Trump: Abortion Should Be Decided By the States and "Will of the People''

[Jazzy]

Trump declines to endorse a national abortion ban and says it should be left to the states

The former president routinely takes credit for appointing the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade, which he has called a “moral and unconstitutional atrocity."

whyy.org

Thoughts?

 

[Josiah]

Trump has abandon his opposition to abortion.

Until quite recently, Trump was passionately pro-abortion. But when he ran for president in 2016, he did a "180" and became strongly pro-life, even insisting that getting an abortion should be a punishable crime (not just to provide one) and supporting only one exception: to save the physical life of the mother, and supporting a federal ban on abortion. And he held to that during his first term.

But he has abandon that. He now insists this is solely a POLITICAL issue and a "states right" issue. If California wants to allow abortion for any or no reason... right up to when the last cell of the toe exits the birth canal... even done to 12 year olds secretly without telling her parents... paid for entirely by taxpayers.... even paying for those in other states to come to California for an abortion.... well, now that's just fine with him, no problem, he totally supports that. And he no longer supports a federal law restricting abortion in any way.

Trump is a good politician. He declared his "180" AFTER he sealed the nomination so that those running against him for the nomination (all pro-life) would be circumvented. Pro-life supporters of Trump have been, well.....






.

 

[Castle Church]

In an arguably broken two party system a states-rights supporter is better than a full on abortion at will with federal funding supporter. I probably won't vote for either candidate, but at least one intends to leave it up to the states like the Supreme court has ruled. It's a shrewd political move on his part.

 

[Albion]

In an arguably broken two party system a states-rights supporter is better than a full on abortion at will with federal funding supporter. I probably won't vote for either candidate, but at least one intends to leave it up to the states like the Supreme court has ruled. It's a shrewd political move on his part.

His appointments to the Supreme Court did make possible the end of a nationwide requirement that abortion at any stage of pregnancy be permitted. So, to that extent, it's true that he did something right in that respect.

Now it's up to the states to adopt their own standards. To Pro-Life people, this is not sufficient, but it's not the end of the controversy, either. For the present, it makes sense to get what can be gotten, which is allowing each state to decide at what stage of pregnancy abortion should be allowed. That hardly seems like an outrage.

The states elect their legislators every two or four years, and with each election, the voters will have the chance to either liberalize or reign in abortion and under what circumstances, and that's something that was not possible so long as Roe v. Wade was the law.

 

[Castle Church]

His appointments to the Supreme Court did make possible the end of a nationwide requirement that abortion at any stage of pregnancy be permitted. So, to that extent, it's true that he did something right in that respect.

Now it's up to the states to adopt their own standards. To Pro-Life people, this is not sufficient, but it's not the end of the controversy, either. For the present, it makes sense to get what can be gotten, which is allowing each state to decide at what stage of pregnancy abortion should be allowed. That hardly seems like an outrage.

The states elect their legislators every two or four years, and with each election, the voters will have the chance to either liberalize or reign in abortion and under what circumstances, and that's something that was not possible so long as Roe v. Wade was the law.

I am not sure how to respond other than to say that the post is factually correct.