but I would absolutely have the three exceptions." 

Asked about the big culture-war issue of the moment, public restroom access for trans individuals, Trump said he thinks North Carolina should have left things alone. "North Carolina did something that was very strong, and they're paying a big price," said Trump. But if it was up to him, he would "leave [bathroom access] the way it is! There have been very few problems. There have been very few complaints the way it is. People go, they use the bathroom that they feel is appropriate, there has been so little trouble."  

Matt Lauer followed up by asking Trump if he would be OK with Caitlyn Jenner coming to Trump Tower and using "any bathroom shes chooses?" Trump said "that is correct." 

NEXT: Attorney General Wants to Send 3 Bureaucrats to Jail for Role in Flint Water Crisis

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Trump told Today Show hosts, however, that he would change the platform to allow exceptions in cases of rape and incest or intances where a pregnant woman’s life is at risk.

    As always, I don’t get the rape and incest exceptions. Either in their view it’s a life to defend or it’s not.

    1. Yup, this shows the whole pro-life stance is based on shaky foundations.

      1. Not really any more than the Pro-Choice people who compromise on late-term restrictions. Practical politics is all about compromise. Strict ideology is for classroom and bar-room debates.

        1. That’s not really a contradiction if you believe that the fetus homesteads rights at a certain point of development.

          1. Which is consistent with the fact that the only difference between a nine-month fetus and a day-old baby is location. The question is when does that homesteading take place. I’m not that comfortable letting the government decide such things, but it seems similar to letting government decide when a homicide is self-defense. If you’re going to have government this sort of thing is certainly in its bailiwick.

          2. the fetus homesteads rights

            Its really sort of a temporary arrangement by definition. Unless you think you should be collecting rent for use of mom’s uterus.

            1. Prenatal child support isn’t a thing?

              1. All of this seems just to be proving my point that purely-rational ideological consistency is inconsistent with practical politics.

      2. I only ever hear the rape/incest exception from moderates, esp. politicians

    2. I mean I get the exceptions, I don’t get false dichotomy of it. If abortion always amounts to killing a baby, and killing babies is wrong, then it’s still wrong to kill the baby even if it was the product of rape. Though I don’t think abortion always amounts to killing a baby, at the early stages it amounts to killing a clump of cells. At the late stages, I think it does amount to killing a baby. The moral cut off is somewhere in between but I don’t pretend to know when exactly.

      1. The pro-life voices I’ve heard on the subject are frank about these exceptions, plus the drive to criminalize abortion providers but not the women getting abortions: it’s all about making policy palatable to the public.

      2. I think it should be whenever the fetus can survive outside the womb. As medical science advances, this will most likely be earlier and earlier. Then it just becomes a matter of finding a willing guardian. May be all these pro-lifers will step up and start adopting unwanted fetuses.

        1. There are any number of pro-life operations out there that try to divert women from abortion to adoption, you know.

          1. Is there any state foster system closing up shop for lack of unwanted children?

      3. I think it should be whenever the fetus can survive outside the womb. As medical science advances, this will most likely be earlier and earlier. Then it just becomes a matter of finding a willing guardian. May be all these pro-lifers will step up and start adopting unwanted fetuses.

        1. There are any number of pro-life operations out there that try to divert women from abortion to adoption, you know.

      4. The problem for many people is the very limiting of consider’ns to moral choices, rather than quantitative balancing of preferences, which is the way most people decide most things. Most people would view an attempt at consistency & absolutism on such matters as evil in itself regardless of which side the coin falls on.

    3. It is absurd. Even if you ignore the rational contradiction you point out, there is still the issue of how you would ever administer a band which made exception for rape. How do we know the woman was raped? Are we just going to take her word for it? If so, then the ban is meaningless. Are we going to make her file charges? Then we create the incentive for women to file false rape allegations so they can get abortions. Then of course there is all of the contradictions that would come with statutory rape. One 14 year old girl gets pregnant by her 19 year old boyfriend and she can get an abortion. Her friend gets pregnant by her 15 year old boyfriend and she can’t, because it is not rape under the law.

      It all goes back to the fundamental problem that there is no way to have an abortion ban that is meaningful without also being incredibly harsh and draconian.

      1. there is still the issue of how you would ever administer a band which made exception for rape

        Rational Contradiction’s “Exception for Rape”, off their album How Do We Know.

        1. Rational Contradictions is a splinter band that was formed when the Rural Homos broke up after their classic Tacocopter record.

          1. Tacocopter, the bizarre concept album attempting to integrate the Keynesian economics of Ben Bernanke with Rural Homos’ love of Mexican food.

            1. It pushed boundaries and wasn’t their most accessible work. But it was brilliant you philistine.

            2. What really made the album sell was their collaboration with Weird Al on the track “Weenis in the Women’s Room.”

        2. how you would ever administer a band which made exception for rape

          File a criminal complaint that you were raped, and you can get an abortion?

          1. Yes. And live with the moral hazard of creating an incentive to make a false rape accusation. That ought to work out well.

            1. “Yes. And live with the moral hazard of creating an incentive to make a false rape accusation. That ought to work out well.”

              False rape accusation seems to be an increasingly popular hobby among college women. This could expand it to the townies.

          2. And then when the boyfriend or some other schmuck gets sent to prison for “rape” oh well, shouldn’t have stuck it in crazy.

      2. Not to mention, if it the pregnancy was the result of rape you’d have to wait for a conviction, right? And appeals? So won’t the unborn human be in middle school by then?

        1. Yes. There is no way to properly adjudicate a rape case before the pregnancy comes to term. And even then, what counts as proof? Criminal cases are proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Would that be the standard for abortion? Since there is a life at steak you would think so. That would of course lead to women being forced to carry children to term even though they really had been raped but couldn’t quite prove it.

          1. Since there is a life at steak

            I’m all for veal, but that’s just sick.

            1. John is in rare form today.

              1. Well done.

                1. Clearly we all have a lot of experience with this medium.

    4. Rape and incest exceptions address the voluntary nature of getting pregnant the other way.

      Having volunteered to get pregnant, the theory goes, you are responsible for the pregnancy, and shouldn’t be allowed to terminate it. You aren’t a victim of pregnancy, such that abortion is a solution to a problem inflicted on you by others, so it shouldn’t be available to you.

      I’m not on board with blanket bans with these exceptions, but I think I get the rationale for them.

      1. The problem with that rationale is that you still have to assume that the first trimester clump of cells has a right to life. Otherwise, one option for “taking responsibility” is to terminate the pregnancy. When a woman volunteers to contract chlamydia that doesn’t mean she’s consenting to let it live within her forever.

        The crux of the abortion argument has always been, when does the right to life start, and that is a fundamentally subjective question which we’ll never get everyone to agree on.

    5. I think some of it as meant as compassion, that the rest of us are not going to force you to relive that day every day for the next nine months and beyond in living, breathing form. Never mind that actual rape is something that stays with the victim in perpetuity but it’s not visible as would be the case here.

      That is strictly conjecture on my part but it’s the only way it makes sense.

    6. Because abortion is about dodging punishment for sexual promiscuity, but rape victims don’t deserve that punishment. At least, that’s the best I can figure is the rationale. And incest babies are weirdos, so obviously they have to die.

    7. Fistie, you’re back. I hate this website w/o you.

  2. Will the Boston Globe print another fake edition showing America’s bathroom regimen under a Trump presidency?

  3. The response to Trump’s statement that women would be punished for abortions if it were illegal was very illustrative. The pro life people went nuts and said “of course they wouldn’t”. If you admit up front you don’t have the stomach to punish people who engage an activity, maybe you ought to reconsider your support for banning it.

    Republicans have spent untold amounts of political capital pursuing a frankly unrealistic goal of criminalizing abortion. What is the point of pursuing something that you admit upfront you have no stomach to achieve even if the opportunity arises? Abortion, as horrific as it is, is one of those great evils that is done in the dark and which only you and God knows happened. It is a moral problem not a legal one. Republicans should absolutely make sure that no government funds go to pay for abortions and that minors can’t get abortions without their parents’ permission. There is nothing wrong with those goals. They are the right thing and they are realistic and achievable. A full criminal ban on abortions is not. So why pursue it?

    1. Nice response, John. No sarcasm.

      1. Yes, that is one of the best takes I’ve seen on the issue.

      2. thirded

    2. Republicans have spent untold amounts of political capital pursuing a frankly unrealistic goal of criminalizing abortion.

      Because it attracts voters to the polls. There is a large body of voters who find it not only morally abhorrent, but a form of murder. To them murder is something the state is supposed to prevent. And they will vote on this issue because it is so important to them. So long as the Republicans suspend a carrot hanging from a stick in front of them by promising that after the next election the Republicans will stop the murders, they will go to the polls.

      The biggest Trump supporter in my circle is a pro-life catholic physicist who codes guidence systems for space probes. He has made it pretty clear that he is voting for Trump in part to punish the professional politicians for promising much and putting out little.

      The converse is also true of Democrats. There is a block of voters who view an unwanted pregnancy as a life-altering disability and want the freedom to flush out a clump of cells that is no more human than a fingernail clipping see the compulsion to bear unwanted children with the attendant lifelong medical/professional & financial consequences to be slavery. And so long as the Democrats can paint the Republicans as conniving to ban abortion after the next election, those voters will race to the polls and pull levers.

      1. To them murder is something the state is supposed to prevent.

        and I am always amazed at how many of those people have no issue at all with capital punishment.

        1. Criminals convicted of capital offenses have lost their right to life. Pro-lifers just need to apply the same reasoning to abortion: fetuses haven’t earned their right to life yet.

          1. They have earned their right to life, but we can’t stop all of the evil in the world with laws and laws create new and insidious evils of their own.

            Life sucks.

            1. “we can’t stop all of the evil in the world”

              Who, exactly, are you refuting here?

          2. Wouldn’t that be pro-choicers?

        2. Would you compare the trial, conviction and upholding through multiple appeals to be an equivalent due process as a woman saying:” Nah, I don’t want it.”

      2. Sure murder is something the state is supposed to prevent. But if you are not willing to make the necessary efforts to do that, then why are pushing for the state to do it? It is certainly reasonable to say abortion should be considered murder. What is not reasonable is to claim its murder but then turn around and say you don’t want the women who get one punished just the doctors who do it. That is totally irrational. Is there anyone more morally culpable than a woman who kills her own child? If we had a legal regime that said men could murder their wives and we were campaigning to end that barbarity, would we campaign to outlaw it but only punish hitmen and never the husbands who did it themselves or hired the hitmen? No we wouldn’t.

        The unwillingness to punish women for getting abortions shows that even the pro life people understand that while abortion is horrible, it is not quite the same as murder. Its something different. Not necessarily better and certainly not good but different. Ultimately, how do you prove that a woman had an abortion and didn’t just miscarry? At what point is it an abortion and not just her doing something irresponsible that ends the pregnancy? Without reading her mind, i can’t tell you. And sometimes abortions are necessary for the life or health of the mother. How do you adjudicate that without having the government involved in pretty much every medical decision a pregnant woman makes with her GYN?

    3. Also, Republican politicians seem to believe that putting all the abortion clinics out of business will somehow stop all abortions from happening. That is who they are going to punish, the providers. Trump is at least honest enough to point out that the mother herself is the abortion provider of last resort, so if you aren’t willing to punish her then what’s the point.

      1. Very true. I honestly don’t think he had given the issue any thought. They asked him the question and he gave a common sense answer. How could you ban something and then not punish the people who did it? It seems pretty obvious you would have to.

        1. His straightforwardness is refreshing at times. He may lie, dissemble, and flip-flop, but it’s never for coldly calculated political reasons. It’s just because that’s how he feels at the moment. To some extent I think he does stuff like this because he doesn’t have a well thought out position on these topics. He knows he has to say something about them, so he says whatever comes to mind. Otherwise he thinks topics like this are irrelevant. Which means that if he makes it to office he may stop talking about culture war stuff altogether.

    4. I get what you’re saying. But if one of the proper, or at least acceptable functions of government is to safeguard the rights of the people within its jurisdiction, then from a logical and moral standpoint I think there needs to be some definition of when a person has rights to safeguard.

      I understand that it’s a difficult, maybe even impossible question to answer. But through the democratic process I think we *could* come up with some answer, which is grounded in some sort of logic and generally acceptable premise. And if the debate were actually framed in that way, I also think it would be possible to build more consensus than we currently can.

      Enforcing a ban on abortion after some point might not be feasible. Neither is enforcing a ban on murder or certain drugs. Two things make one of those efforts worthwhile and another futile: from a rights perspective, one involves violation of another’s rights and one does not; from a realpolitik perspective, one is almost universally supported while the other is not. I think it is possible, at least in principle, to have a ban on abortion that is intellectually consistent and honest and has broad support.

    5. John, why would it be “realistic and achievable” to enforce a ban on minors getting abortions without parental consent?

      If you can’t enforce a ban on abortion, how can you enforce a ban on a subset of abortion?

      Do you have autopsies on every teenage girl’s stillborn child?

      Do you ban all drugs she may use to self-induce abortions?

      The concern-trolling possibilities are endless.

      In other words, you’re not going to be able to stop *all* teenage girls from getting abortions without parental permission, any more than you can stop *all* abortions, so if that’s your (unrealistic) standard, the ban on minors getting abortions is just as bad as the abortion laws you criticize.

      1. South Carolina is one of those states with a “fetal homicide” law. At least as-of a five year old article, only one man has been charged under the law, but over 300 women who had stillbirths, miscarriages, or had the baby die shortly after birth have been arrested under the law.

        So I’m not sure your hypothetical horror stories are that hypothetical.

    6. Except that they’ve proved, time and time again, that they *do* have the stomach to punish women for abortion, they just don’t want to say so.

      Google “miscarriage arrest” and you’ll find plenty of cases where women are punished on the basis that someone *suspects* the woman had an abortion. That when the relevant laws were passed the legislators assured everyone it would never happen clearly is irrelevant to what the prosecutors eventually do.

  4. The important issues of the day: what you keep in your pants and what you choose to do with it. Not, you know, trade, protectionism, the overweening administrative state, regulatory burdens, cronyism, unsustainable entitlements, disaffected jobless welfare-dependent subcultures, vendor-financed college spending, the gradual medical industry death spiral… nah, that’s small potatoes relative to peoples’ crotch potatoes.

    1. Social issues always resonate more with people. That’s just the way it is.

      1. Whatever resonates the crotch potatoes, I guess.

        1. You know, your phone made that swipe-to-text mistake for a reason, right?

    2. it’s an American Idol electorate. Bread and circuses.

    3. What people do with what’s in their pants has a direct bearing on problems like poverty and crime, because the more kids grow up without fathers, the more the cycle of poverty and crime gets perpetuated.

      1. You might have a point someone would be willing to accept if you confessed that by “direct” you mean, “Indirect”, and that by “has” you mean “can”

        1. Water down the phrasing if you wish, the point is you can’t divide things into nice little boxes marked “economic issues” and “social issues” and say, “well, that social issues box is gross, I’ll just pick things out of the economic-issues box!”

  5. I doubt the “Sexist” and “Xphobic” attacks are going to stop

    Though i think he’s in an interesting position where, more or less having already won the nomination, he can basically pivot more-leftward and make those attacks seem shrill and silly (or just *more* shrill and silly). I’m not sure he loses much from his own base

    1. Most people are tired of these issues. And they are a state issue anyway. Who gives a shit what the president thinks about abortion and trannies?

      1. the NHL suspended a guy for using the word ‘fag’ during a tirade against another player. Never mind the usual f-bombs; we now have a new f-word. Never mind his touching if not crossing the line on penalties after he went crazy or about going after refs. Nope, the major infraction was calling another player a fag. The president and candidates may or may not give a shit, but like the rest of us with today’s new pissing match, they are forced to give a shit.

        1. And since when is “Fag” this huge horrible slur on par with the N word? Gays call themselves fags all the time. Among straights it has become more of a general purpose insult. When someone says “the ref is fag” do you really think “my God he thinks that ref is a homo” or do you think the guy is just pissed at something the ref did?

          The nature of the word or its use no longer matters anymore. They just pick words to ban as a way of expressing power. Today its fag tomorrow it will be something else. It will go on until no one can say anything.

          1. It will go on until no one can say anything… that they don’t approve of.

          2. Do you really not understand the motivation behind it? Insulting another man’s masculinity has been a thing for pretty much all of time. If the NHL chooses to punish it that’s their business.

            And blacks call each other the N-word all the time, too. That doesn’t make it a respectable thing for anyone to say at any time.

            1. Sure i do. But the origin of that insult has been so buried by time and use it really doesn’t mean anything. No one hears “fag” and thinks more or less of gays. It has just become another insult.

              1. Every insult is just another insult until someone takes offense. Then it’s a hate crime.

              2. But the origin of that insult has been so buried by time and use it really doesn’t mean anything.

                Except when it does. That word seems to always make an appearance at some point in the various gay-bashing stories I read in the news.

              3. It took on “horrible slur” status a few years ago. Now it’s categorically unacceptable to use, as I understand…

            2. it’s not about whether the NHL has a right to it, it’s the absurdity of it. Of all the things Shaw did in the game the other night, the use of “fag” is what the league chose to focus on. Like I said, it’s the new f-word.

              1. Of all the things Shaw did in the game the other night, the use of “fag” is what the league chose to focus on.

                Agreed at the absurdity of this.

                1. It’s cuz his shit’s all retarded–of course he talks like a fag.

      2. Who gives a shit what the president thinks about abortion and trannies?

        Well, I’ve always been of the view that the president’s personal opinion on bullshit-culture-war issues is entirely irrelevant (as is their religion or race or gender)….

        … but that is not a widely shared opinion. Especially in the press.

        1. What I want to know is whether or not he’s the kind of guy I’d have a beer with. Also, his favorite food and whether or not Jimmy Kimmel likes him.

      3. “they are a state issue anyway.”

        Yes, states have the prerogative of passing laws about abortion and public accommodations and see those laws struck down by federal judges and the federal EEOC.

        Then you think, “gosh, maybe I should have paid attention to federal politics.”

      4. “Who gives a shit what the president thinks about abortion and trannies?”
        A lot of people. The fact that the president doesn’t have much impact on such things is pretty irrelevant.

    2. The problem with all of the pants shitting over Trump is that it has caused the public to expect Trump to be a raving lunatic. That sounds like a good thing except that it will make it very easy for Trump to look reasonable and for the voters to wonder what the hell all of the screaming and pants shitting was about come the fall.

      1. Kind of like how Reagan was portrayed as a lunatic war-monger who was going to nuke the world. Not that Trump is another Reagan.

        1. He is not. But you don’t have to be Reagan to pull off that Reagan trick. The never Trump people are just not serious about stopping him. Time and again they have shot themselves in the foot out of their eagerness to virtue signal and feel outraged. They got mad but they don’t seem to be smart enough to get even.

          1. Oh, I think they’re serious about stopping him. The problem is they are clueless about how to do so and don’t understand why he is popular to begin with. Apparently, they’ve settled on the strategy of insulting his supporters’ intelligence. That’ll convince ’em!

            1. Nothing says persuasion like “shut the fuck up and do what you are told you dumb Hillbilly”. It takes real political genius to come up with that plan.

    3. I don’t think Trump is “pivoting leftward”, I think Trump really doesn’t have a problem with abortion or trans people using whatever bathroom they want.

      1. Ken puts it better below. I think he’s always been this way, just that now he can say so.

  6. So, now that New York is wrapped up, the charm offensive begins.

    This is when Republicans find out that Trump is actually to the left of them on pretty much everything but being PC.

    And he’s about to get as PC as he possibly can without alienating the base . . . too much.

    1. exactly.

    2. What? A guy who spend the ’90s lauding Bill and Hillary *isn’t* far right? I’ll be damned.

    3. Left of Republicans, yeah.

      Left of his core constituency? I’m not so sure about that.

      I’ve been saying this for a while: Trump could probably pick up a chunk of Bernie’s less ideological supporters by

      1) Not denigrating women and minorities
      2) Directing his vitriol at Wall Street instead of illegal immigrants
      3) Throwing a bone towards the free college/student debt forgiveness crowd

      And I don’t think any of those things would alienate his current supporters. They already like him for raging against PC culture, they hate Wall Street, too, and they probably don’t want to worry about their kids education any more than their kids do.

      1. 2) Directing his vitriol at Wall Street instead of in addition to illegal immigrants

        Otherwise, I think you are correct on this.

        1. He can’t do a 180 on immigration, but if he simply didn’t talk about it as much, I think he’d retain his current support.

  7. Hoo boy. Buckle up. This one should be fun.

    1. Buckle up.

      Dunno why I thought about this, but Mad founder William Gaines allegedly knotted all of his seat belts together in protest of laws requiring them.

    2. 400 comments, easy-peasy lemon-squeezy.

      1. if only he had said something about Amnesty-(but post wall!), do you think we’d crack 1000?

        I honestly hardly care about any of these issues.

        Abortion, tranny toilets and immigrants are pretty meaningless to me compared to 1st & 2nd amendment protections, getting the Govt away from things like ‘Climate Change’ policies (read: economic impositions intended to raise energy prices and vastly increase govt controls over behavior), ending NSA surveillance, and so on. I suppose i do care about immigration mainly from the POV that i detest the idea of anyone having the right to demand proof of my citizenship anywhere i go. Those checkpoint motherfuckers have got to go.

      2. No, difficult-difficult lemon-difficult.

        1. Climb that mountain of conflict.

  8. But if it was up to him, he would “leave [bathroom access] the way it is! There have been very few problems. There have been very few complaints the way it is. People go, they use the bathroom that they feel is appropriate, there has been so little trouble.”

    Isn’t this pretty much the libertarian position? Leave business owners alone to do what they want with their bathrooms, free of state mandates to segregate them and state mandates that they must allow people to use the other bathroom?

    And, despite my lazy argumentation yesterday, I think he’s right that there has been little trouble. This is a non-problem being used as a stalking horse for expansion of protected classes and special privileges.

    1. And this is the irony behind what the Charlotte City Council did and what the identify police want: there has been little trouble because no one paid attention. Well, they’re going to pay attention now because they have been forced to. And as the saying here goes, there are foreseeable consequences:

      –there will be an actual criminal incident and/or a massive lawsuit
      –someone, likely a woman, will call the cops believing that another person in the women’s room is really a man. This is on the order of all the busybodies turning in parents whose kids play unsupervised.
      –another someone will use pepper spray or a taser or worse on someone suspected of not being a woman in the men’s room

      Mass hysteria all around will follow with the I-told-you-so’s debating the we-need-tolerances.

      1. In other words, this wasn’t a problem in the past, but both sides of the culture war have paid so much attention to it that now it will start to be a problem. Great.

        1. I think the Charlotte City counsel very astutely surmised that if there was any concern that persons with dangling reproductive organs were to frequent women’s washrooms, the womenfolk would no longer feel comfortable stripping down to their undies to engage in tickle fights. How awkward would it be if someone with suspiciously bulging panties were to participate in this long held practice in the fainting room….

          1. suspiciously bulging panties

            Good band name.

    2. Isn’t this pretty much the libertarian position? Leave business owners alone to do what they want with their bathrooms, free of state mandates to segregate them and state mandates that they must allow people to use the other bathroom?

      Ugh, so much hate and intolerance i can’t even.

  9. OT: I went to a dispensary yesterday (cliche, I know, but they had some really good sales) and they had a strain called Mexican Buttsecks. So which one of you is either growing or running a dispensary?

    1. That is very suspicious. My money’s on Crusty.

    2. If you didn’t at least sample that one, you should have your libertarian privileges revoked.

      1. Picked up an eighth. It was a hybrid, like 80% of strains are now, but they said it was a heavy sativa, with a high energy body high. Generally I like pure sativas except for late nights when I’m in front of a fire and it’s snowing heavily.

    3. Also, they got really upset when I got my phone out to try to take a picture. Apparently the state has been coming down hard on that, because advertising or something.

  10. I see he refused to give a direct answer about which bathroom a tranny can get an abortion in.

    1. Whichever one they want?

    2. I can’t wait until South Park covers this.

  11. I wouldn’t be surprised that Trump will take other, contradictory positions on this issue in the future.

    Consistent he ain’t.

  12. Criminalizing abortion is stupid, because criminalizing something does nothing to address the reasons people do the criminalized thing. It also drives the activity underground and makes it more expensive and dangerous. See: Drugs, War on.

    I am against elective abortion, but we don’t win the battle with crime and punishment. This one is going to take hearts and minds.

    1. Does that thinking apply to theft, assault or other types of killing?

      It hard to see how that logic does not rationalize criminalizing any violations of rights by one person against another.

      1. Of course not. But those things are different than abortion because they are never a legitimate medical procedure (abortion sadly can be) and they don’t occur inside a woman’s body. Those two facts make enforcing an abortion ban a much more complicated question than just going after thieves.

      2. It doesn’t apply to assault, but I think there is some application to battery. People used to be able to duel legally, and probably were less violent doing so than when it’s outlawed so you can only sneak up on someone.

        1. Depends on the state, I suppose, but from my arm-chair lawyer reckoning, it’s hard to prosecute battery/assault if you don’t have a victim willing to press charges. So as long as everyone taps out before assault becomes murder/manslaughter, it’s pretty legal.

          That said, if your intention is “two men enter, one man leaves”, then you’ll have a harder time doing it legally. Then again, in Florida with “Stand Your Ground”, you can probably swing it.

  13. Nothing I like better than to see the GOP once again paint itself into a corner, particularly about abortion. Trump says there should be exceptions for rape and incest. So, if they also claim that a fetus is a full-fledged person from the moment of conception, then do they believe that those conceived via rape or incest are not? Sorry folks, but I have to believe that even simple-minded Republicans can see the flaw in this logic. Fortunately, the vast majority of those capable of reasonable analysis do not believe in this “fertilized ovum is a person nonsense” and understand the need to keep government out of matters of personal liberty (as Republicans used to).

    1. Then where and when and for what reason does a human creature aquire rights? And be sure to make it so that explanation can not apply to any stage pre-birth without leaving anyone who has recognized rights out.

    2. Re: dpriver,

      […] if they also claim that a fetus is a full-fledged person from the moment of conception, then do they believe that those conceived via rape or incest are not?

      That question goes to the heart of the matter, if the person is honest when it comes to his or her belief that all human life is precious and deserving of respect, or if the person is not principled at all.

      I hold that all human life deserves my respect because that is what I expect from others when it comes to my life. I would never accept that a baby human’s life can be the subject of a utilitarian judgment regarding his or her life, because I would not make such a judgment about someone who is not me and certainly would not accept such a judgment from others when it comes to my life. MY LIFE is MINE to give, but someone else’s life is NOT mine to take.

  14. Trump told Today Show hosts, however, that he would change the platform to allow exceptions in cases of rape and incest or instances where a pregnant woman’s life is at risk.

    You don’t need to specify exceptions if you don’t believe the fetus is a human being. It is that simple. If you accept that you can make exceptions for someone’s life, then you should at least be honest and say you do not believe a fetus is a human being.

  15. So Trump has a last-minute “conversion” to the prolife cause and the first things he does are (a) hand the choicers a talking point on a silver platter – “punish the women!” and (b) call for watering down the Republican Party’s abortion plank.

    1. He’s like the guy in Seinfeld who converted to Judaism so he could tell anti-Jewish jokes without getting into trouble.

  16. How funny! Trump said nothing–let’s make it a big deal.

    The rape/incest/life of the mother exceptions are things most of the GOP think are there already–hell, a good chunk of pro-lifers support the ‘exceptions’ that will “change the GOPs platform on abortion”.

    Why is this news?

    And everyone seems to be misreading/hearing this, Trump included–

    But if it was up to him, he would “leave [bathroom access] the way it is! There have been very few problems. There have been very few complaints the way it is. People go, they use the bathroom that they feel is appropriate, there has been so little trouble.”

    Trumps’ calling for the status quo. The one we had BEFORE the SJWs decided to make trans-toilet practices a major issue. The status quo that the North Carolina law was written to restore.

    See, it’s the SJWs who are making this a big deal–up till now it was handled as it should be, on a case by case basis without the need for a government solution–and usually that meant that people just “use(d) the bathroom that they fe(lt was) appropriate”, and “there (was) been so little trouble”.

    Trump’s not taking the SJWs side–he’s taking the side of sanity.

    1. But if Trump says it, it must be wrong/stupid/bigoted!

      Seriously, the “cultural libertarian” (I think, still not sure what that’s supposed to men) position that “Welp, we’ve got this horrible public accommodation laws, but we can’t get rid of them, so we might as well expand them!” position strikes me as either a pure pretext to let the proggy flag fly, or as boneheaded stupidity.

      Welp, we’ve got this horrible ObamaCare law, but we can’t get rid of it, so we might as well go to single payer!

      Once you allow “equality” to trump “liberty”, you’re screwed. And that’s what this extended courtship with proggies and SJWs around “diversity” and “inclusion” is all about.

      Etc.

      1. Exactly.

        Though I think that the SJWs and useful idiots who write for reason use ‘cultural libertarian’ to refer to those people who dare say ‘NO’ to SJW and leftist demands.

        Those of us who are not SJWs, useful idiots, or whatever name the leftists who infest reason like maggots in a rotting equine call themselves, refer to it as simply being libertarian.

    2. New York included gender identity in public accommodation non-discrimination law in 2002. *That* is Trump’s status quo.

  17. Uh? Mr. Trump? If you want to change the platform, you’ll need the actual support of the delegates on the floor at the convention, not merely their bound votes on the first nomination ballot. What’s your strategy for actually getting it?

    1. it’s a great strategy, don’t worry.

  18. Why are Transgendered People more equal, in the view of The Donald, than non-Transgendered People when it comes to choosing which restroom to use? Shouldn’t we all, under the Equal Protection Clause, have the right to choose which restroom we prefer? After all, weren’t we guaranteed our “personal dignity” under Obergfell?

  19. i think once he’s the nominee, he’ll say more and more things that are not palatable to conservatives, and many will begin to wonder what in the hell they were thinking.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.