Posted on 04/01/2016 4:29:09 PM PDT by ConservativeTeen
Donald Trump said Friday that he believes the laws regulating abortion should stay as they are, but he doesn't disagree with the proposition that abortion is murder.
The GOP frontrunner lit a fresh controversy this week with his shifting responses to a question on abortion policy. He said during an MSNBC town hall on Tuesday that he'd like to see the practice banned, and that women who undergo it should face "some form of punishment." But he quickly backtracked, explaining in a statement that while he believes it should be banned, the punishment should be levied on abortion providers, not the women seeking abortions.
Trump sought to clarify his position during an interview on Friday with "Face the Nation" moderator John Dickerson. The interview will air, in part, on Sunday's broadcast.
"A question was asked to me. And it was asked in a very hypothetical. And it was said, 'Illegal, illegal,'" Trump explained. "I've been told by some people that was an older line answer and that was an answer that was given on a, you know, basis of an older line from years ago on a very conservative basis."
Asked how he'd like to change the law to further restrict access to abortions, Trump replied, "The laws are set now on abortion and that's the way they're going to remain until they're changed."
"I would've preferred states' rights," he added. "I think it would've been better if it were up to the states. But right now, the laws are set....At this moment, the laws are set. And I think we have to leave it that way."
"Do you think abortion is murder?" Dickerson asked.
"I have my opinions on it, but I'd rather not comment on it," Trump replied.
"You said you were very pro-life," Dickerson followed up. "Pro-life means that...abortion is murder."
"I mean, I do have my opinions on it. I just don't think it's an appropriate forum," said Trump.
"But you don't disagree with that proposition, that it's murder?" Dickerson asked.
"No, I don't disagree with it," Trump eventually replied.
The back-and-forth over abortion wasn't the only political controversy involving Trump this week. He also stood by his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, who's been charged with battery after allegedly grabbing a reporter's arm during a public event last month. And he suggested on Tuesday that he no longer feels bound by his pledge to support the eventual GOP nominee, complaining that the party has treated him "very unfairly."
Despite a chorus of critics assailing both moves, Trump told "Face the Nation" it hasn't been the worst week of his campaign.
"I think I've had many bad weeks and I've had many good weeks. I don't see this as the worst week in my campaign," he said. "But certainly, I've had some weeks, and you've been reporting on them, where that was the end. And then the next week, you see poll numbers where they went up and everybody's shocked."
"So yeah, people want to stop me because I'm leading by a lot," he added.
For more of the interview with Trump, tune into "Face the Nation" on Sunday. Check your local listings for airtimes. © 2016 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
No, I don’t treat all your points as bad. Not at all. Americans do not support the democrat’s position on abortion. That is a very good point.
I treat Trump as what he is though: incoherent on abortion because he has no real conservative view on it. He knows it’s important to conservatives, but he doesn’t know why and he has no conservative foundation in sanctity of life.
He supported abortion, in all its forms including partial birth. His “conversion” is for the election only. That’s why he’s so incoherent about it. Because he is faking concern.
>>>With no anchor, your boat will only drift.
Yeah. That’s my point in a nutshell.
:)
I think that Trump is the only one who can beat Hillary. A vote for your conscience, i. e., Rafael or whichever other GOP loser is chosen, is effectively a vote for the Democrats, just as it was in the past two election cycles.
Cut off your nose to spite your face.Been there, done that.
Although in my state it might just as well be the Federal Government with the enormous number of Representatives! .....they could be cut in half and you'd still have a long haul in getting anything done.
However... Cruz just won the case here in the Highest Courts challenging his eligibility to appear on the state’s GOP primary ballot and to serve as president....so there's something to be said they acted on that! ...Good grief Birthers are everywhere these days!
This is from last June, before this particular controversy:
“For a century before Roe v. Wade, the states uniformly enforced abortion law against the abortionist and considered the woman the second victim of abortion.”
Clarke Forsythe is senior counsel for Americans United for Life (AUL) and the author of Abuse of Discretion: The Inside Story of Roe v. Wade (Encounter Books, 2013).
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419860/historical-roots-abortion-law-clarke-forsythe
Yep!
>>return to the states the power that is there’s
Which is what overturning Roe v. Wade would do.
If only conservatives could effectively articulate and advocate it.
You can’t wish a Constitutional issue away by calling it a belittling pejorative e.g. “Birthers.”
Let me know when it’s hit a Federal court, which is the one entity that actually is given constitutional authority in this matter.
It is not the Constitution’s fault that a term that it used that was defined in statute in its day, has now become orphaned due to revision thereof. It is a matter of American mismanagement and a fuse that burned for centuries before it hit the bomb. Do we want anyone whose citizenship could even possibly change (other than abdicating the country) in the top slot?
You accused that Donald is “okay with abortion” — well, so were those folks.
Appointing more Thomases to the court, which is the approach Donald proposes, would eventually open up possibilities to restrict abortion more. Maybe this should be a matter of watch what will be done, not what rhetoric is spoken which might have been lifted painfully out of a context anyhow.
....”Which is what overturning Roe v. Wade would do....If only conservatives could effectively articulate and advocate it.”....
Well as I see it they threw away that opportunity when Roe vs Wade was happening, just as much as if they signed it into law themselves. That was a heartbreaking time for many, however, who did fight it. Unfortunately the country as a whole wanted it or it could have never even gotten off the ground to begin with.....and remains wanting it.
Bush 41 didn't change the Abortion Laws.
Bush 43 tried to change the Abortion Laws and a Republican Congress passed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. The SCOTUS upheld it and there you go. However, all it did was change how the Late Term Abortion was performed by the Abortionist. People mistakenly believe that the Ban ended Late Term Abortions. It didn't. The Baby is just dismembered inside the Uterus rather than partially outside the Birth Canal. Out of sight out of mind I guess. The only true restrictions to Abortion have been at the State level. Gestation restrictions, meticulous Inspections of Abortion Clinics and requiring Doctors to have Privileges at nearby Hospitals to name a few. There has been no outright Ban on Abortion even at the State Level, and there will never be, period.
All this Abortion debate does is give the Left a new talking point. Nothing will change no matter who is Elected President, DemoncRat or Republic. It's too bad Trump walked into the Trap the same way Romney did regarding States banning Contraception. Even Rush got eviscerated when he got involved in the free Contraceptives "slut" controversy. Republicans will never realize that they cannot get away with making one Miscalculation or Misstatement while a DemoncRat can get people killed due to their Incompetence and be under FBI Investigation for exposing Top Secret Correspondence and be a viable Candidate for POTUS.
If your house is full of hornets, normally you don’t accuse your neighbor of doing it to you.
“Conservatism” isn’t too much, but too little, and powerless on its own, to address this matter. You can’t “conserve” a barnful of animals who due to an open door have all fled to parts unknown.
Well it was taken into our courts by, shall we say , a friend of a friend of Trumps etc. etc..... so in this particular case it was obviously a political move...it never seems to be any concern otherwise and always is left dangling out there til the next time it can be pulled and twisted.
Thanks for your reply.
The damage that Trump has done is give credence to democrats’ accusation that the pro-life Republican movement is vindictive toward women to the extreme of prison.
This greatly lessens the possibility - perhaps to the point of being impossible - of any Republican being elected and having the power to nominate anyone to the USSC.
It taints all GOP candidates and is an unforced error of great magnitude.
>>>Unfortunately the country as a whole wanted it
I disagree. The country didn’t then and doesn’t now. It was a false argument.
If they really didn’t want it it could never have been introduced without a massive outcry. I saw no masses opposing it.
I didn’t miss a “not.” That’s what the statement said - he’ll change the law through his judicial appointments.
You think it’s great that Trump will appoint judicial activists?
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.