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.
So, with Trump are we looking at another Executive Orders president? If so, we are not voting for a president, but naming a king.
Trump is a businessman who has dealt with both Dems & Republicans his whole life. Cruz, on the other hand has lead no beltway coalitions and done little more than nothing since arriving there 4 years ago. He’s the biggest campaign conservative of them all. All talk. No leadership.
So if anybody is going to be the pen & phone POTUS it would be Cruz. Unfortunately, this whole discussion is moot because Cruz has no path to 270 EV. He’s not going to be POTUS.
abortion is a non issue in this race
to raise it is foolishness
It’s an issue to smear Trump with during campaign season. Never mind that “solid conservative” Ted Cruz helped put John Roberts on the court.
Exactly what kind of “deals” do you expect Trump to strike with the current congress? As you’ve pointed out previously, they are a corrupt and broken institution. But they know how to maintain their power (and when to throw it the way of someone doing their bidding). What amazing deals that will bring about the winning I will soon tire of is Trump going to be able to make with them?
Money is what Trump has used to grease the skids in the past, nothing else. Other than throwing them financial support, what has Trump done in his dealings with political types? Will he ensure the congress that they will continue to rake in their own special piles of money in order to get policies through?
How much was cut from Planned Parenthood's coffers? ZERO
How many investigations of Big Abortion by Alberto Gonzales, while they killed millions of babies and sold their body parts? ZERO
Money is what Trump has used to grease the skids in the past, nothing else. Other than throwing them financial support, what has Trump done in his dealings with political types? Will he ensure the congress that they will continue to rake in their own special piles of money in order to get policies through?
Trump gets stuff done. Cruz doesn’t.
Look at their records. Cruz has literally zero accomplishments outside of a court room. He lead no conservative movement in DC.
Unless we are electing Cruz to be dictator nothing would get done in his admin. Trump OTOH has a history of getting things done and employing 10,000s of people. Cruz couldn’t build a Senate Coalition of 5 Senators on the issues important to us. All he gave us with a rampaging Marxist in the WH was 4 years beltway theater performances while running for POTUS.
The contrast couldn’t be stronger between the builder Trump and the all hat no cattle talker Cruz. May the best man win.
I have worked with other RN who did not know exactly what partial birth abortion was. It doesn’t surprise me that many in the general public are not clear on it. So the savagery continues.
Some registered nurses don’t know what partial birth abortion is?
Goodness.
Perhaps that is so. But, understanding what a man can articulate about the matter reveals what he has in his core.
Donald's response to the question about a "loser" baby, speaks VOLUMES to what is in his.
Trump has gotten nothing done in the political world. Nothing. What he has gotten done in the business realm is to his credit, but that is not how government operates. In the past, his dealings with political figures has been in the form of using financial contributions to candidates that would benefit his ventures - the very thing that drives so many here crazy.
Cruz did NOT give us the raging marxist currently occupying the White House. That was the result of a dying republic and...financial investment. Cruz not being able to cobble together any kind of support testifies to just how broken our government is (and maybe how craven some of the recently elected officials are). His speaking out against the current GOP leadership publicly did accomplish nothing, except to dramatize he was one who was willing to resist the McConnell/Boehner/GOPe stranglehold on the Republican Party.
Seems you’re blaming the only one willing to stand up to the GOPe for the GOPe’s failures. Too many around here doing that. We need MORE Ted Cruz’s in congress. We don’t need to be trashing them.
Amendment XIV to the US Constitution which even Herod Blackmun conceded would be dispositive and totally ban abortion IF the unborn were regarded as a “person.” Then Herod decided they are not persons and, in effect, ruled: Let the slaughter begin in SCOTUS’ name under “the rule of law.” That’s why!
I don’t trust Trump at all on the issue. He is not a social or constitutional conservative.
Not surprising from a NY "republican".
This one opinion states NO -Trump would not be conducive to thinking such as that. As with immigration and amnesty, we know nothing as to what is in the mind of the candidate. All we know is what has been said; their actions; their ‘words’. Based on these it is felt Trump would not allow murder to be continued day after day. How this would/would not influence his judgement in choosing a SCJ is also unknown. And THAT is the question and the gamble taken each time we vote for any president.
Well, abortion is certainly an issue for this voter. Trump would have to do a WHOLE lot more than just say "I'm pro-life" to earn my vote.
Many nurses only are knowledgeable about their field and butchers tried hard to hide the true grotesque details of their savagery.
Trump has said that his pro-abortion sister, a judge, would be a "phenomenal" SC justice.
I understand your stance, but there is not going to be a campaign that pays more than a passing remark on the abortion issue.
there are much bigger fish to fry for the American public.
that said, being an advocate for either side of the issue does not mean it will have the new president go on attack to raise the issue to the burning level necessary to get the congress to act
Back in the 90s, I heard that abortion nurses could not hold out in the job for very long. Just a few months on average. Now I suppose they are desensitized some way or shielded from particulourly horrifying moments?
Rebuilding and restaffing the military?
Preventing a nuclear holocaust to be perpetrated by Iranian mullahs run amok?
Getting a handle on the national debt and stopping the annual deficits?
SCOTUS and other federal court appointments?
An end to ruinous trade deals designed only to benefit the Wall Street piggies and pave Wall Street with gold with nothing but detriment to the American people?
An end to the quisling "leadership" of the GOP-E and its mind-numbed local party hacks?
Recognition of the fact that the RTKBA is a God-given right aand does not exist on the whims of government elitists?
None of these for the Birther set! No, they can make a convoluted argument that the best remaining candidate in the field is just ineligible. Why? Because they say so and they REALLY, REALLY, REALLY want their opinion to be the constitution which it is not.
Nothing to see here. Move along! Just Birther Fido chewing on his old slipper again.
Great post!
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.