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.
In is own words: Trump on his admiration for Hillary and Bill Clinton
Leopards don’t change their spots.
I think that’s one of the issues he’ll be most likely to flip on.
Trump is telling us what we want to hear, just like Romney did.
I don’t trust either of them.
This is one of the issues that leads to his upset in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Ask Cruz if he supports abortion bans at the federal level.
Ask Cruz if he supports gay marriage bans at the federal level.
Socons were fooled into supporting a Rand Paul clone.
I am disappointed in him ever supporting PARTIAL BIRTH abortion even if it dates back to ‘99. A sub-barbaric thing to support. Most politicians I would never forgive such a position even that long ago.
This one voter grants him a jubilee [and I never thought an exception regarding PARTIAL BIRTH infanticide would be possible].
But as for him admiring the Clintons in the past — that is clearly gone and buried. You watered down your argument adding that.
Don’t put your faith in any politician period. Cruz is no different than any of them on the congressional corporate payroll. How many times have we voted to put so-called conservatives in office only to have them sit on their butts and let Boner, McTurtle, and now Lyin Ryan put them in their places to follow the Uniparty company line?
“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’s down right disturbing.
Why is access to abortion even a concern of the Federal government?
This, like the environmental concerns, and regulation of the operations of corporations entirely within their state boundaries, is entirely a matter of the state legislatures concerned. The equitable distribution of populations then has a place to which they may remove, that is more in alignment with their personal preferences.
There are MANY things advocated by persons living in urban settings that I strongly disagree with, and for that reason, I have an abhorrence of living in an urban setting, preferring to locate in a neighborhood where the persons in the immediate vicinity are not imploring me to support some cause or another with which I have little or no tolerance or affinity.
Somebody else might be just fine with living with these limitations on his (or her) actions.
What does it matter (i.e., Tag Line)? The other will simply flood the country with newly-legalized Democrats and abortion will be the law of the land, WITHOUT RECOURSE.
With Trump clearing them out, we get to fight another day.
But people, as they mature and develop connections with family and loved ones, do become anti-abortion. Can anyone doubt that Trump has matured into a person who loves and protects children?
Amen, wondered if anyone else would catch the eugenics philosophy espoused.
[ The more likely result of a Trump nomination, of course, would be a Clinton presidency ]
No. No, it wouldn’t.
Weakly standard.
If Hillary Clinton becomes radioactive, they will replace her at the convention if necessary. In my opinion, Joe Biden will be selected. Despite what others think, Biden is a good campaigner and the media will protect him.
ANY candidate must win to be able to influence judges at all. Add to that that the Senate cannot switch to democrat hands.
A ginsberg death in office would cause me to drag my feet to replace her if democrats had control
Trump would not be a pro abortion president. Wouldn’t make sense. He’s an American brand. Abortion requires massive foreign immigration to replace aborted Americans.
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.