Trump's Abortion Dilemma

The "most pro-life president in American history" cannot please hardline activists without alienating voters.

When former President Donald Trump agreed to address a conference hosted by an organization that opposes abortion in all circumstances, President Joe Biden's campaign cited the appearance as evidence of Trump's extremism on the issue. But in his brief recorded remarks at the Danbury Institute's Life & Liberty Forum in Indianapolis on Monday, Trump did not explicitly mention abortion at all, although he paid lip service to the value of "innocent life."

That episode reflects the dilemma Trump faces as he tries to retain the support of pro-life activists without alienating voters who reject the hardline position of groups like the Danbury Institute. Trump has staked out a mushy middle ground that is more consistent with public opinion, even as he brags about his role in overturning Roe v. Wade and describes himself as "the most pro-life president in American history."

The Danbury Institute's understanding of "pro-life" is clear. "The greatest atrocity facing our generation today is the practice of abortion—child sacrifice on the altar of self," it declares. "Abortion must be ended. We will not rest until it is eradicated entirely."

The group emphatically opposes exceptions that Trump supports. "Abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of a mother," it says, adding that "aborting an innocent child conceived in rape or incest only compounds the injustice and pain caused by the initial crime."

Whatever their moral logic, those views are wildly unpopular, even among Republicans. And according to recent polling, voters who are dissatisfied with current abortion policies overwhelmingly say they are too strict, while 63 percent of Americans think "abortion should be legal in all or most cases."

The latter view could be consistent with banning abortion after 15 weeks of gestation, since around 96 percent of abortions are performed before that cutoff. But Trump, after floating the possibility of a 15-week federal ban, reconsidered the idea.

Trump's now says abortion regulation should be left to the states, which jibes with the federalist critique of Roe. Biden, by contrast, supports national legislation that would codify Roe's limits, without much regard to the constitutional rationale for overriding state legislators in this area.

Roe is often described as recognizing a right to abortion prior to fetal "viability," which nowadays is said to occur around 24 weeks. But Roe and its progeny also required that post-viability abortions be allowed when pregnancies "endanger the woman's life or health"—a potentially sweeping exception that arguably mandates "abortion access for all pregnancies."

That broad interpretation of the health exception underlies Trump's charge that Democrats are "radically out of touch with the majority of Americans in their support for abortion up until birth." Beyond his rejection of abortion on demand, however, Trump is cagey about which restrictions he favors.

Trump has said "heartbeat" laws, which apply around six weeks into a pregnancy and rule out most abortions, are "a terrible thing and a terrible mistake." But the mistake that Trump perceives seems to be more political than moral.

After Republicans' disappointing performance in the 2022 midterm elections, Trump complained that his party's candidates had "lost large numbers of Voters" because they "poorly handled" the "abortion issue," especially when they "firmly insisted on No Exceptions." Republican politicians who share Trump's concern were relieved when he helped neutralize this electoral liability by accepting a wide range of state policies.

Although Trump's federalist approach has a sound constitutional basis, his apparent agnosticism regarding exactly how abortion should be regulated suggests he has no firm convictions on the subject. Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, was "deeply disappointed" by Trump's position, while Live Action founder Lila Rose flatly declared that "President Trump is not a pro-life candidate."

When push comes to shove, Trump is betting, such critics will swallow their reservations and turn out for the man who ensured Roe's demise. But as his triangulation shows, that victory was just the beginning of the struggle to persuade Americans that "abortion must be ended."

© Copyright 2024 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

Comments

[Chumby]

There is a sitting president that cannot string words together to form a coherent sentence and the article topic is *drum roll* something about abortion and Trump.

Is it discrimination that MTF trans cannot become pregnant so that they could have an abortion as a means to send a message to Trump?

[Commenter_XY]

So IOW, it was an abortive attempt to send a message?

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

I think they’re scraping the bottom on this one.

[Mickey Rat]

"How can you have a right to an abortion? You do not have ova or a womb!"

[Incunabulum]

Where you gonna kill the fetus? In a box?

[Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)]

We will split the difference. Abort yourself sullum

[Stuck in California]

Abortion is the stupidest of all political positions to worry about.

NONE of the abortion at all times, for any reason crowd will ever vote for any Republican, ever.

NONE of the abortion is wrong, for any reason, at all times crowd will ever vote for the Democrat.

The only reason it comes up at all is because the Democrats use it heavily to mobilize their base. They run ads saying you have to take a pregnancy test to leave Alabama, and that sort of bullshit. They’ll believe it, too, and the more rabid left believe things like Republicans want to restrict birth control, as well.

From a political strategy standpoint, diving into this stuff is always a loser for Trump. Democrats will use it. That’s why Abortion always comes up. That’s why Reason constantly brings it up.

Move on to talking about policies WAY more people care about, avoid the always-lose issues. Never wrassle a pig in shit, you both get dirty, but the pig likes it.

[mad.casual]

From a political strategy standpoint, diving into this stuff is always a loser for Trump.

Especially given the degree to which hard line pro-abortion (and trans) crowd insists on literally, metaphorically, and overtly/publicly stabbing itself in the junk.

[damikesc]

"They run ads saying you have to take a pregnancy test to leave Alabama, and that sort of bullshit."

And, WEIRDLY, fact checkers never fact check that.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Hey, do you want to support the official narrative or not?

[Stuck in California]

I said this elsewhere when it happened, but I LITERALLY overheard a discussion of this. Two doctors (medical doctors, they talked loudly and incessantly next to me at a coffee shop) and one of them said "You know you have to get a pregnancy test to leave Alabama" and the other said "They're going to ban birth control there, too. It's the Handmaid's tale" The first one said "The supreme court will uphold it. They'll do anything to stop women."

Doctors. People with, theoretically, a dozen years of post high-school education. And they believed a Gavin Newsome run commercial 100%. Not a single thought about how it doesn't pass the smell test.

Jesus Christ himself could come back to earth and run on a platform of eternal peace and salvation, plus enlightenment, and a blowjob. If he was an R these guys would just call him a zionist and vote for Hillary again.

[Commenter_XY]

What dilemma? Dobbs settled the issue. We the People get to decide for ourselves what abortion restrictions, if any, we want to live with. For the overwhelming majority of people in America, nothing has materially changed, post Dobbs. Abortions are just as accessible today as they were under Roe. State legislatures passed laws codifying current access. That is how the system is supposed to work, I thought.

President Trump appointed the Justices who eviscerated and overturned Roe.

What abortion dilemma?

[TJJ2000]

"[WE] the" ... State Gov-Gods ... "get to decide for" ... every pregnant woman what PERSONAL medical procedures [WE] Gov-Gods want to live with.

"For the overwhelming majority" ... of women who become pregnant ... "in America" ... they "materially" lost the ability to make decisions concerning their own PERSONAL reproductive system because [WE] State Gov-Gods sent from the heavens took that away.

Fixed those for you so they weren't a deceitful pile of propaganda poop.

[Quicktown Brix]

What dilemma?

The political dilemma. The one where most voters are ignorant of how laws/government work and think if a president is pro-life, that will likely become the law nation-wide and vise versa.

[TJJ2000]

The end of the Roe v Wade literally opened up that concern.
The cornerstone of keeping the government out of it was just erased.

[DesigNate]

Roe was a shitty decision, even if you nominally agree with abortion access. Even RBG recognized that.

It was never something the federal government should be getting entangled in.

[TJJ2000]

“It was never something the federal government should be getting entangled in.”
Which is EXACTLY what Roe v Wade ruled.

SCOTUS (the enforcers of the US Constitution) isn’t federal legislation. The idiocy behind this claim literally flips the whole USA system and its check and balances on it’s head.

The only thing Dobbs accomplished over Roe v Wade was allowing State Legislation to enslave pregnant women pre-viable. Alito didn't even bother explaining this violation of the 13th and 4th Amendment; just claimed it so by his almighty self.

[David Perry]

'Which is EXACTLY what Roe v Wade ruled.'
I'm confused. A past SCOTUS making a widely reviled decision on made-up penumbras and rights not in the Constitution but then making a policy nation-wide is indeed 'entangling' the federal government. Most would say Roe took the decision away from the states, therefore...
'SCOTUS (the enforcers of the US Constitution) isn’t federal legislation. The idiocy behind this claim literally flips the whole USA system and its check and balances on it’s head.'
Really hard to figure what you are even saying here, but I will guess you are exclaiming that SCOTUS shouldn't be making laws, i.e. not a federal legislature. But Roe essentially had them pass a new 'law', i.e. a right not actually in the Constitution. Your statement (assuming my interpretation of it is correct) makes zero sense.
'The only thing Dobbs accomplished over Roe v Wade was allowing State Legislation to enslave pregnant women pre-viable...' And this perfectly illustrates your mindset in that accountability and taking responsibility for one's actions constitute 'slavery'. Are there any other decisions that if people are forced to live by their decisions you think it is slavery? Taking a car loan? Buying a house and paying it back? Any other choices constitute 'slavery', or just not being allowed (based on what your state's laws dictate) to potentially use abortion as birth control?

[TJJ2000]

Prohibiting Legislative-Law isn't Law by the general received sense of the word; which is exactly where the "flipping it on it's head" comes into play.

Pretending that Laws over Government are the same as Laws from Government over people is an oxymoron. It's a dog chasing his own tail game. The very purpose of SCOTUS is to enforce "the people's" law over Legislative-Government to keep it LIMITED and prevent it from trampling Individual Rights. Because rights are 'inherent' they only need protected from being trampled on by outside sources.

"But Roe essentially had them pass a new ‘law’" -- This narrative of a 'law' you essentially try to portray is a Law over Government not a Law over the people. The law over government is to keep it from trampling 'inherent' Individual Rights (think defensive vs aggressive gun usage).

It is 'slavery' because State Gov-Gun (Legislative-Law) is taking away her 'inherent' responsibility choices. Stopping herself from reproducing *is* taking responsibility of herself. It is the Gov-Guns preventing that and trampling her 'inherent' rights she doesn't need governments-dictation to address her-own situation.

[David Perry]

Your incoherence is a little difficult to parse out.

The Constitution's sole role is not to limit government, it is also to define the government's role. At no point in the Constitution is it the federal government's role to be involved in abortion, ergo your blatantly obvious position is that the federal government's role is to ensure that access to abortion is guaranteed. Not in the Constitution.

Yes, regardless of your opinion, passing Roe was indeed the SC passing new law. How else could divining 'rights' not written into the Constitution be interpreted? Are there any other rights that future SC's that you think should be 'discovered'?

Its not slavery to expect someone to live by their own decisions. You look foolish that you keep repeating that canard. Stopping herself from reproducing after the decision to act such that reproduction might happen is closing the barn door after the fact.

[TJJ2000]

The foolish-BS is in fact that it *isn't* her decision.
State Gov-Guns are making that decision for her.

The fact that it is a PERSONAL decision causes it to be a violation of the 4th Amendment (As Roe v Wade ruled). If you want to pretend it is another person then it's a violation of the 13th Amendment. By the 14th Amendment it *is* indeed a defined role in the US Constitution to prevent State's from violating these rights and privileges.

Spin and corrupt it all you want. People having bodily autonomy rights (ability to make their own medical decisions) is well established and shouldn't get destroyed cause of a mob on a power-mad religious streak.

It's RIGHT THERE ------------------------> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons" (4th Amendment)

[David Perry]

I seem to recall stating that her decision was made in the earlier act. You resorting to histrionics by trying to equate it to slavery is what is the foolish part.

Again, as most legal scholars and experts state who are not coming from a position of extreme bias, Roe was exceedingly bad case law. Making up rights not in the Constitution, regardless of how you want to 'spin and corrupt' the language that is actually in the document makes for arbitrary and capricious law.

Funny how it seems to be just you that says the 4th amendment secures the right to abortion. No one else does apparently (at least the folks who were tasked with making the decision.) Shoehorning a right to procure an abortion into the generic right to be secure from government search is ridiculous.

Thanks.

[TJJ2000]

"earlier act" (sex) that is not a crime is now the premise to lose Individual Rights? Why don't you just say what the real bottom-line is with Pro-Life.
- Sex without a obligation to reproduce should be illegal.

"No one else does apparently (at least the folks who were tasked with making the decision.)"

- SCOTUS did. It's the very Amendment used in the Roe v Wade ruling.

Call that ruling all the names you want it still was a whole heck of a lot better than Alito and his 'No Constitutional explanation at all' in Dobbs just a almighty God like 'because I say so' BS.

Maybe this is just but another example of why this nation can't remain a free one. Too many power-mad psycho dictators making endless excuses and spouting BS to throw their Gov-Guns of dictation onto others PERSONAL life's in which they have ZERO concern or liability-for in.

[David Perry]

She isn’t losing a right, which is the cavernous misunderstanding which you have. There is no right to an abortion in the Constitution, not sure how much plainer I can make that.

So now you are using the tactic of putting words in my mouth. When did I say non-procreative sex should be illegal? Oh that’s right, I didn’t. Birth control is widely available, and if you go with the ‘BC isn’t perfect’, then use two methods. If you are going to take an action which may result in a child and you don't want one, use birth control.

So its easy; have sex all you want. Use birth control. There is no right to an abortion.

Arguing for Roe is a disastrous line of reasoning. I see no reason to repeat the reams of legal analysis including by those on the left that recognize it is terrible. Not my problem if you disagree.

Keep using whatever little quasi-meaningful little quips by all means. Again, and I will type this slower: there is no right to an abortion in the Constitution.

Thanks for playing.

[AT]

I have a feeling Brown v Board of Education is next.

[Terry Anne Lieber (Don't Feed Tony)]

Trump 2024

[Moderation4ever]

MAWF

[mad.casual]

Movement Against War and Fascism?
Metropolitan Area Water Filtration?
Make A Wish Foundation?
Ministry of Agricutlure, Wildlife, and Forestry?

[Chumby]

Mawf Tarkin. A character from Star Wars.

[JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

Nerd.

[Chumby]

Psst Jesse, Boehm did this morning’s Roundup.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

FOAD, asswipe.

[mad.casual]

The "most pro-life president in American history" cannot please hardline activists without alienating voters.

Is the concern here that Trump won't be able to capture 100% of the electorate?

[Longtobefree]

When logic and proportion
Have fallen sloppy dead - - - - -

The SUPREME COURT has ruled this is a state matter.
Period.
It has no place in a national election debate.
(unless you are a rabid fascist that wants the state in every womb)

[TJJ2000]

LOL...
The womb debate is "state matter"
... followed by ...
"unless you are a rabid fascist that wants the state in every womb"

I'll give it a try; Blue is the Color Blue unless Blue is the Color Blue.

[SRG2]

The SUPREME COURT has ruled this is a state matter. Period. It has no place in a national election debate.

First, the SC ruling can always be overturned later – as happened to Roe. And, if one argue that abortion is a fundamental right, it’s no longer merely a state matter. Second, advocating for a constitutional amendment enshrining the right to abortion is necessarily a national matter, so why can it not be part of the debate?

I agree with keeping states out of wombs but many posters here are anti-abortion and so disagree.

[JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

Hey shrike. Do you know how amendments are passed? Do you think they are passed by EO or something?

[SRG2]

Still not shrike, you lying cunt.

I know how amendments are passed of course. But it still makes it a subject for national debate. Duh.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

Simmer down Shrike.

[TJJ2000]

The 'right' to command one's own reproduction system already is an 'inherent' God-given right.

Specifically Constitutionally ensured by the word "born" or naturalized. So if Pro-Life want's pregnancies to have citizenship privilege they need to send application to the immigrant office (which they haven't even tried).

Women retain the specifically Constitutionally ensured worded right to privacy on PERSONAL matters as well as ensured worded right not to be put into involuntary servitude.

Pro-Life is the mob that requires a Constitutional Amendment.....

Proposed Amendment: Women who are pregnant are on 0/5th of US citizens and their pregnancy is 5/5ths of a citizen.

[Michael Ejercito]

The ‘right’ to command one’s own reproduction system already is an ‘inherent’ God-given right.
So vaccine mandates are unconstitutional?

[TJJ2000]

Yes. It's one's own responsibility to protect themselves from natural disease and a liability court can conclude if some other party holds reckless responsibility in that equation. It doesn't need to come down to 'Gov-Gun' tyranny; liberty and justice is far more important.

[DesigNate]

To TJJ’s credit, he is remarkably consistent, even when I don’t agree with him.

[Davy C]

So it's also OK to kill people with green cards or tourist visas, since they aren't citizens? I think not. Citizenship has nothing to do with it.

[TJJ2000]

1st - You can't kill what has no 'inherent' life to begin with.
^That is the bigoted ignorance of today's Pro-Life mobsters.

2nd - You can pass a law making an 'unborn-kill' illegal without FORCING reproduction. It's called Fetal Ejection (at-will C-Section).
^The 'unicorn-killing' is just a BS excuse for the religious tyranny.

3rd - There is a difference between 'citizen' and 'any person'
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the *privileges or immunities* (i.e. Bill of Rights)
of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive
... any person ...
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[LIBtranslator]

The Supreme court ruled that former slaves were citizens and could vote--unless they were women. The Suprema later voted that the Libertarian platform of 1972 was correct, and called it Roe v. Wade. So things stood until Christian National Socialism--accidentally empowered by the Gary Johnson campaign reshuffling 127 electoral votes--declared war on women in 2020. Recall the Dems had actors sobbing on camera BEGGING National Socialist electors to do like Roger McBride. Instead of panhandling votes for Gary they whined "Nobody is asking you to vote for Hillary." Sad.

[LIBtranslator]

Where else can wankers get away with smearing Tubby Tomkins graffiti in faeces on the walls? Reason ought to require real names for commenting. Cowardly girl-bulliers can move on to Zerosledge, the AfD or Lyndon LaRouche site. Is the KKK still online?

[LIBtranslator]

At least female republicans--there must be one or two--will have the option of voting for a Libertarian candidate manly enough to stand up to girl-bullying fascism while roundly rejecting slavery. It took a 19th Amendment to overcome superstition and make this possible, after years of all-male interpretations of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. Ignoring the 9th helped bigots to coercively discriminate against the fair sex.

[DesigNate]

A constitutional amendment is a national AND state matter in the realm of the Congress. The President gets fuck all day if it’s veto proofed and the state legislatures approve it. Knowing the presidents position doesn’t do anything except provide campaign fodder.

[JasonT20]

Knowing the presidents position doesn’t do anything except provide campaign fodder.

1) Presidents appoint federal judges, including the Supreme Court justices that would interpret any constitutional amendment and how it applies in specific cases.
2) Presidents are the presumed leader of their party, so what a President supports or opposes regarding a constitutional amendment will play a huge role in its chances of being passed and ratified.

Having no constitutional role in the amendment process doesn't mean that they won't have a large influence on it.

[Michael Ejercito]

If Trump tries to force pregnant women to give b irth, what is next?

Forcing women to take one newly-developed vaccine to keep their jobs?

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

That's (D)ifferent!

[TJJ2000]

If you cannot support 'baby' freedom (i.e. Fetal Ejection)
UR supporting Gov-Gun FORCED reproduction.

Screw the Pro-Life wanna play God with 'Guns' propagandists.

REAL Republicans wrote Roe v Wade because they saw it as Gov playing Gods.

FAKE Republicans join the Past-Democrat agenda of Pro-Life.
Yes; literally the Catholic Democrats of the past founded the Pro-Life movement.
Pro-Life is just another but worse breed of the RINO.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

So, when are mothers not allowed to kill their offspring?

Sigh. If only we knew what causes pregnancy.

[TJJ2000]

When their offspring isn’t literally a piece of themselves and exists.

It’s not rocket science. It’s as easy to understand as 1,2,3 w/o all the *imaginary* ‘unicorn’ propaganda. Frankly; I’m completely okay with Roe v Wade at viability but if the wanna-play-God gang wants things changed they can PROVE their person exists by fetal ejection instead of pretending in imagination land that they can claim representation of some piece of them gives them an excuse to dictate a person.

The dumbest thing about the Pro-Life mob today is they just want to *pretend* something into existence while literally BANNING any process that would allow their ‘pretend’ to *actually* exist. They just as well be telling the world their own imagination is why they need to 'guns' of dictation over those 'icky' people. (i.e. It's 100% a religious (faith-based) dictation)

[rovers]

And .... how many people (besides the ones in your head) hold that straw man position you staked out?

Is it perhaps the same number of liberals who gleefully want to murder babies?

[TJJ2000]

Individual choices shouldn't be made by popular vote in the USA.
That's the very difference between a free-nation and a Democratic KING of dictation.

[rovers]

Sorry, I wrote my reply before I read your other postings.
I didn't realize you weren't coherent.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

So a pregnant woman at full term can kill the unborn imaginary thing inside her private property uterus, but if she fails and the thing crosses the legal boundary at the cervix, it attains human status with a right to exist. Got it.

[TrickyVic (old school)]

It doesn't exist until assigned a pronoun.

[TJJ2000]

You can’t protect an ‘inherent’ right to life that doesn’t exist in the first place. That’s not a right that’s an ‘entitlement’ at someone else's expense.

[Ersatz]

parenting and family necessarily involve an entitlement at someone else’s expense
and the assent to that proposition is given thru the act of procreation – not some buyers regret afterwards

[TJJ2000]

The correct correlation would be passing laws that mandate organ donation to save life. If you want to throw in ‘buyer regret’ then it would be laws mandating organ donation from vehicle ‘accidents’. And to play fair; it wouldn’t be laws mandating to save a life but to create a life that never existed.

So if you truly support Gov-Guns going out to collect organs from other people by LAW to create a new life every-time an accident occurs then you can actually legitimately say you support this complete violation of the people.

For me; It’s a psychotic violation of the people by a religious crusade (bigotry) and a wildly power-mad government authority gain (tyrannical). I for one think people should retain FULL ownership of themselves (their own body).

The juice isn’t anywhere close to worth the squeeze.

And P.S. - The Gov-Guns don't force parenting to occur. They don't show up and hold a gun to mommies head and forces her to take care of her children. The best you've got is misdemeanor child neglect. This is yet another stupidity in the whole Pro-Life argument. When pre-viable pregnant Women defies State forced reproduction law and runs from the cops and they shoot her what life is the Pro-Life trying to save there????? They don't save anything; they're just destroying life. It is biologically impossible.

And that's where the 'slavery' fits the bill. Gov-Guns are trying to FORCE her to reproduce (create life). It's not a bill of 'saving' it's a bill of FORCED 'creating'.

[TJJ2000]

The correct way to handle it is a PERSONAL right to fetal ejection (C-Section at will). Take the supposed ‘kill’ out of the equation.

But there’s a reason the obvious solution isn’t an option for Pro-Life mobsters. They don’t really care about establishing evidence for their imagined 'unicorn' crime it's just an *excuse* to FORCE women to reproduce against their will because they had sex. (back to religious pretenses)

[damikesc]

Hey, could be worse.

MA is looking to allow women to sell their unborn children.

https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/H4672

Democrats: Making Selling People Legal Again. MSPLA.

[JasonT20]

MA is looking to allow women to sell their unborn children.

I just skimmed the first few parts of that bill, but I didn't find anything about selling "unborn children." I did see some definitions of things related to sperm or egg donors, surrogacy, and so on. You'll need to point to where, specifically, it is allowing the selling of children in ways that didn't already occur. Perhaps it is just formalizing the law surrounding surrogacy issues so that disputes can be resolved in a consistent way.

[TJJ2000]

In the diluted power-mad minds of Pro-Life sperm and eggs are children.

And no; I'm not kidding at all.
They're seriously that self-diluted with Gov-Gun power-mad desires.

People should be more careful about what kind of BS propaganda they allow themselves to buy.

[rovers]

Trumps dilemma is the same as it's always been. The press refuses to report the truth.
Trump's position on abortion is aligned with the majority of Americans. And that's what the press refuses to report.
Trump ISN'T an abolitionist on abortion. And that is exactly where the vast majority of Americans are at.
He's pretty much the same as Clinton - "Safe, legal and rare."
He doesn't want to ban abortion and he doesn't want to enshrine it up until the moment of birth.
And that position is working itself out across the states.
THANKS to Trump.
Overturning Roe v Wade was a hugely positive event for America.
In the long term, as long as absolutists don't take charge, it will create political peace.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

Sullum is a TDS-addled slimy pile of shit who will find any reason at all to oppose Trump.
Sullum? Stuff your TDS up your ass; your head is begging for company. And then make your family proud: Fuck off and die.

[TrickyVic (old school)]

Even if Trump came out full pro abortion republicans would likely still vote for him else Harris wins.

[LIBtranslator]

Or they vote for Oliver and the American people and economy win. Winning is casting a ballot that forces looter politicians to delete bad planks or land on the streets unemployed. My vote for Gary was worth more than 24 votes wasted on either looter (the operation is called division). Observe that complacent Dems suddenly started repealing prohibition laws and amending State constitutions to prevent the enslavement of women by girl-bullying mystics. Then they got to add jobs for their team. That's spoiler CLOUT. God's Own Prohibitionists hide their 12th Century platform and declare any motion to alter it an act of heresy. Now we are looking at evolution in action. Like wolves thinning a herd, Libertarian spoiler votes hasten survival of looter parties that adapt to reality.

[Ersatz]

ha-ha! good one!
.... oh - you were serious??

[TJJ2000]

The majority of Republicans supported Roe v Wade.
Harris isn't even part of that equation.

[mad.casual]

Even “abolitionist on abortion” is itself a bit of propaganda specifically designed to make completely rational thought in line with Federalism seem like Inquisition-style zealotry.

You take a clump of cells, not even human (but higher animal), that has a heartbeat and brainwaves and you stop it/them from having both, that’s a killing/death. Whether the clump of cells is 80 yrs. old, 8 yrs. old, 8 mos. old, or 8 weeks old. If the cells are of human origin and you did it out of convenience (rather than accident or circumstance), you really, factually killed something human out of convenience. Whether it was an actual human or just a vegetable or someone who is retarded or suffering late-stage dementia is just pointless quibbling along the lines of whether it’s OK to kill someone in their sleep.

From there, the general “abolitionist” position isn’t “Abide our laws or secede and we’ll start a Civil War to make you abide them anyway” like, you know, actual Abolitionists. It’s very much “That may be OK where you’re from and we won’t stop you there, but here we consider it to be a murder until the facts demonstrate otherwise.”

[TJJ2000]

Overturning Roe v Wade destroyed Individual Rights provided by the 4th and 13th Amendments and gave State's the go-ahead to force reproduction.

You might not care because you're not a pregnant women; but you should care because the premise that State's can violate Individual *Personal-Matters* Rights by popular vote has been established.

Don't kid yourselves. When the left becomes concerned with population control this *IS* the very ruling that they will use to allow State-Forced sterilization.

[rovers]

The left already did that.
Progressives in the early 20th century performed quite a few forced sterilizations.

[TJJ2000]

"early 20th century" ... Pre Republican ruled Roe v Wade (1973).
I really don't think today's Republicans fully comprehend what they just changed.

[LIBtranslator]

So slavery is freedom? War on women is peace?

[DesigNate]

Is caring for their newborn also slavery Hank? Why or why not?

[JasonT20]

Caring for a newborn is not slavery. The rest of society has made it possible in a great many ways for someone to avoid the responsibility of caring for a newborn or any other child if that is what they want. An adult biological parent may be required to pay some of their earnings in support of that child if it is not being cared for by someone with sufficient means to do so alone, but physical custody and responsibility is entirely voluntary, as far as I know.

Once a woman is pregnant, though, the risks and physical and mental burdens can only be ended when the pregnancy is ended. If a woman wanted to be pregnant, or she was surprised and decided that she now wants to be pregnant, then it is entirely voluntary to take on those risks and burdens. If she does not want to be pregnant, then what would you call it to force her to remain pregnant?

[TJJ2000]

Dude... That's not a Woman! That's a State-Owned incubator! /s

Pro-Lifers really have a problem noticing a pregnant woman as a *real* person with rights to herself; but they sure have no problem dreaming up 'unicorns' to thwart all those *real* people rights.

[LIBtranslator]

I publish and comment on blogs published by real people, people like Sullum. None of the MAGAts ordure-flinging Reason do anything undisguised by masks. Must be a new Klan mask mandate to ward of cowpox vaccinations.

[LIBtranslator]

Girl-bulliers haven't changed since Mark Twain wrote Huckleberry Finn. "Because you’re brave enough to tar and feather poor friendless cast-out women that come along here, did that make you think you had grit enough to lay your hands on a man? Why, a man’s safe in the hands of ten thousand of your kind—as long as it’s daytime and you’re not behind him." Cowardly sockhecklers hiding behind pillowcase masks are, in 2024 still pushing slavery and involuntary servitude enforced by someone else's guns. Reason invites anonymous cowardice, possibly as an object lesson to be observed with shame by manly and womanly American citizens alike.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

Gosh, you sure hate babies Hank. Always wanting to murder them.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

But impositions on my personal life, even if self-inflicted, are immoral!
-Libertine Party Platform

[TJJ2000]

What baby?
Is my fingernail a baby too?

Fact is; You cannot even pretend to be protecting a right to life when there is no 'inherent' right to life there to protect.

[Ersatz]

is your brain matter you? your heart?... its just a piece of a bunch of parts right? but then you counter with - yes but they are MY brain, MY heart.... if i so choose I can get rid of any part I want.

well..,. that fetus has a brain, a heart - IT (he or she) has that - and its not up to you to cause destruction of those parts.

and pls spare me 'fetal ejection' - the host signed up for this duty (not dealing with rape\incest -obviously- in this argument)

[TJJ2000]

How is it not up to the women to do destruction of those parts she contains? Are you her pimp? If she gets brain cancer she's stuck with it? Heart transplants are now illegal?

Your "I'm God" over her is complete arrogant power-mad BS.
YOU DO/BELIEVE what you want just leave her the F alone!!

[JasonT20]

The group emphatically opposes exceptions that Trump supports. "Abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of a mother," it says, adding that "aborting an innocent child conceived in rape or incest only compounds the injustice and pain caused by the initial crime."

Translation: If we allow doctors and their pregnant patients to decide on their own whether an abortion is necessary to avoid the woman's death, then they might start thinking about how pregnancy always carries at least some significant risk of death. While it is small in otherwise healthy women with good insurance and access to comprehensive prenatal care, they could think that one woman dying for every 5000 live births or so is too high of a risk to force anyone, by law, to remain pregnant.

We constantly refer to the "unborn" as being "babies," instead of using language more accurate to the stage of development, such as "zygote" for the single cell product of conception, "blastocyst" for when that single cell divided many times in preparation for implantation in the uterine wall, "embryo" for the first few weeks after that when the influx of nutrients allows it to start growing beyond the microscopic, and finally, "fetus" at around 8 weeks gestation when it is the size of a raspberry. Despite trying to bring images of cute, helpless babies and happy, smiling children into our arguments, some people still insist that early stages of development are only "potential" children. They say that we don't even legally punish people for being unwilling to risk their lives to save actual children, so forcing women to take on the burdens and risks of pregnancy for something that isn't a child yet is inconsistent and violates their right to choose what risks to take to help others.

We can end all of these arguments if we simply assert that women are never at risk of dying if they continue a pregnancy, so forcing them to remain pregnant is just preventing them from murdering the unborn for their convenience. Anyone that tries to bring in facts or examples of women dying after being denied abortions after they started to miscarry* is just lying or evil.

*Savita Halappanavar died in Ireland while 17 weeks pregnant. She began to miscarry. Doctors had no course of treatment that would have saved the pregnancy to offer. But they also wouldn't terminate the pregnancy despite her pleas. She knew from the pain and ill feelings that it was going horribly wrong, but they wouldn't act to evacuate her womb until they could no longer detect a heartbeat. She developed sepsis and died. This was in 2012 and was a turning point in efforts to remove the ban on abortion in that Catholic country, which occurred in 2018.

[AT]

he has no firm convictions on the subject

That or any other subject. His position on any and every one is, essentially, "What words do you want to hear?"

[LIBtranslator]

"I was able to terminate Roe v. Wade." -- Trump in May 2023, while appearing on a CNN Town Hall

[Incunabulum]

1. Again, Reason, I don't want to hear why we should vote against or for Trump/Biden. You've been doing that for 8 years - I get it, Orange-Man-Bad, vote for 'adults are in charge and my status quo restored!!!'. I want to you to talk about the LP candidate and why they should be voted for.

2. Trump doesn't have to appeal to a fringe of 'total abortion bans everywhere, forever' crowd. He just has to support the status quo - 'I think abortion should be limited to 12-15 weeks, with increasing restrictions after but, ultimately, its a state issue, not a federal one, AND THE FUCKING PRESIDENT HAS NO SAY IN THE MATTER ANYWAY AS ITS A LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION SO STOP PRETENDING THE PRESIDEN IS A GOD DAMNED KING!'

[Incunabulum]

Trump's opinions on shit that isn't under the control of the executive branch of the federal government are completely irrelevant.