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.
don’t get me wrong, I am a strict constructionist.
However we should not be debating why the house is on fire, we should be working as hard as we can to put out the fire.
Well, currently, Trump's against it.
You may be confused, because Rubio plagiarized Trump. TRUMP: Undocumented Workers Can Stay ... BUT ONLY IF THEY WORK HARD (Rubio infringes Trump intellectual property)
Yeah, well that's the issue with any candidate: not only "Will they even try to fulfill their campaign promises?", but "Will they be ABLE to do anything about their campaign promises?".
With Trump, you might have doubts he will stay true to his promises, but fewer doubts that he will be able to twist congressional arms if he really decides to.
With Cruz, you can have doubts on whether he will be able to do the necessary arm-twisting. Yeah, he's a great debater. That's not the same as being a great negotiator.
“That’s down right disturbing.”
Sorry, mangled comment when I dropped phone and can’ t re-type the whole thing now. Disturbing, indeed.
Whatever gets the most applause and adoration.
But who would you suggest replace Trump??? And don't say Cruz...Cruz hasn't won a single thing in 4 years and he won't win any...Congress will roll over him like a steamroller, that is if he can get enough liberals to vote him into office...
You people are deluded if you think any Democrats will reject Clinton or Sanders in favor of Cruz...Cruz is like Kryptonite to the Democrats...And to the Republicans as well...Who in the world is going to vote for him???
From Art of the Deal: Deliver what is promised. He promised he’s pro-life. He’ll keep his end of the bargain.
In his 1987 book “Art of the Deal”, Donald Trump put it bluntly: “I play to people’s fantasies. ... I call it truthful hyperbole. It’s an innocent form of exaggeration - and a very effective form of promotion.”
What??? That's nonsense...Do you watch any of Trump's rallys???
Trump tells us and them they are ignorant, stupid, corrupt and a whole litany of things...He makes Cruz look like Mary Poppins when it comes to tearing into the status quo...
Art of the Deal:
"Deliver the goods." "You can't con people, at least not for long," Trump writes. "You can create excitement, you can do wonderful promotion and get all kinds of press, and you can throw in a little hyperbole. But if you can't deliver the goods, people will eventually catch on."
Which part was nonsense?
Actually the Democrat party changed greatly in the 60’s and he said the Democrat party left him. Not quite the same thing. But you knew that.
In addition, Reagan was the governor of California and developed a strong conservative track record before running for President. When he was elected, no one had to take him at his word that his epiphany was real. He walked the walk.
Your guy has never walked the walk. All talk - and you bit, hook line and sinker.
“Trump is a businessman who has dealt with both Dems & Republicans his whole life.”
Yes, he bought them to do his bidding. Says as much. That is illegal. It’s called political corruption. Oh never mind, it was all for a good cause, more personal wealth...
Trump hasn’t even begun to be vetted by the left and MSM.
They’re waiting till after he’s nominated and then the can start throwing the mud. If you don’t think Trump is a target rich environment after operating many businesses in New York City, Atlanta, Las Vegas and elsewhere for decades all along buying politicians for political favors then you must believe in unicorns. Paying off politicians is illegal and political corruption. Trump brags about it because it shows who’s in charge, him. It is all about power and furthering his wealth.
You are going to get a rude awakening when he actually is vetted for the general.
Regarding Cruz he’s lead a far simpler life and has a public record. He’s easy to vet. You only know about his “not reported” Goldman Sachs loan because it was reported on other forms he filled out. It wasn’t the result of some hidden investigation.
Son of a gun, first I’ve seen of that...I was a bit out of it due to family issues right at that time (a close relative died almost exactly then). So it looks like Trump did join Cruz and a few others in coming around on immigration. Hasn’t been brought up much since, I guess.
Won’t stop me though, all of the others have a motive to lie (i.e., needing Big Money), Trump doesn’t...so he still wins, in my book.
This one I do admit to - we’ll see, he’ll likely win and maybe disappoint us. I’m not sure what Cruz will do, and the others are certainly hopeless.
Second, besides Reality TV, his core business is as a real estate developer. Their business is based on illegal immigration. He'd be shooting himself in the foot.
Remember in 2012, he criticized his boy Romney, because he was too tough on immigration.
I understand what your argument is and I agree completely. Unfortunately the Supreme Court does not work that way. Their function is not to re-write law but to rule on the constitutionality of cases that ultimately make it to their court.
When a candidate is nominated for the court, nobody knows whether they are pro life or pro choice and no candidate will ever reveal their personal biases. That's not the intent of the confirmation process and rightfully so.
One only has to look at the confirmation of Justice John Roberts, who everyone thought was a "conservative". When it came to Obamacare, it turns out he wasn't.
Was that the fault of Bush or the US Senate who confirmed him?
And if I recall correctly, everyone here applauded his confirmation..........turns out we were wrong. That's just the way it is.
As I stated previously, R v W will forever be the law of the land and there is nothing any president can do about it.
So to allow the MSM to constantly bring up the issue of pro life vs. pro choice as they've been doing for the past 30 years in order to cause dissension within the party is something that should be ignored and rejected.
To reinforce my argument, let's change the title of the article to this:
Would Donald Trump Ted Cruz Be a Pro-Abortion President?
Or
Would Donald Trump Marco Rubio Be a Pro-Abortion President?
And as I mentioned before, why has the MSM never addressed the concerns of liberals who just might be pro-lifers? For the record, I know many.............
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.