Althouse: Trump announces his position on abortion.

April 8, 2024

Trump announces his position on abortion.

89 comments:

Iman said...: A good position is taken.; 4/8/24, 7:47 AM
Iman said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/8/24, 7:47 AM
Mr Wibble said...: Prior to 2016 this would have been the establishment position on abortion, but since it's Trump they're going to claim that it's a violation of supposed "conservative principles."; 4/8/24, 7:49 AM
rhhardin said...: He's still making anti-abortion the Republican brand, so will lose the election that he wants to claim ought to drop abortion in order to win.; 4/8/24, 7:59 AM
rhhardin said...: It seems like the perfect instance of "If it weren't for misunderstandings, we'd never agree on anything."; 4/8/24, 8:00 AM
Birches said...: I expected to hate the statement. I don't.; 4/8/24, 8:01 AM
Birches said...: I think there's room for IVF to be more ethical, but I wouldn't be in favor of outlawing it right now either.

Hearts and minds first.; 4/8/24, 8:02 AM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: OMG a constitutionally correct statement. This is how you know he's not a "politician" and hated by both party leaders.; 4/8/24, 8:09 AM
rehajm said...: That Nation in Decline stuff is the goal of the Democrats and the Open Society people running them. They’re doing a good job…impressive efficiency…; 4/8/24, 8:14 AM
rehajm said...: …and no you didn’t have a fundamental right to abortion you late term sickos. Cal if ornia is the place you ought to be…; 4/8/24, 8:16 AM
Freder Frederson said...: So, he punted.; 4/8/24, 8:18 AM
PETE. said...: Pretty straightforward.; 4/8/24, 8:19 AM
holdfast said...: That is the constitutionally correct position.

We already have far, far too much federal level “law enforcement“.

The federal government should be regulating the border, immigration, international trade, and relations between and among the several states.; 4/8/24, 8:20 AM
Achilles said...: Perfect.

There is no better position at the federal level.; 4/8/24, 8:27 AM
Spiros said...: Trump: "Overturning Roe puts the abortion question back in the legislative arena. Let the people decide. We know that New York will have extremely permissive laws and Mississippi much more restrictive ones and the state you live in will be somewhere in between. Deal with it."

Democrats: "Trump is bad. He is racist. Biden does not have dementia."

At least Trump didn't come out with a six week ban or any other top-down, one-size-fits-all policy that would have exacerbated divisions and been politically disastrous. (The Scottish government is discovering that riling up crazy women is bad politics!) As for Mr. Trump's positions on IVF and late, late term abortions, those are 90-10 issues and are pretty obvious.; 4/8/24, 8:28 AM
Kevin said...: I can see why the media will ignore everything else in this speech.; 4/8/24, 8:30 AM
Temujin said...: He announced he is following the law of the land.

I'll bet Joe tries to one-up him and tells the country he's going to make abortion a national law. I wonder how that will land.; 4/8/24, 8:38 AM
Milo Minderbinder said...: It's a republic, isn't it?; 4/8/24, 8:40 AM
Mr. O. Possum said...: He sure does look healthy and sound lucid compared to the feeble, mumbling Biden.; 4/8/24, 8:48 AM
rhhardin said...: COULTER: This abortion is really hurting Republicans. I don't think you can blame all Republicans for this.

[23:40:01]

I'm glad it was overturned by the Supreme Court. I think I'm a pro- life zealot. I think it was disgusting to call that a constitutional right. But it has been sent back to the states. That's all we ever wanted. And guess what, fellow pro-lifers? We're getting slaughtered. There have been seven direct-to-the-people votes. And the tiniest --

MAHER: Right.

COULTER: -- restriction on abortion loses overwhelmingly, in Montana, in Kentucky, states that Trump won.

MAHER: Kansas.

COULTER: Kansas, 20 points. And it isn't Republicans, per se, I think, pushing this. It is these pro-life zealots who just -- they don't care. I'm going to be pure. And did you see my write-up in the Catholic Insights magazine?

(LAUGHTER)

And, you know, you guys, you're like the corporate Republicans who will not give up on their cheap labor. We have to tell them, we can give you some things, but we can't give you everything or we're just going to lose.

MAHER: Well, what a great way to end this segment because --; 4/8/24, 8:53 AM
Oh Yea said...: If a never Trumper said the same thing, they would have been attacked as a Rhino.; 4/8/24, 9:07 AM
Breezy said...: A principled stand: “Will of the People”.

I believe it’s good for States to have different laws on this - there are different cultures in each, and over time the law per State will adjust appropriately. This State’s right tack reduces the fever around the topic, and will help our country to focus on the larger issues.

Also, Trump’s face looks leaner.; 4/8/24, 9:09 AM
tcrosse said...: A Wisconsin friend of mine is displeased with Wisconsin's abortion restrictions, which Wisconsin Democrats have been unable to lift. Failing that, they want to lift abortion restrictions for the entire country, even in states where the question has been settles in a manner not to their liking.; 4/8/24, 9:14 AM
Aggie said...: I'm glad that Trump took this position, placing the abortion-rights decision at the consideration of a state's voters, and glad that he took the time to reinforce the principle that a party has to win in order to govern at all. I'm not sure how much good it will do, though - the Religious Right are the vegans of the Republican Party.; 4/8/24, 9:16 AM
Gusty Winds said...: Blogger Freder Frederson said...
So, he punted.

Of course this is the stupidest comment from a liberal in the early thread. I don't think Freddy Freeloader here could even explain how Trump "punted".

The fact is abortion always belonged in the legislative arena. Democrat dominated legislatures can codify late term infanticide in CA and NY if they want. Democrats at the federal level PUNTED for decades under the make believe constitutional put forth by liberal judges in Roe V. Wade. Roe v. Wade was and umbrella of protection.

Ask yourself. Would YOU perform an abortion? And don't give me this "I'm not qualified" bullshit. It's moral question. I sure the fuck wouldn't. Would you let and infant die on a table that survived the abortion procedure.

So now...ask yourself...referendum on you ballot to legalize third trimester abortions and no resuscitation of the infant if they survive the procedure. It dies on a metal lab table.

You gonna vote for that? See, at the legislative level, you can't hide. So shit like this won't pass, even in legislatures. NY, CA will of course, and if Madison, WI was it's own state.

So...in most states you'll end up with something reasonable like 16 weeks.; 4/8/24, 9:31 AM
Curious George said...: "Temujin said...
He announced he is following the law of the land.

I'll bet Joe tries to one-up him and tells the country he's going to make abortion a national law. I wonder how that will land."

He already has.; 4/8/24, 9:33 AM
Gusty Winds said...: From the Pope post...“to the age-old temptation to make oneself God.”

You have to be a sick fuck, with a psychotic god-complex to perform a third trimester abortion.

I can understand "life of the mother". Those decisions were made for thousands of years when women were more susceptible to death from childbirth. But the "mother or baby" decision was made on the fly, in the moment....

But sick liberals want it to be for elective reasons too. NO RESTRICTIONS. This is godless and evil. Only a twisted god-complex could justify this practice in one's mind as a "constitutional right".; 4/8/24, 9:37 AM
mezzrow said...: "So, he punted."

You say this like it's a bad thing. Trump knows how to perceive a losing position and adjust to it, it seems.

Sometimes you kick. Ask a Lions fan.

I didn't know he had this in him, and I'm heartened to see this announcement. I'm very interested in the impact of this on Florida politics and its shift to a six-week cutoff, which is political suicide.; 4/8/24, 9:41 AM
Kakistocracy said...: So his position is really no position at all.The truth is that he has shown his position by his appointments to the Supreme Court.

It's been interesting to watch the Republican party struggle with its extreme right-wing element. Something as fundamental as protection for one's basic reproductive rights shouldn't depend on what part of country you happen to live in. All Americans should be equal under the law.; 4/8/24, 9:52 AM
narciso said...: Its not the fault of the states that mcdaniel and co spend their money on flowers and booking fees; 4/8/24, 10:05 AM
RCOCEAN II said...: Abortion is now up to the states. Want to have a legal abortion get your state legislature to pass a law. Want to outlaw abortio get your state legislature to pass a law.

That millions of people will decide whether to vote for Trump or Biden based on abortion, just shows we're a nation of idiots.

The real problem are the fucking libtards. Most of them live in states with legal abortion. And the ones that don't can easily drive or fly to a blue state and get one. But the idea, that someone, somewhere cant kill their unborn child drives them into a rage. Many of them want legalized abortion, paid by the state, up to 9 months. They are insane freaks but I'm the only one who thinks so.; 4/8/24, 10:10 AM
RCOCEAN II said...: THe MSM is always issues of things that dont matter. Remember when they were asking POTUS candidates if they believed in evolution? Or pesting Romney on his position on birth control? The whole point is to get the dumbshit "Soccer Moms" aka "Suburban white women" to vote D because the R's are so "icky". After all, who gives a damn about war, the economy, immigration, globalism, crime, etc. when evolution is on the table.

This shit actually works because people are stupid.; 4/8/24, 10:14 AM
The Vault Dweller said...: Freder Frederson said...
So, he punted.
Governing when done right, especially on the Federal level, usually involves lots of punting and letting other people decide what to do.

While I consider myself on the Pro-Life side in that I favor some restrictions on abortions, I largely think of abortion as a cultural problem that needs cultural change to address rather than legal ones. There were more than a million abortions performed in the US in 2023. This is an increase over the numbers that were pre-Dobbs and pre-pandemic. Regardless of the legality of the abortions, that was over a million instances in 1 year that individual women decided that an abortion was the best option for themselves. Comparatively, in 2023 there were around 18,500 homicides in the US. I don't think it is solely strong legal prohibitions against murder that keep those numbers far below the number of abortions. If people want to see fewer abortions there needs to be cultural change first rather than legal change. The culture needs to change around the way people think and feel about abortion.

As a side note, Democrats who are championing the idea of using the Federal government re-establish Roe v Wade policy as the national law of the land, have all the wisdom of a precocious 12-year old. That idea conjures images in my mind of, then Senate Majority leader, Harry Reid doing away with the judicial appointment filibuster and, then Senate Minority leader, Mitch McConnel warning him that he might regret this in the future and that might come sooner than he imagines. If Democrats stand for protecting a woman's ability to get an abortion do they really want to establish a precedent where the Federal government gets to regulate abortion and abortion access? What happens if the opinion of society changes over the next 10, 15, or 20 years. Look at the fall out of the FDA being involved with approving the drug used for chemical abortions.; 4/8/24, 10:22 AM
Aught Severn said...: Something as fundamental as protection for one's basic reproductive rights shouldn't depend on what part of country you happen to live in. All Americans should be equal under the law.

Such a stance requires a constitutional amendment. Right now that authority is vested in the states, with the underlying question, to my mind, being: when do the fundamental rights of the unborn baby come into effect?

Or are unborn babies not included in your "All Americans" group?; 4/8/24, 10:23 AM
Aught Severn said...: I am in agreement with RCOCEAN II @ 1010.

If anyone feels that this must be an issue resolved at the federal level, all it takes is getting the support of 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states. Easy, peasy! (Or an Art V convention to amend the constitution).; 4/8/24, 10:29 AM
Breezy said...: “Something as fundamental as protection for one's basic reproductive rights shouldn't depend on what part of country you happen to live in. All Americans should be equal under the law.”

The definition of “basic reproductive rights” is the crux of the matter, right? All Americans are equally enabled to vote and influence others in their State to make laws that they can abide by. This is the way things are supposed to work around here.; 4/8/24, 10:49 AM
n.n said...: Six weeks to legal viability in all 50 states. DC, too? Evolutionary viability from conception.; 4/8/24, 11:01 AM
Iman said...: It’s a reasonable position taken by Trump. Abortion appears to be the only issue that animates so many, while other current issues and policies are ignored as they ruin the country. So hold fast to your personal principles, ethics and morals as they choose to do the things that will stain their souls. It’s on them.

This country is too precious to see it ruined by manic leftwing governance.; 4/8/24, 11:03 AM
n.n said...: "our Posterity", cruel and unusual punishment, due process, equal not "=" rights; 4/8/24, 11:03 AM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: Something as fundamental as protection for one's basic reproductive rights shouldn't depend on what part of country you happen to live in. All Americans should be equal under the law.

Don't worry you have the right to reproduce! But if you believe infanticide should be legal like the radical left, like Hillary and Kamala do, then we don't agree what rights are "fundamental" and the issue should be left to the states. We are all "equal under the law" just as we were before the wrongly decided Roe decision. The Tenth Amendment explains why, if you're still confused. Certainly the Second Amendment "shouldn't depend on what part of country you happen to live in" if you want to agitate about "basic rights" actually enumerated in the Constitution.; 4/8/24, 11:04 AM
Iman said...: A stain on their consciences, as well.; 4/8/24, 11:05 AM
mccullough said...: Illinois is touting Abortion Tourism.

Abortion and Weed are big industries in the Land of Lincoln.; 4/8/24, 11:05 AM
Kirk Parker said...: Aught Severn,

Or are unborn babies not included in your "All Americans" group?

It's Heisenbergian: If the mother wants it, it's a baby; if she doesn't, it's just a clump of cells. Simple, understandable, diabolical.; 4/8/24, 11:08 AM
Iman said...: Play the long game. Let the Left kill their children, if that’s their choice. Allow them to make the REAL CHOICE they wish to be “pro” about.

Some people aren’t mentally or physically suited to parent children.; 4/8/24, 11:11 AM
Kakistocracy said...: Abortion should be left to the individual.; 4/8/24, 11:16 AM
Freder Frederson said...: You have to be a sick fuck, with a psychotic god-complex to perform a third trimester abortion.

You do realize that the vast majority of third trimester abortions are not from choice, but because the fetus is not viable or the mother's mortality is imminent? I had a friend who had a late second trimester abortion. It broke her heart, she is Catholic and she and her husband were desperate to have a child. But an ultrasound revealed that the baby's brain was developing outside the skull, and if carried to term would have jeopardized future pregnancies. Zero chance of surviving birth. Do you think her situation would have been improved if she had to go to court to get an abortion?

The good news is that she was pregnant again within a year and had a beautiful, healthy, baby girl.; 4/8/24, 11:17 AM
Joe Smith said...: "Sir, we're being too hard on the baby-fuckers. I mean, we're losing their votes. We need to release a nuanced statement about this or we'll lose the next election."

This is what everyone sounds like. Sure, there are likely more people affected by abortion than by pedophilia, but it sounds silly.

It's not the hill I will die on, but let the mom's decide and don't ask me to pay for it with my taxes. Put reasonable timelines on it and let Streisand fund it.

This should not be difficult.; 4/8/24, 11:32 AM
Douglas B. Levene said...: I don't often praise Trump but I do today. Federalism is the best answer to the abortion question. Let the people of each state resolve how or whether to regulate abortion through the political process. No, that does not mean a state can punish a resident for traveling to another state to get an abortion. Yes, it does mean a state can criminalize any and all abortions performed within the boundaries of that state if that's what the people of that state want. Yes, it does mean that a state can have no regulations at all on abortions, leaving it solely up to women and their doctors.; 4/8/24, 11:45 AM
Leland said...: Supporting a democratic republic over authoritative dictatorship is now "punting".; 4/8/24, 12:21 PM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...: "If a never Trumper said the same thing, they would have been attacked as a Rhino."

Because a RINO would say it to keep the graft flowing. It's notable that when Trump states a policy position (as opposed to campaign hyperbole) that's usually exactly what he means and what he will try to do.; 4/8/24, 1:09 PM
Gusty Winds said...: Trump "punted":

This is just really stupid.

The 10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

So everything not defined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is considered a "punt"?? Bullshit. Trump didn't punt. He has stated he thinks 16-weeks is appropriate, but he is demonstrating it is not for him to decide.

I do understand the founding fathers punted on slavery and the 3/5s rule.

It's up to the states and the people do decide abortion access and timeframe. You can vote for infanticide if you want, and then wash your hands like Pontius Pilate. Or, you can vote for full restriction and pretend that will work.

THIS is what democracy looks like. Real democracy requires you to stick your hands in the much and make a decision.; 4/8/24, 1:33 PM
sunsong said...: abortion is a woman's decision to make; 4/8/24, 1:35 PM
sunsong said...: abortion is a woman's decision; 4/8/24, 1:38 PM
Gusty Winds said...: Blogger Freder Frederson said...
You do realize that the vast majority of third trimester abortions are not from choice, but because the fetus is not viable or the mother's mortality is imminent?

You Freder, and the people you vote for want to keep third trimester abortions legal for simply elective, or convenience reasons. They also want to let viable babies that survive the abortion process die on a cold metal table.

But an ultrasound revealed that the baby's brain was developing outside the skull Your example is talking about a fetal abnormality.

Liberals, Feminists, and Democrats want ZERO restrictions for 3rd trimester abortions. "It's between a woman and her doctor." Talk about "punting".

OK, Mr. or Ms. liberal Frederson: Would you vote for keeping elective third trimester abortions legal, or are you going to punt?.; 4/8/24, 1:47 PM
Michael said...: He’s right. It should be determined by the states. But it is a losing issue for Republicans Americans are very broadly in favor. Trump should change his mind and favor abortion as a Federal issue up to X period. Make Dems clamour for X+ and get crushed. Once elected he can change his mind again. Very Trumpian.; 4/8/24, 2:18 PM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Progressives do not understand Federalism.

That's all this is.; 4/8/24, 2:30 PM
MalaiseLongue said...: The bronzer. Sheesh.; 4/8/24, 2:39 PM
Gusty Winds said...: Here seems to be some believable 2nd, and 3rd trimester abortions data about 1st, . I don't trust Freder... Highlights below:

According to the Guttmacher Institute [11], the most frequently endorsed reasons for late-term abortions include the following: (1) not realizing one is pregnant (71%), (2) difficulty making arrangements for an abortion (48%), (3) fear of telling parents or a partner (33%), and (4) feeling the extended time is needed to make the decision (24%). In the Guttmacher study, only 8% of the women sampled indicated pressure not to have an abortion from someone else was part of the reason for delay and fetal abnormalities were identified as factoring into only 2% of all late-term abortion decisions.

Here we can see that Freder Frederson's claim from comment above that "the vast majority of third trimester abortions are not from choice, but because the fetus is not viable or the mother's mortality is imminent...is completely uninformed, unresearched, and full of shit. Just wondering. Freder, did you go the University of Wisconsin in Madison?

"it is significant to note that 12%-13% of the annual 1.2 million U.S. abortions are performed after the first trimester [6–8] and this translates out to approximately 144,000 per year, with 3.7% or 36,000 taking place at 16–20 weeks and 1.3% or 15,600 occurring beyond the 20th week of pregnancy

Maybe it's a small percentage (only because the US does 1.2 million total a year) but 15,600 post 20 week abortions is a shitload. 36,000 between weeks 16 and 20 is gross. Shit or get off the pot by Week 16.

large scale research efforts have revealed that 2nd trimester (13–24 weeks) and 3rd trimester (25–36 weeks) abortions pose more serious risks to women's physical health compared to 1st trimester abortions [9, 10].

So much for health of the mother.

Roe V Wade was overturned because liberals freaked out when Mississippi restricted abortion access to 16-weeks. It was a stupid move by liberals move based an false assumptions like Freder's. On percentage they were fighting to protect 12 to 13% of all abortions (2nd and 3rd Trimester), but still large in number.

Libs ended up loosing their precious just like Gollum. They he lost the precious because of greed...also just like Gollum.; 4/8/24, 2:45 PM
Jim at said...: If a never Trumper said the same thing, they would have been attacked as a Rhino.

Why do people like you continue to repeat this bullshit.

Our position has been consistent from the start. Leave. It. To. The. States.; 4/8/24, 3:21 PM
Joe Smith said...: 'Federalism is the best answer to the abortion question.'

It is the best answer to most questions.

Why are we sending money to DC just to have them take their kickback and send it back to us with strings attached?

For instance, why do we let DC make education guidelines for Arizona or Alaska?

The bureaucratic idiots in the District know nothing about those places...; 4/8/24, 3:22 PM
Jim at said...: So his position is really no position at all. The truth is that he has shown his position by his appointments to the Supreme Court.

Yes. Leave it up to the states.

Why is this so difficult to get through your heads?; 4/8/24, 3:26 PM
Jim at said...: Something as fundamental as protection for one's basic reproductive rights shouldn't depend on what part of country you happen to live in. All Americans should be equal under the law.

Swap out reproductive rights with Second Amendment and see if your position still holds.

I bet it doesn't.; 4/8/24, 3:28 PM
Freder Frederson said...: Here seems to be some believable 2nd, and 3rd trimester abortions data about 1st,

I don't know why you think this link contradicts my anecdote. In fact it seems to conform with my story (that making the decision to have an abortion broke her heart). The study only looked into PTSD in women who had late term abortions, it does not detail why they had late term abortions.

Oh, and by the way, the Guttmacher Institute is unabashedly pro-choice. So you should probably think twice before using their studies to support your opinion.; 4/8/24, 4:02 PM
Jersey Fled said...: And what exactly is Biden’s position besides “supporting a woman’s right to reproductive freedom”. I’m serious here. What specific policies and legislation will he enact given that the constitution, as reiterated by the Supreme Court, reserves this issue to the individual states? What’s his plan?

I’ve asked our Lefty friends this here before, and never got an answer. Am I missing something, or is Biden mouthing platitudes and hoping gullible women won’t figure that out.; 4/8/24, 4:41 PM
Maynard said...: Abortion should be left to the individual.

Which individual are you referring to Rich?

The pregnant woman?
The pregnant man?
The nine month fetus that is about to be born?

Let's not punt on this matter.; 4/8/24, 5:34 PM
Kirk Parker said...: Gusty @ 2:45pm,

I suppose that, for the record, we should point out that the Guttmacher Institute is not exactly anti-abortion. Thus the figures cited here are, in essence, an admission against interest.

Not that I expect that this will actually deter dishonesty from people like Freder, but at least it puts them on notice.; 4/8/24, 5:41 PM
Wa St Blogger said...: Same old arguments, again and again. I guess I should add mine to the list.

There are only two legitimate demarcations to the status of the unborn.
1. It is a new human at conception, and left alone will continue to develop until it dies naturally.
2. It is not a human until it can survive outside the womb.

Any other intermediate demarcation is unsupportable as there are clear examples beyond pre-birth status were we err on the side of life.

To say that it is extreme to ban all abortion or it is extreme to allow all abortions is not a defensible position either. If you believe that life is precious from conception, it is the height of immorality to countenance any abortion. It is murder, and no argument can mitigate that reality. It is not extreme to believe all abortions are murder if you believe some abortions are murder. It is, rather extreme to allow some while still believing it is murder. The same holds true on the other side. It is extreme to think some abortions should not happen when believing that abortion is nothing more than removing a cyst.

There can be no compromise, and we are foolish to think there ever will be one. If it's a baby, it is murder, if it is not, it is immoral to force one to term. There is no splitting the baby. We waste time hoping for a solution. At best we will find a middle ground that enough morally inept people will except while we condemn the true moral stand of those who see compromise as evil.; 4/8/24, 6:00 PM
Drago said...: Cernovich offers his suprisingly pro-Trump position thusly in response to those claiming Trump is no longer properly deemed conservative enough:

"“Abortion is MURDER!”

No one is blocking clinics.

No one is doing shit but posting (often behind paywalls) and demanding Trump take a position that will make lose in November, because that’ll help the unborn how?

Too much Big Talk.

Who does this shit fool?"; 4/8/24, 7:00 PM
Mason G said...: "Progressives do not understand Federalism."

Progressives are viscerally opposed to the idea that individuals be allowed to make choices for themselves or for groups (states) they belong to when other groups (states) choose differently. They insist that everybody must do (or not do) the same things. What they want is A) for everybody in the US to be subject to the exact same laws regardless of what state they live in and B) to be in charge of determining what those laws will be.; 4/8/24, 7:04 PM
Freder Frederson said...: OK, Mr. or Ms. liberal Frederson: Would you vote for keeping elective third trimester abortions legal, or are you going to punt?.

Absolutely not!; 4/8/24, 7:31 PM
Drago said...: Adam Townsend on X in 2023 observed the obvious about the inevitable electoral sabotage republicans should once again suspect from Lindsay Graham and Mitch McConnell during this presidential campaign just as they did in 2022:

Adam Townsend: "Whether its trump or DeSantis etc, we know that whoever advances to the general, the second they start inching up in polls against Biden and threatening to win, Lindsay Graham and Mitch are gonna go on CNN and say "as soon as we win we're gonna make abortion illegal" 15 Jul 23; 4/8/24, 7:35 PM
Freder Frederson said...: OK, Mr. or Ms. liberal Frederson: Would you vote for keeping elective third trimester abortions legal, or are you going to punt?.

Because this issue should not be voted on, this is a fundamental human right. Third trimester abortions are rare. I would think that the number of women who in the seventh or eighth month suddenly decide, "I changed my mind, I don't want this baby", is vanishingly small. And they are more in need of mental health assistance than more than derision.; 4/8/24, 7:43 PM
Prof. M. Drout said...: I has been utterly obvious since that incoherent Supreme Court decision was overturned that in the vast majority of states we will end up with the ugly compromise that held for a long time after Roe: 1st trimester no restrictions, 2nd trimester "doctor's note" (which no one will look into very closely), 3rd trimester only life-threatening circumstances.

I said "ugly" because that compromise manages to be logically inconsistent and 'wrong' to both principled positions. Either it's wrong to kill babies, ever, or it's wrong to take away women's reproductive freedom, ever. So pro-life can't accept baby-killing at any trimester and pro-choice can't accept woman-oppressing at any trimester.

But the reason we will get that compromise is that, as someone said above, only 20% of the electorate wants first-trimester abortions outlawed and a totally different 20% wants late-term abortions normalized. And the middle 60% will continue to think it's ugly and wish everyone would stop talking about it, and they don't think a cluster of cells is the same a baby, and they do think that a 7-month-old preemie is the same as a baby.

In addition, a lot of the voting in Kansas was based on the not-unreasonable fear in middle- and working-class parents that without the safety-valve of abortion, their children could be at risk of ending up forced into bad marriages, or single-motherhood, or paying 18-years of child-support due to one bad decision or one stroke of bad luck in their teenage and college years. These people might not say this out loud, especially in red states, but in Kansas they turned out in droves and utterly destroyed those restrictions. Ignore their concerns (whether you see them selfish or not) at your peril.

Trump's position is easily defensible in simplistic terms in that we don't have a Federal law against murder (per se) because that is handled at the state level, so why do we need a Federal law against abortion when it can be handled at the state level? (I know there are answers to this from both sides, but I also know that the average Normie finds this kind of reasoning VERY persuasive).; 4/8/24, 8:01 PM
Wa St Blogger said...: Prof M Drout,

I said "ugly" because that compromise manages to be logically inconsistent and 'wrong' to both principled positions. Either it's wrong to kill babies, ever, or it's wrong to take away women's reproductive freedom, ever. So pro-life can't accept baby-killing at any trimester and pro-choice can't accept woman-oppressing at any trimester.

It's rare to see someone recognize the clarity of the issue like you have stated here.; 4/8/24, 9:28 PM
Kirk Parker said...: Prof. M. Drout,

Was there any mention in the Kansas campaign regarding the state's Safe Haven law? As far as I can tell, it's been in effect since 2006, and it provides a non-fatal-to-the-child out for any woman who wants to avoid a forced marriage, single motherhood, and/or 18 years of financial and parental responsibility.; 4/8/24, 9:28 PM
Kirk Parker said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/8/24, 9:46 PM
Tim said...: Exactly my position. Roe v. Wade was bad law and bad precedent. It is and should be in the hands of the individual States. I will not agree with all of them, and that is OK. If this country is to survive, it is going to have to be as a Nation of States, otherwise we are too different to be in the same country. And I consider Balkanization to be a real possibility at this point.; 4/9/24, 6:05 AM
Jersey Fled said...: Still no answer from my Leftie friends here on the question I posed about.

What exactly is Biden’s plan to make abortion more available.

I can only conclude that there is no plan. Just a demagogue hoping uninformed women will buy his BS.; 4/9/24, 6:21 AM
Gusty Winds said...: Blogger Freder Frederson said... (in response to the question I asked)...

OK, Mr. or Ms. liberal Frederson: Would you vote for keeping elective third trimester abortions legal, or are you going to punt?.

Because this issue should not be voted on, this is a fundamental human right. Third trimester abortions are rare. I would think that the number of women who in the seventh or eighth month suddenly decide, "I changed my mind, I don't want this baby", is vanishingly small. And they are more in need of mental health assistance than more than derision.

Freder Frederson punts after claiming Donald Trump punted. Classic liberal lack of self-awareness. Comedy really. NEXT!!!

By the way, did you even read the stats posted above, or did you punt on that too?; 4/9/24, 7:30 AM
Curious George said...: "Jersey Fled said...
And what exactly is Biden’s position besides “supporting a woman’s right to reproductive freedom”. I’m serious here. What specific policies and legislation will he enact given that the constitution, as reiterated by the Supreme Court, reserves this issue to the individual states? What’s his plan?

I’ve asked our Lefty friends this here before, and never got an answer. Am I missing something, or is Biden mouthing platitudes and hoping gullible women won’t figure that out."

Nailed it. Just like student loan debt forgiveness.; 4/9/24, 7:34 AM
Gusty Winds said...: Prof M Drout,

I said "ugly" because that compromise manages to be logically inconsistent and 'wrong' to both principled positions. Either it's wrong to kill babies, ever, or it's wrong to take away women's reproductive freedom, ever. So pro-life can't accept baby-killing at any trimester and pro-choice can't accept woman-oppressing at any trimester.

But both sides HAVE TO accept reality. Abortions in America's death culture is here to stay. Pro-life needs to and has to accept that.

Libs used to support "safe, legal, and RARE". Now they want to fire up the woodchipper and run as many fetuses through as possible. Infanticide in the third trimester because "oops, I didn't know I was pregnant" is not a basic right. (#1 reason for third trimester termination).

Europe restricts abortion at 16 to 20 weeks depending on the country. They can do it. Why can't America? What you are saying can't happen in America because of "principled positions" is already happening elsewhere.; 4/9/24, 7:38 AM
Jamie said...: the Guttmacher Institute is unabashedly pro-choice. So you should probably think twice before using their studies to support your opinion.

Freder, this is a Kinsey gaffe on your part - you see that, don't you?

As Kirk Parker also points out,

I suppose that, for the record, we should point out that the Guttmacher Institute is not exactly anti-abortion.

...which, according to your statement, means that we should actively avoid citing studies from them, because they are ideologically different from us. Apparently we should only cite studies from organizations that our side funds.

I get why you'd say this; not only is it very common to argue this way - you have your "experts" whom your side supports and I have mine - but if my side does it, you find it convenient to use the fact that I support my argument using studies from organizations my side funds as a further argument against my side. (If your side does it, it's beyond the pale for me to bring up that same fact, because of course even if your "experts" are fully funded by Democrats for Unfettered Abortion or whatever, they're actually disinterested scientists and neutral data analysts. Right?)

Late-term abortion, especially past the point of viability, is as tragic as you describe and everyone ought to be able to agree on that. But your side does not agree. Your side sees the only acceptable abortion regulation to be a regulation prohibiting any restrictions at all, piously stated as "Abortion is 100% a woman's choice."

Find me an elected Democrat who will publicly state that he or she supports, for example, European-style rules on abortion. (If any such person exists, first, I have not found him or her, and second, you can damn well bet the press will not and does not present it as an "abortion ban" position, in contrast to the way they invariably present Trump's personal preference for such an abortion position - "Trump will pressure Congress to enact nationwide abortion ban!!" - even as he reiterates that the question is now where it should be, with the people of each State.)

It's my side that has all the nuance - the elected officials and candidates who reveal their personal preferences, whether fully pro-choice, reluctantly pro-choice but with some limitations that recognize the fact that at some point a fetus is functionally and unequivocally a baby, pro-life with early-term medical abortion permissible as a lesser evil, or absolutely pro-life - but all declaring (or in the "liberal Republican" camp admitting) that the issue resides at the State level.

But somehow (gosh, how does this keep happening?) it's Republicans who are excoriated in the press as fanatics.

And you don't even see, evidently, how your belief that we should restrict ourselves to quoting and citing from pro-life organizations undercuts your side's credibility. But of course you don't have to; you will have wall-to-wall support and cover from the media, social media except possibly X, the vast expanse of government bureaucracy, and all of academia.; 4/9/24, 8:20 AM
Jamie said...: And all my previous typically long-winded comment aside, whoever up-thread said that abortion is a losing issue for Republicans is totally right. But it's not because of Republicans' beliefs, it's because of the very non-Republican reporting on those beliefs. (And a few elected pro-life Republicans who felt they had the not in their teeth after Dobbs.); 4/9/24, 8:23 AM
Kakistocracy said...: It's tough telling everyone what they want to hear. At some point you're forced to be specific and then you're caught. Trump clearly never believed life begins at conception but the salesman in him wants you to believe he might.

So now it's obvious he is just trying to win the most votes (or not lose votes) and he has no moral position on abortion and the rights of women.

Women's health care is a medical issue, and it should only be between the patient and her doctor.; 4/9/24, 9:02 AM
Achilles said...: Joe Biden, America's Putin said...

Progressives do not understand Federalism.

That's all this is.

Oh they understand it. They know exactly what the goal is.

They try to ignore it's existence. They wont respond to logic because they know they lose on that.

Even Ann pretends the 9th and 10th amendments don't exist.

The will to power overrides the simple, obvious and powerful words written there.; 4/9/24, 9:20 AM
Gusty Winds said...: Blogger Freder Frederson said...
I don't know why you think this link contradicts my anecdote. In fact it seems to conform with my story (that making the decision to have an abortion broke her heart). The study only looked into PTSD in women who had late term abortions, it does not detail why they had late term abortions.

Oh, and by the way, the Guttmacher Institute is unabashedly pro-choice. So you should probably think twice before using their studies to support your opinion.

So what if I found these stats from a pro-abortion source. They're lib stats. That strengthens the point.

You didn't even read the study, or the quoted text. It deal with much more than post abortion PTSD. Trimester stats and reasons are on the first page.

This is on Page 1 Freder: According to the Guttmacher Institute [11], the most frequently endorsed reasons for late-term abortions include the following: (1) not realizing one is pregnant (71%), (2) difficulty making arrangements for an abortion (48%), (3) fear of telling parents or a partner (33%), and (4) feeling the extended time is needed to make the decision (24%). In the Guttmacher study, only 8% of the women sampled indicated pressure not to have an abortion from someone else was part of the reason for delay and fetal abnormalities were identified as factoring into only 2% of all late-term abortion decisions.

You claimed the "vast majority" of late term abortions were for fetal abnormalities or health of the mother. 2% is not a "vast majority".

I give. You're like debating with a baby seal... I swear you went to UW Madison...; 4/9/24, 9:20 AM
Jamie said...: So now it's obvious he is just trying to win the most votes (or not lose votes) and he has no moral position on abortion and the rights of women.

Hang on. If abortion is 100% a woman's decision, why is it wrong for Trump not to take a moral position on it?

And if the concept of "the rights of women," by which I have to assume, given the topic of this thread, you mean "the rights of women to have abortions," requires that we all take a moral position, are you prepared for your moral position to be that a woman can decide at 39 weeks gestational she that she doesn't want to be a mother after all? Is that your moral position? My oldest was born at 37 weeks and came home with me the next day; his only sign of having been very recently a fetus was that he had absolutely no hair yet, including eyelashes and eyebrows (and, like all newborns, he was more comfortable curled up than straightened out).

Seems to me Trump's "moral position" is pretty clear and pretty mainstream: that babies are good, that it's a societal good to support the formation and flourishing of families, and that - personally but not by federal fiat - he'd like to see no abortions after about 16 weeks except in cases of rape, incest (whatever; I guess brother-sister incest between two minors might not legally be statutory rape?), or risk to the mother's life, and (I infer) would also prefer that even in those cases it would be best to do the deed before 16 weeks. What's so immoral about that position, unless you hold the view that no abortion is permissible (which I doubt) or that my perfectly viable 37-week-old former fetus should have been fair game if I'd just changed my mind that day?

And: is it your contention that Biden, who professes himself to be a devout Catholic, is acting morally and isn't "just trying to win the most votes" with his no-holds-barred position on abortion?

C'mon, man.; 4/9/24, 12:49 PM
Kirk Parker said...: Jamie, your 12:49 is a pretty good take on things.

However, it's clear you never went to J-school. Let me fix that closing paragraph for you, using proper journolistic standards:

"... is it your contention that Biden, who professes himself, without evidence, to be a devout Catholic... :; 4/9/24, 4:45 PM
Prof. M. Drout said...: Gusty Winds said: But both sides HAVE TO accept reality. Abortions in America's death culture is here to stay. Pro-life needs to and has to accept that...

I agree. I think we are at a place now where pro-life should be thinking about how to convince individual people at the margins rather than additional laws or even large-scale campaigns.

If what you care most about is reducing the number of later-term abortions, it would probably help the most to find ways to make bringing the pregnancy to term and keeping and raising the child easier for the mother. I don't pretend to know exactly what those things are, but the Pregnancy Crisis Centers that the left irrationally hates so much are probably a good start (to the extent that what I think I know about them is true). Finding private-sector and/or religion-based ways to support the mother through the pregnancy (and beyond, if she doesn't want to give up the child for adoption) in terms of health-care, employment, and education would likely help as well.
There are thousands of families that want to adopt but have been unable to, and, sadly, for various demographic and "public health" reasons, I expect those numbers to continue to rise. There are hundreds of thousands of women who seek abortions every year. There must be ways to help both ends of these tragedies without coercion and abuse.; 4/9/24, 7:54 PM