Posted on 01/18/2016 2:16:20 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
When Ben Carson was rising in the polls, Donald Trump was quick to attack the former neurosurgeon for being "pro-abortion not so long ago."
The attack was more than a bit hypocritical because Trump himself was "very" pro-abortion not so long ago. In 1999, Tim Russert asked Trump if he would support a ban on "abortion in the third-trimester" or "partial-birth abortion."
"No," Trump replied. "I am pro-choice in every respect." Trump explained his views may be the result of his "New York background." Now that Ted Cruz has attacked Trump's "New York values," Trump's views on abortion will be getting a second look by many Republican voters.
During the first Republican presidential debate, Trump explained that he "evolved" on the issue at some unknown point in the last 16 years. "Friends of mine years ago were going to have a child, and it was going to be aborted. And it wasn't aborted. And that child today is a total superstar, a great, great child. And I saw that. And I saw other instances," Trump said. "I am very, very proud to say that I am pro-life."
When the Daily Caller's Jamie Weinstein asked Trump if he would have become pro-life if that child had been a loser instead of a "total superstar," Trump replied: "Probably not, but I've never thought of it. I would say no, but in this case it was an easy one because he's such an outstanding person."
That Trump could go from supporting third-trimester abortion--something indistinguishable from infanticide, something that only 14 percent of Americans think should be legal--to becoming pro-life because of that one experience is a bit hard to believe. If it's true, the story still indicates at the very least that Trump is not capable of serious moral reasoning.
The more important question is not what Trump said in the past but what he would do in the future. Trump says he's pro-life except in the cases when a pregnancy endangers the life of the mother or is the result of rape or incest, although it remains unclear if he thinks abortion should be generally legal in the first three months of pregnancy (a position that is more accurately described as "pro-choice").
Trump has said he'd sign a ban on abortion during the last four months of pregnancy, when infants can feel pain and are capable of surviving long-term outside the womb. But after undercover videos were released showing Planned Parenthood involved in the trafficking of aborted baby body parts, Trump said he wasn't sure if the Planned Parenthood should lose all of its federal funding. He later shifted, saying: "I wouldn't do any funding as long as they are performing abortions."
Even if the mercurial Trump followed through on his promises to sign pro-life legislation, it wouldn't matter if he appointed liberal justices to the Supreme Court. The Court is just one appointment away from a solid liberal majority that would likely find a right to taxpayer-funded and late-term abortion.
By the end of the next president's first term, four sitting justices will be over the age of 80. Originalist Antonin Scalia and "swing-vote" Anthony Kennedy will both be 84. Liberal activists Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer will be, respectively, 87 and 82. There's really no telling how far a lockstep-liberal majority would go on other issues like guns, immigration, national security, and the death penalty. If Trump appoints a liberal activist--intentionally or not--the rest of his domestic agenda doesn't matter much.
The more likely result of a Trump nomination, of course, would be a Clinton presidency and the certain appointment of liberal justices. But in the event that Trump actually wins, what kind of Supreme Court justices would he appoint? When a voter asked Trump in December if he'd defund Planned Parenthood and try to repeal Roe v. Wade, Trump wouldn't answer the question. "The answer is yes, defund," he replied. "The other, you're gonna need a lot of Supreme Court justices, but we're gonna be looking at that very, very carefully, but you need a lot of Supreme Court judges. But defund yes, we're going to be doing a lot of that."
In 2015, Trump said he thought his sister Maryanne Trump Barry, a federal appeals court judge who struck down New Jersey's partial-birth abortion ban, would be a "phenomenal" Supreme Court justice. "We will have to rule that out now, at least," he added.
The bigger problem is that Trump's general hostility toward limited government conservatism indicates that he would not want to appoint a constitutionalist to the Supreme Court. Trump still supports allowing the government to seize private property for commercial use, and a Supreme Court justice who shares this view will almost certainly be a liberal activist on issues across the board. Even if Trump wanted to appoint a constitutionalist, there's no reason to think he'd know how to pick one in the first place.
On Saturday, Trump floated former senator Scott Brown, who supports a right to abortion, as a possible vice presidential running mate. "I tend to agree with @AnnCoulter on priorities here. If Trump immigration plan implemented, doesn't matter," tweeted Breitbart.com Washington editor Matthew Boyle. "I don't care if @realDonaldTrump wants to perform abortions in White House after this immigration policy paper," Coulter wrote in August.
Anti-immigration obsessives may not care about Trump's views on infanticide and judges. But a strong majority of primary voters in a conservative, pro-life party surely will.
If he were elected and was a pro abortion president you can bet his fan club would blame someone else.
A better response would be "we welcome Mr. Trump to the pro-life view".
Are we really as idiotic as we seem????????
my neighbors are not very close.
West - .14 mile
North - 1.05
East - .37
South - .46
BECOMES?
Neither does AMERICA!
He is PERFECT!!
And just WHY should HE?
Or if they'd REMAIN one after donning the cloak.
Nope...
People don’t realize SC appointees are VOTED on and CONFIRMED by the SENATE.
You'd better get THESE guys (and gals) right; first!!
You forgot the most important part of Trump's statement.
If the child who escaped abortion had been born a "loser" rather than a "superstar," Trump said that he wouldn't have changed his mind regarding abortion.
I can't even begin to wrap my mind around this mindset, but it's perfectly in keeping with Trump's solipsistic world of "winners" and "losers."
Spot on with both comments.
It’s Weimar-esqe enough to send a chill up my spine.
Obama crossed the Rubicon, now it is only left for us to choose our Octavian. He/she? Pick your flavor.
ENOUGH!! The opposing camps in this primary are like third grade kids arguing over whose dad is tougher. Simple solutions always work the best. Simple solution to the arguing is:
1. Make a list of “absolute” issues (end illegal immigration, anti-abortion, reduce size of government, lower taxes, etc.)
2. Draw up a legally binding contract, WITH NO WEASELING OUT, for the Presidential candidates.
3. Whoever wont sign is unworthy of our vote.
4. If they fail to carry out their pledge, it constitutes “high crimes and misdemeanors” and subject to impeachment.
5. If Congress will not cooperate, AFTER BEING PRESENTED WITH BILLS, they lose our vote in next election.
I got the point and you miss the point.
All pro-choice-to-kill is evil.
All abortionists are evil.
Always. Without exception. Period.
Trump was admitting that he used to be evil. Sure it’s easy to pile on someone who makes a confession. Have at it.
Until someone confronts the evil behind his desire for murder, he will remain a murderer.
Same with abortionists.
Yes, we all know Trump was moderate to liberal a few years ago. He couldn’t have survived in Manhattan without being that. He is now an unblinking, unrepentant, firebrand for the causes that are important however. The list is as follows...
1. Immigration
2. Immigration
3. Immigration
Sounds just LIKE a politician to me!
Dear GOD: Please find a home for each of the 3,300 unwanted 'fetuses' that will be KILLED today by CHOICE.
I’ve made this point before. Why do you need 55 million immigrants plus their children over the last 40 years? Because you have killed 55 million Americans in the womb over the last 40 years.
Now that's just funny!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.