Abortion

Trump Says He Hasn't Talked Abortion With Kavanaugh

Many Democrats have come out against Kavanaugh's nomination, arguing that he'll mean the end of Roe v. Wade.

|

Al Drago/CNP/AdMedia/Newscom

President Donald Trump said today that he has not talked about abortion with Judge Brett Kavanaugh, his nominee for the Supreme Court.

As Trump departed for a trip to Europe, a reporter asked if he had broached the topic in his interviews with Kavanaugh, who has served for more than a decade on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. "I haven't. I really haven't," Trump responded.

In the days leading to Trump's Supreme Court announcement, many predicted the landmark ruling in Roe v. Wade that legalized first-trimester abortion at the federal level would be overturned. Though retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan, he often sided with the Court's liberal wing on hot-button social issues like abortion. And as a candidate, Trump pledged to nominate "pro-life" justices to the Court.

Kavanaugh's nomination has sparked a panic among Democrats worried that he will oppose Roe. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) expressed that concern in a New York Times op-ed last week, and he has now said he'll fight the judge's nomination "with everything I have."

Other liberal senators, including such potential presidential candidates as Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.), Cory Booker (D–N.J.), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D–N.Y.), have also alluded to Roe v. Wade in explaining their opposition to Kavanaugh.

It's not yet clear how Kavanaugh will vote on abortion cases, though it seems likely that he leans anti-Roe. Of particular note is a dissent he wrote last year in a case that involved an illegal immigrant trying to obtain an abortion. Citing Supreme Court precedent, he argued "the Government has permissible interests in favoring fetal life, protecting the best interests of a minor, and refraining from facilitating abortion."

But in the same dissent, he recognized that both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which upheld Roe, are "precedents we must follow." Along those same lines, he told Schumer during a 2006 confirmation hearing that he "would follow Roe v. Wade faithfully and fully," according to The Hill.

Republicans seem to like him, but it's far from a given that Kavanaugh will be confirmed. The GOP holds a slim 51–49 majority in the Senate, meaning that if every Democrat votes against him, Republicans can only afford one defection. And if Sen. John McCain (R–Ariz.), who's being treated for brain cancer in Arizona, can't make it to D.C. for the vote, Republicans might need their entire caucus to support him.

Advertisement

NEXT: The DEA's List of Cannabis Slang Is Predictably Hilarious

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. Conservatives have controlled the Court for decades. Why is that so scary now?

    1. It’s way scarier now because you have literally Hitler calling the shots!

      It’s sort of like it’s completely fine to drone bomb children as long as it’s a literal saint and Peace Prize winner specifying the targets!

      1. Also, literally Hitler was literally pro-choice (or at least relatively and/or selectively so).

    2. And if repealing Roe is so unpopular as the Democrats claim, then what is there to worry about? Repealing Roe would only mean states could ban abortion. It wouldn’t require them to. If there is so much danger of abortion being banned, then Roe necessarily must not be a very popular opinion or if it is popular, there is no danger of abortion actually being banned.

      1. Same with every other issue to them: they can’t stand the thought of someone, somewhere not being able to get an abortion. Power must be centralized, one size fits all, etc etc.

      2. So you’re going to just keep ignoring that multiple states have abortion bans already on the books that would go into effect if Roe were overturned, and that even with Roe many states have tried to regulate their remaining clinics into oblivion, and have only been stopped by the courts because of Roe?

        Conservatives are more anti-abortion then you think they are.

        1. A ban cannot simultaneously be on the books and also not in effect you stupid fucking donkey. Before you copy and paste that stupid shit from Democratic Underground have someone with an IQ above room temperature see if it passes even a basic test of logic.

          1. RE: “A ban cannot simultaneously be on the books and also not in effect you stupid fucking donkey.”

            Where did you go to law school– Miskatonic University or Wassamotta U?

            Yes a ban can be on the books and also not in effect, IF the courts find the law unconstitutional–that finding stops the state from ENFORCING the law, but the law remains on the books, unless the state legislature repeals it.

            Massachusetts has a law restricting abortion on the books even now, but, so long as Roe/Wade remains, that law cannot be enforced.

        2. Multiple states also still have laws on the books such as you can’t keep a donkey in a bathtub, yet there is remarkably little chance that they will ever be enforced.

          I won’t pretend that no state would ban abortion, that’s equally ridiculous, but last I checked no one except the extremely far left believes that abortion is an unlimited right so…the idea that legislation wouldn’t change on changing Federal law is ludicrous at face value. And, as John notes, if it was popular it becomes even more likely that those statutes would indeed change.

        3. And those bans remain on the books entirely because everyone knows they cannot be enforced. They are left over from decades ago. If they ever became effective, I doubt they would remain on the books very long. Moreover, if they did, then I guess repealing Roe is pretty popular. Otherwise, why wouldn’t the public demand the laws be repealed once they came back into force?

          You really didn’t understand my point at all.

  2. Roe v Wade has been the law of the land for decades. You’d think that would be enough time for everyone to come to universally accept the wisdom of it and enshrine it in legislation.

    1. I thought Planned Parenthood vs. Casey changed the legal reasoning underpinning Roe.

      1. Sure, “Roe” is shorthand for “the result in Roe,” supporters don’t always like the reasoning, such as it was, and they often try to come up with alternate reasons.

      2. Pharmaceutical science (as well as other sciences) have certainly changed the legal reasoning underpinning Roe too.

    2. Roe v Wade has been the law of the land for decades. You’d think that would be enough time for everyone to come to universally accept the wisdom of it and enshrine it in legislation.

      So was Plessy v Ferguson.

      For a longer time, to boot.

  3. Couldn’t McCain resign so he can get the treatment he needs without holding up the country’s business?

    1. Yes, he could. Whether he should is a different question, influenced by several factors. Whether he is ‘holding up the country’s business’ is yet another question.

      1. I’m open to the possibility that Arizona may be better represented by a Senator who doesn’t show up than by one who does. Think of all the mischief he stays out of by not voting!

        1. Since the VP breaks any tie votes in the Senate, McCain being absent effectively gives his vote to Pence.

          1. How do you have a tie vote when there are effectively 99 Senators? McCain being absent almost ensures that the VP doesn’t have a chance to break any ties.

            1. Yeah, I thought about that after I posted it. But Senators are often absent for votes.

        2. We will see. I want McCain to leave. That being said, I wasn’t too excited about the replacements either.

          1. Don’t worry, McCain’s own brain will force him to leave sooner or later. Sad, perhaps, but true.

  4. If this dangerous right-wing extremist gets confirmed, it will not only mean the end of legal access to abortion care, it could even lead to bans on other forms of birth control. In other words, the nightmare we avoided when Romney lost in 2012 might now come true under Drumpf. We might be looking at a literal Handmaid’s Tale right here in the United States.

    But there is still hope! You can still contact your Senators and tell them how you feel about this assault on reproductive health care. Let them know they should use every procedural trick in the book to prevent Orange Hitler’s illegitimate attempt to reshape the Supreme Court.

    Stop Kavanaugh!
    #Resist
    #StandWithPP

    1. As boring as your schtick is, it will be fascinating to see if, in the end, it overtakes you.

      1. #StandWithPP

        Maybe its best hashtag to date, though.

          1. I think it’s offensive. It marginalizes women and men without penises.

            1. It marginalizes women and men without penises.

              The crippled can go fuck themselves.

              1. Prosthetics?

      2. I’m not doing “shtick.” I’m #Resisting the illegitimate Putin Puppet who stole the presidency from the most qualified candidate ever. And I’m pointing out, on a libertarian website, how disastrous that stolen election has been from a libertarian perspective on our two non-negotiable issues ? unlimited immigration and unrestricted abortion.

        You know what I consider shtick? The people here who say “Yeah Trump sucks, but Hillary sucked too, that’s why I couldn’t vote for either. Whatever. Now I’ll just quote Big Lebowski and Ghostbusters for the thousandth time.”

        1. Well that’s just, like, your opinion, man.

          1. Lol

    2. HA, yeah. I recall when Romney was told that the 80’s wanted it’s foreign policy back and now here we are right smack dab in the middle of another Russian scare.

  5. Trump Says He Hasn’t Talked Abortion With Kavanaugh

    He better not try to pressure him. His body, his choice.

    1. He could always give him the good ol’ meat hook.

  6. Kavanaugh’s nomination has sparked a panic among Democrats worried that he will oppose Roe.

    No it hasn’t. They were in a panic before anyone was announced at all.

    1. And it’s not going to matter anyway because, like every nominee post-Clarence Thomas, Kavanaugh will lie his ass off during the Senate hearings about whether his political sympathies will inform his judicial decisions. It’s stupid that it’s been this way for nearly 30 years, but then the Democrats shouldn’t have turned the hearings into a hazing ritual and a litmus test when Bork was nominated, either.

  7. It’s a difficult one, because I think I’m pro-choice. But also Roe V. Wade was a weird, fucked up decision from what I remember about it. Just the hand-wringing logic of it was so strange.

  8. Source familiar tells NBC that Justice Kennedy had been in negotiations with the Trump team for months over Kennedy’s replacement. Once Kennedy received assurances that it would be Kavanaugh (his former law clerk) Kennedy felt comfortable retiring – @LACaldwellDC & @frankthorp

    With this bombshell, and the relationship between Drumpf and Kennedy’s son, something obviously corrupt is going on here. There is no way Kavanaugh should even get a vote until we’ve conducted a full investigation into the suspicious timing of Kennedy’s retirement. (Recall that Kennedy is a few years younger than RBG, and she’s still there.)

    1. (Recall that Kennedy is a few years younger than RBG, and she’s still there.)

      He also breathes more than she does.

    2. Is this even illegal? Hell, is it even immoral?

      1. Legal or illegal, it is also entirely untrue.

        http://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/…..kavanaugh/

        It is a claim made by one anonymous source. There is no reason to believe it is true. It was just put out there so retards like OBL could have a talking point.

        1. If this is illegal, then Sotomayor shouldn’t be on the court, seeing how Souter also discussed his plans for retirement with Obama in spring of 2009.

          If the argument is “this is immoral because it shows he was playing politics” that’s fair, but there’s nothing you can do about it.

          1. Souter waited to retire so that the son of the guy who put him on the court would be deprived of the ability to replace him. What a dirtbag. Souter is probably the worst Supreme Court Justice of the 20th Century. A complete non entity on the court who lied to get on the court such that he almost immediately sold out every ideal he claimed to stand for during his confirmation.

            1. Yeah, Souter was unbelievably terrible. I am not thrilled with Roberts or Alito either. 4 justices and the only one I actually like is Thomas from the Bush clan.

        2. And my point is, if it’s not illegal and it’s not immoral (I would feel safe saying it’s not immoral, I have no idea if it’s technically illegal, but it shouldn’t be) then the question of whether it’s true doesn’t even matter. Unless the discussion is about shit-talking and rumor spreading in Congress.

      2. The point is, we can’t know unless we know the Russians weren’t involved and we can’t know that without an investigation.

        1. And all those indictments and guilty pleas.
          And Trumps financing by a convicted launderer of Russian money, after his long string of bankruptcies saw US banks refuse to deal with him.

          And Putin may be about to collect his interest.

          1. Do any of those indictments or guilty pleas actually involve collusion or whatever it is Mueller has been fishing for over the last 18 months?

    3. So you’re saying that SCOTUS justices should be forced to stay on the job until they die?

      Or that the Wise Latina et al will completely ignore which party controls the House should you allow them to retire?

      1. White House, not House

  9. Trump has never claimed to personally be pro-life, just that he’d protect pro-life measures…given that they, you know, supported him and all.

    1. They’ve sold their souls many times.
      Except the actual Family Values voters

  10. Not sure why folks keep bringing up his “follow precedent” line from years ago. If he’s on the SCOTUS, he is no longer bound by precedent and would be free to rule however he wants.

    That said, I suspect Trump was more interested in his “the president should be immune to criminal and civil prosecution” stance then anything else.

    1. Not sure why folks keep bringing up his “follow precedent” line from years ago.

      It’s called “stare decisis.”

    2. If he’s on the SCOTUS, he is no longer bound by precedent and would be free to rule however he wants.

      It’s almost amazing how fucking stupid you are.

      Not only does SCOTUS almost always bound itself to precedent. But more importantly the lower courts do as well (neither SCOTUS nor the lower courts are bound by precedent in anyway except by tradition by the way). No challenge to Roe v. Wade will ever make it to SCOTUS because there are no novel legal issues at play. It’s settled law.

      1. Wow, you are a prize idiot. How do you think PP vs. Casey made it to the SCOTUS, and changed abortion jurisprudence?

  11. He also said he’d
    a) Pay off the federal debt in 8 years.
    b) while cutting taxe
    c) and increasing spending
    d) and NEVER cutting Social Security and Medicare
    e) PLUS provide health insurance to all Americans.

    He had the wacky Federalist Society do the vetting, rejected his constitutional obligation to seek the :”advice” of the Senate, and many of his goobers say the Senate CANNOT vote to withhold consent.

    As the clown car rolls on …

    1. It must really suck being so stupid that you are unable to understand what is happening around you or in the world.

        1. You do realize advise and consent means the Senate holds hearings and votes on him? Additionally, the President spoke to a number of senators, from both parties over the past couple of weeks, about his appointment. So how is that not seeking their advise

      1. To be fair, dementia is technically different than simple stupidity, even if the results are often the same.

  12. President Donald Trump said today that he has not talked about abortion with Judge Brett Kavanaugh, his nominee for the Supreme Court.

    As if Trump would know what Trump talked about. I’m pretty sure the subject of his latest poll numbers came up, but beyond that it’s just stream-of-consciousness rambling.


  13. In the days leading to Trump’s Supreme Court announcement, many predicted the landmark ruling in Roe v. Wade that legalized first-trimester abortion at the federal level would be overturned.

    This is literal fear mongering that’s been picked up by pretty much every news outlet despite there being absolutely zero basis to it whatsoever other than the claims by the opposition.

    It’s a transparent attempt to get the public on board with a ‘no’ regardless of who Trump picked. The proof is incredibly obvious to anyone paying even a slight bit of attention: they started this campaign before anyone was even picked.

    So by all means continue to shit the bed, but more rational people should consider talking about reality instead of this manufactured fever dream.

    1. Oh, and for the record what were Kagan’s credentials for joining the court? What’s that, she was never a judge at all before becoming one of the nine?

      Gosh, it’s almost as if we’re in a period where having an actual judicial record is a hindrance to being appointed to one of the nine highest judgeships in the entire country.

      Since she was confirmed, sadly the left has zero legs to stand on when it comes to saying ‘no’ to anyone appointed to SCOTUS since they put forward and confirmed people who literally had no credentials to hold the post. There was zero record to look at, just like the guy who put her forward as his pick.

    2. Also worth mentioning that Roe v. Wade did not legalize first trimester abortion. It legalized abortion. Period. No restrictions or stipulations. The United States in equal share with Canada and China has the most permissive abortion policy in the entire world.

      1. It’s not worth mentioning since no one at all is talking about Roe except the far left. No one on the right said anything in particular about banning abortion or putting forward a justice who would do that. No one. It’s purely an invention to steer media attention. No more, and no less.

        Welcome to Propaganda 101. It’s pathetic how many people swallow the sinker along with the line and hook.

      2. Roe v Wade did not “legalize abortion.” Quoting from the decision:

        “(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician.

        (b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

        (c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.”

        1. (continued)

          “This holding, we feel, is consistent with the relative weights of the respective interests involved, with the lessons and examples of medical and legal history, with the lenity of the common law, and with the demands of the profound problems of the present day. The decision leaves the State free to place increasing restrictions on abortion as the period of pregnancy lengthens, so long as those restrictions are tailored to the recognized state interests. The decision vindicates the right of the physician to administer medical treatment according to his professional judgment up to the points where important state interests provide compelling justifications for intervention. Up to those points, the abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician. If an individual practitioner abuses the privilege of exercising proper medical judgment, the usual remedies, judicial and intra-professional, are available.”

      3. RE: “Also worth mentioning that Roe v. Wade did not legalize first trimester abortion. It legalized abortion. Period. No restrictions or stipulations.”

        I see, you have never READ Roe v. Wade. It allowed numerous restrictions on second-trimester abortions, and many more restrictions on third-trimester abortions.

  14. The senate talked about abortion with Kavanaugh 12 years ago. Trump probably got a pretty idea of his views based on that information.


  15. Kavanaugh’s nomination has sparked a panic among Democrats worried that he will oppose Roe. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D?N.Y.) expressed that concern in a New York Times op-ed last week, and he has now said he’ll fight the judge’s nomination “with everything I have.”

    Schumer said those things before anyone knew who Trump would pick. So are we pretending that Schumer is psychic?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.