Donald Trump: Roe v. Wade Was “Wrongly Decided,” I Will Appoint Judges to Change It

Life News ^ | FEB 18, 2016 | STEVEN ERTELT

[Kazan]

In the second part of an interview with David Brody of CBN, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said he thinks the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case that ushered in an era of 48 million abortions was “wrongly decided.” Trump said he would appoint “very good judges” who would ultimately “change it” but he opposed roe without specifically saying it should be overturned.

“It’s been very strongly decided but it can be changed,” Trump told Brody. “Things are put there and they’re passed but they can be unpassed with time but it’s going to take time because you have a lot of judges to go.”

This part of the interview with CBN follows a portion that saw Trump commit for the first time to signing a bill to defend the Planned Parenthood abortion business — though the candidate said he still thinks Planned Parenthood does some good things.

Here’s the partial transcript and video of the interview:

David Brody: “Roe V. Wade: do you think it should be overturned and would you put Supreme Court Justices or would you look at Supreme Court Justices that felt that way.”

Donald Trump: “I will put people on that are going to be very very good and constitutionalists and they’re going to do a good job but it’s going to take a long time.” (Partial Transcription)

David Brody: “But beyond judges, do you believe Roe V. Wade was wrongly decided back in the day, back in 1973?”

Donald Trump: ‘Well I do. It’s been very strongly decided but it can be changed. Things are put there and they’re passed but they can be unpassed with time but it’s going to take time because you have a lot of judges to go.”

Previously, Trump issued an op-ed condemning Roe v. Wade but stopped short of saying it should be reversed.

[wagglebee]

So it'll be a states rights deal.

First of all, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "STATES RIGHTS". ONLY PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS, states have enumerated powers granted by we the People.

Secondly, the 14th Amendment forever ended any notion that states should be allowed to decide if babies can be murdered there or not. If a baby is a person, and that is an undeniable truth, he or she is a person regardless of geographical location.

There is PRECISELY ONE WAY to end the American Holocaust, and that is for either Congress to pass legislation or the President to sign an executive order recognizing the inherent personhood of the preborn. There is no reason to involve any court and Blackmun made this clear in the Roe v. Wade opinion.

For over four decades the self-proclaimed "pro-life movement" has done little more than work to keep abortion "SAFE AND LEGAL AND RARE." ALL of the laws they put forth are done so with the full knowledge that they won't prevent a single abortion.

A truly pro-life president will sign an executive order immediately after being sworn in that recognizes personhood and order the immediate closing of all abortuaries. This authority exists and there is clear precedent for it.

All of this sophistry about rape, incest and the life of the mother is nothing more than pandering by the self-proclaimed "pro-life movement" to satisfy their base with yet another "and then you can kill the baby" law. The notion of executing a child for the crimes of its parents is one that is typically espoused by despotic regimes like North Korea, so why would we suggest it for the children of rapists? As far as "life of the mother" goes, it's been established that childbirth itself sometimes leads to death and an abortionist can use that claim to justify anything.

[RasterMaster]

Winning with the "deal maker" to the democrats isn't winning at all. Years of complaining about crony capitalism and DC corruption and then throwing support behind one of the primary perpetrators of the corruption is not going to get any solutions.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Well you might be making it more complicated than it needs to be. Christ already explained your sin: “I died for it.”

[Hoodat]

Agreed. Roe was wrongly decided just like Kelo was wrongly decided. Yet he has already stated that he 100% agrees with Kelo. The same legal principles are in place. You either believe in the Constitution or you do not. Those supporting Kelo do not.

[moehoward]

"..either Congress to pass legislation or the President to sign an executive order .."

Prohibition has always worked so well..

[wagglebee]

Prohibition has always worked so well..

What, EXACTLY, do you mean?

[Laser_Ray]

I believe this as much as I believe my rich snot boss’ often-repeated statements that 93% of Americans don’t make 6 figures or more because they’re lazy or don’t think big enough.

In other words...NOT.

[moehoward]

EXACTLY what I said.

And do you actually believe either of your solutions will happen in the next 100 or so years?

[wagglebee]

EXACTLY what I said.

So, you don't think that prohibiting things is a good idea?

And do you actually believe either of your solutions will happen in the next 100 or so years?

Do I believe that a pro-life president would sign an E.O. recognizing personhood? Absolutely, why wouldn't they?

Let me ask you this, what do YOU think should be done with regards to the ongoing genocide in America?

[moehoward]

I’d think the sarcasm would have been painfully obvious.

But it appears you DO believe prohibition works.

[wagglebee]

I’d think the sarcasm would have been painfully obvious.

A baby is murdered every 24 seconds, do you really think it's something to be sarcastic about?

But it appears you DO believe prohibition works.

Do I believe that prohibiting something will eradicate it? No, but it will certainly deter it.

Do you believe the prohibiting things like murder, robbery, rape and arson is also foolish?

Again, I will ask, what do YOU think should be done about abortion?

[DouglasKC]

The real question is whether he actually believes what he's saying right now, or is it just mindless campaign promises. At the moment, campaign promises are all he can produce.

If he were a normal politician then yes. But he's not used to lying in order to close a deal. In fact in the "Art of the Deal" he specifically says you have to deliver what you promise or you lose all credibility and respect and nobody will deal with you again.

[moehoward]

I’d suggest focussing on long ball. PP is the easy target now. Take them out, starve them from fed dollars, and move on to the next ‘worst offender’.

But if your intent is zero tolerance. I’d suggest you find another cause.

[free_life]

Cruz is a leader much like Jim Jones was a leader and his sidekick Angel Moroni Beck.

[wagglebee]

I’d suggest focussing on long ball. PP is the easy target now. Take them out, starve them from fed dollars, and move on to the next ‘worst offender’.

So, just keep things the way they are and let millions more die?

But if your intent is zero tolerance. I’d suggest you find another cause.

Do you also suggest that people who have a "zero tolerance" view of murder "find another cause"?

[moehoward]

LOL!!

You really are a funny little guy. I’m suggesting a pragmatic approach to attack the issue.

Knocking PP out of the game is NOT keeping “things the way they are”.
Not by a long shot.

Enjoy your day.

[wagglebee]

You really are a funny little guy. I'm suggesting a pragmatic approach to attack the issue.

No, your approach seems to be to insure that abortion is "safe and legal and rare."

Knocking PP out of the game is NOT keeping "things the way they are". Not by a long shot.

Let's see, my CONSTITUTIONAL APPROACH, as recommended in the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, is for a pro-life president to sign an executive order recognizing personhood for the pre-born and affording them 14th Amendment rights. This will END abortion immediately.

Your approach is to hope that Congress defunds an organization that DOESN'T ACTUALLY NEED federal funds in hopes that it will regulate abortion.

What about the 800,000 or so babies that are murdered at non-PP slaughterhouses each year?

It's quite obvious that you are among those who support a "hands off" approach to abortion and wish that conservatives would just shut up about it.

[Luircin]

I will read your post in more detail later.

For now, I am annoyed that you referred to my anger as a temper tantrum, when the anger was the result of being subject to a massively condescending attitude.

Any response I make right now will be tainted with that annoyance.

[NorthMountain]

Do you actually expect to be taken seriously puking up that stuff? And after doing so, you have the gall to invoke the Holy Name of Jesus in your tag line?

May God forgive you.

[moehoward]

LOL!!!!

Whenever I try to get someone to adopt my point of view, the first thing I do is do my best to alienate everyone who might at least partially agree with me. Great to see someone else apply that same tack !

Now THAT was sarcasm since you need it pointed out.

Again, enjoy your day. I’ll go back to ignoring you now.
GO TRUMP!