Trump’s Pledge to be ‘Great for Women and their Reproductive Rights’ Angers Advocates

[PAF]

Trump’s Pledge to be ‘Great for Women and their Reproductive Rights’ Angers Advocates

[snip]


By Jessica Piper
08/24/2024


The former president invoked language more commonly used by Democrats, and anti-abortion advocates quickly took notice of his tonal shift.

Donald Trump attempted to strike a new tone on the issue of abortion this week, saying he would be “great for women and their reproductive rights” — to the frustration of anti-abortion advocates.

The former president invoked the phrase in a post on Truth Social on Friday, reflecting his campaign’s frenzied attempt to reset the narrative in the race against Vice President Kamala Harris and present more moderately on the issue of abortion, which has plagued Republicans electorally since Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022.

“Not only is it not principled, it’s not going to help the Trump campaign to be trying to sound like a Democrat right now,” Rose said.

Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life Action, said on X that the Truth Social post had “understandably upset many within the pro-life movement.” National Review editor Philip Klein wrote that, in the battle over abortion, it “increasingly looks like Trump is joining the other side.”


https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/24/trump-abortion-reactions-00176276
​

 

[PAF]

https://x.com/trumwill/status/1827022718644244505

 

[PAF]

The former president also said that overturning Roe v. Wade was an “incredible achievement” in April.

“Now the states have it, and the states are putting out what they want. It’s the will of the people,” he said.

 

[Anti Federalist]

The former president also said that overturning Roe v. Wade was an “incredible achievement” in April.

“Now the states have it, and the states are putting out what they want. It’s the will of the people,” he said.

That is, almost word for word, Ron Paul's stance on abortion and Roe.

So now we don't like Ron anymore?

"I think the Roe v. Wade situation was a big mistake and the states ought to have the right to decide on the issue, so I would deny jurisdiction to the federal courts on abortion issues," he said.

 

[PAF]

That is, almost word for word, Ron Paul's stance on abortion and Roe.

So now we don't like Ron anymore?

"I think the Roe v. Wade situation was a big mistake and the states ought to have the right to decide on the issue, so I would deny jurisdiction to the federal courts on abortion issues," he said.

If it were up to me, government funding should not be involved at all, fed, state, or local. My Post #3 was to give your guy at least some credit, so don't complain.

If the OP is honest/legitimate, and wants to redefine "reproductive rights" to its accurate meaning, I would absolutely agree and support that. If it is meant as the democrats define it, I posted the OP to hold him accountable.

 

[Swordsmyth]

If it were up to me, government funding should not be involved at all, fed, state, or local. My Post #3 was to give your guy at least some credit, so don't complain.

If the OP is honest/legitimate, and wants to redefine "reproductive rights" to its accurate meaning, I would absolutely agree and support that. If it is meant as the democrats define it, I posted the OP to hold him accountable.

The whole point is to remove their talking points and redefine it.

 

[acptulsa]

The whole point is to remove their talking points and redefine it.

So he's trying to change the meaning of words like a shitlib? That's your excuse for him?

 

[Swordsmyth]

So he's trying to change the meaning of words like a $#@!lib? That's your excuse for him?

He's restoring their correct meaning.
Engage in the language war or lose it.

 

[PAF]

He's restoring their correct meaning.
Engage in the language war or lose it.

Fine and dandy, words do have meaning. Abortionists will likewise redefine "reproductive rights" to: "I'll do with my body whatever I want no matter what lifeform "invaded" me".

 

[Matt Collins]

That is, almost word for word, Ron Paul's stance on abortion and Roe.

So now we don't like Ron anymore?

"I think the Roe v. Wade situation was a big mistake and the states ought to have the right to decide on the issue, so I would deny jurisdiction to the federal courts on abortion issues," he said.

The correct answer is that all state governments should outlaw it as soon as the child is alive.

 

[spudea]

The correct answer is that all state governments should outlaw it as soon as the child is alive.

Cool story, think you can win an election with that?

 

[Matt Collins]

Cool story, think you can win an election with that?

If the candidate messages it correctly, yes.

 

[jmdrake]

That is, almost word for word, Ron Paul's stance on abortion and Roe.

So now we don't like Ron anymore?

"I think the Roe v. Wade situation was a big mistake and the states ought to have the right to decide on the issue, so I would deny jurisdiction to the federal courts on abortion issues," he said.

The correct answer is that all state governments should outlaw it as soon as the child is alive.

And when is that exactly? I have the fortune (or misfortune) of living in the state of Alabama. This state was sooooo eager to ban abortion that they went from banning aboriton after 6 weeks to banning abortion after conception. That was all well and good until the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that IVF parents had a right to file wrongful death lawsuits against IVF clinics that failed to fully protect their frozen embryos. It seems a disgruntled patient went around destroying other patients frozen embryos. In a panic all Alabama IVF clinics temporarily ceased business until a bipartisan bill was passed shielding IVF clinics from wrongful death lawsuits. And Alabama's Republican Senator Kate Britt (ditzy lady if there ever was one) along with Republican Senator Ted Cruz introduced legislation to restrict federal funding for states that restricted IVF. So you have two Republican senators trying to pass legislation that will only restrict the rights of Republican states to pass stupid laws that accidenatlly (or on purpose because the Pope is against IVF) restrict access to IVF. Note that in the article in the OP, Trump talks about protecting "widespread access to IVF." The only way to do that is to violate the states rights of (stupid IMO) Republican states who go too far (again in my opinon) on restricting abortion.

Note. I'm not attacking Trump. I think he's being rational. He's got a lot of people supporting him that are irrational on the issue of abortion. It's some serious cognitive dissonance to not be able to bring yourself to say that life does not begin at conception, and yet simultaneously say that states must be prevented from passing laws essentially banning IVF because the clinics are worried about wrongful death liabiity. (I guess the clinics can put arm guards in front of the refridgerators?) The papal position that IVF should just be banned, while I think it's wrong, is at least rational. The other position is that life begins somettime after conception. If you even draw the line at implantation (I believe that's the position Ron Paul takes but I'm not sure) then that allows for the day after pill and IUDs, but not RU-486. RU-486 can work for the first 11 weeks, long after conception but still within the first trimester. Incidentally a PBS poll shows that 73% of Americans believe abortion should be legal for the first 6 weeks (I happen to agree with that super majority), but a different 66% would also restrict abortion to the first trimester (I agree with that supermajority with exceptions for life and extreme physical health of the mother and if the fetus is not viable.) But the kicker is just 2 decades ago 84% of Americans agreed with restricting abortion to the first trimester! So Republicans won the legal battle but are badly losing the ideological battle by staking out extreme and untenable positions.

 

[Matt Collins]

If you can tell when someone is dead, then you can tell when someone is alive.

 

[Anti Federalist]

So Republicans won the legal battle but are badly losing the ideological battle by staking out extreme and untenable positions.

Well, there's no denying that, but I don't think it's the GOP that has gone extreme.

20 years ago it was, "Please, all we want to do is live in peace in the privacy of our own home and marry who we wish".

Now it's "Surrender your children to have their genitals cut off and be butchered in "gender affirming" surgeries (the results of which would make a carrion vulture barf,) or we will have you arrested".

The same has occurred with abortion.

20 years ago abortion was supposed to be "safe, legal and rare".

Now, an abortion van rolled up like a taco truck to the DNC and performed over 30 walk up abortions.

 

[PAF]

Well, there's no denying that, but I don't think it's the GOP that has gone extreme.

20 years ago it was, "Please, all we want to do is live in peace in the privacy of our own home and marry who we wish".

Now it's "Surrender your children to have their genitals cut off and be butchered in "gender affirming" surgeries (the results of which would make a carrion vulture barf,) or we will have you arrested".

The same has occurred with abortion.

20 years ago abortion was supposed to be "safe, legal and rare".

Now, an abortion van rolled up like a taco truck to the DNC and performed over 30 walk up abortions.

Now it's: "Nationwide "Stop and Frisk" using tax-paid dollars!" No problemo!

Now it's: "Tax, fine and sue Private Donors to Private institutions?" How much do you need?!

Now it's: "My National Academy will provides "FREE" Diplomas to all!" Where do I sign up!!!

Now it's: "We haven't had a full blown Israeli Lobby in our Congress in ages so I took $100 Million from Miriam!" I can't wait to vote for your @ss!!! When do we change our name to The United States of Israel!!!

 

[Swordsmyth]

The correct answer is that all state governments should outlaw it as soon as the child is alive.

That is correct, Equal Protection of the law should apply the laws against murder.
Maybe if we get more Right wing SCOTUS justices we can get them to rule that way.
But for now sending it back to the states is the best we can get through elections, as long as the unamericans and unmarried D women are still part of the voting public.

 

[Swordsmyth]

If you can tell when someone is dead, then you can tell when someone is alive.

Conception? heartbeat? quickening? some other point? that's the only debate there should be.

 

[acptulsa]

Well, there's no denying that, but I don't think it's the GOP that has gone extreme.

Why

Not

BOTH!?!

THE INSANITY IS A BIPARTISAN EFFORT