Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Trump Stumbles Over Abortion Issue
CNN John King Blog ^ | 4/19/2011 | John King

Posted on 04/19/2011 12:46:04 PM PDT by TN4Bush

Donald Trump appeared to stumble into a contradiction in an interview Tuesday – a misstep that could haunt the potential GOP presidential candidate amongst social conservatives.

In an interview with MSNBC, Trump was asked if he believed there was a right to privacy in the Constitution – a right that, while not explicitly stated in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has said can be inferred from the text.

He responded, "I guess there is, I guess there is."

Then his tone of voice changed and he followed up with, "And why, just out of curiosity, why do you ask that question?"

When NBC's Savannah Guthrie wondered how that line of legal theory "squares" with his pro-life stance, Trump said, "Well, that's a pretty strange way of getting to pro-life. I mean, it's a very unique way of asking about pro-life. What does that have to do with privacy? How are you equating pro-life with privacy?"

To answer Trump's question, the United States Supreme Court equated the right to privacy as grounds to legalize abortion in its controversial 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

(Excerpt) Read more at johnkingusa.blogs.cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: abortion; donaldtrump; prolife; trump
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

1 posted on 04/19/2011 12:46:05 PM PDT by TN4Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TN4Bush
Trump's not an expert in constitutional law, is he? But I don't think people are in much of a mood to care.

2 posted on 04/19/2011 12:48:31 PM PDT by Genoa (Just show it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TN4Bush

We only have a right to privacy if it involves murdering a baby. If you want to ride an airplane, drive a car, and soon surf the internet there will be no privacy.


3 posted on 04/19/2011 12:48:46 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TN4Bush

I don’t like Trump at all.

But “privacy” is somehow equated with slaughtering babies but government tracking your cell phone, car, emails, web visits, strip searching you at an airport and everything else isn’t a “privacy” issue.

To the MSM “privacy” ONLY covers baby killing.


4 posted on 04/19/2011 12:49:07 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TN4Bush

I kinda like that he challenged the way she worked around to that question. Not a very honest thing for her to do.


5 posted on 04/19/2011 12:50:05 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TN4Bush

What am I missing? The Donald obviously doesn’t realize that “privacy” is a code word for abortion. He’s not a professional politician or is involved in the euphanisms of the abortion industry.


6 posted on 04/19/2011 12:50:35 PM PDT by miss marmelstein (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Hey I said it first.


7 posted on 04/19/2011 12:50:48 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
Gotcha! He better brush up on the Bush doctrine.

8 posted on 04/19/2011 12:51:18 PM PDT by Genoa (Just show it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TN4Bush
How are you equating pro-life with privacy?"

The stink'n media thinks it's a private right to have abortions.

9 posted on 04/19/2011 12:51:30 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TN4Bush

Trump goes off his teleprompter, then tries to recover.


10 posted on 04/19/2011 12:52:05 PM PDT by reasonisfaith (Sarah Palin is above taking the fake high road.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

In cases like this it is best to be intentionally obtuse and make the person using the code word actually explain what they mean by the code word.

To defeat the left, expose the left.


11 posted on 04/19/2011 12:52:09 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

The Headline was so misleading that I had to laugh after reading it. How anyone could see this exchange as a mis-step for Trump is beyond me. He called her on her BS question.


12 posted on 04/19/2011 12:52:36 PM PDT by TN4Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

The MSM playing the part of the inquisitive ‘Devil’. No surprise there.


13 posted on 04/19/2011 12:52:51 PM PDT by The Bronze Titan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TN4Bush

He should have said it was simply above his (albeit lofty) pay grade and moved on.


14 posted on 04/19/2011 12:52:53 PM PDT by GreenAccord (Bacon Akbar!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

lol. I see that now.


15 posted on 04/19/2011 12:53:24 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

About a week ago, Trump said he was still “forming” his position on abortion.

What he didn’t mention was the fact that he doesn’t really have any firm beliefs.


16 posted on 04/19/2011 12:53:47 PM PDT by reasonisfaith (Sarah Palin is above taking the fake high road.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TN4Bush
---To answer Trump's question, the United States Supreme Court equated the right to privacy as grounds to legalize abortion in its controversial 1973 Roe v. Wade decision---

Didn't Judge Ruth B Ginsberg admit that this decision stands on faulty or shaky legal ground? I'm pretty sure.

Have your people check that out and then put that in your arsenal for next time, Mr. Trump.

17 posted on 04/19/2011 12:57:27 PM PDT by MichaelCorleone (Sarah Palin is America's Margaret Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TN4Bush

I’d love to see Trump ask...

“Then Is it OK if I kill you in private? Because if you are saying murder is acceptable as long as it is done privately, it must be.”

Simple, to the point and shuts the left down hard. Let them argue their way out of that.


18 posted on 04/19/2011 12:59:20 PM PDT by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TN4Bush

Since there’s about a 2% chance that he’s running, it’s all macht’s nichts.


19 posted on 04/19/2011 12:59:54 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education. TR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith
You may not like Trump, but you're not entitled to your own facts.

O'Reilly asked Trump if he would you make a law against abortion?

Trump said he would get back to him if he would push for a law against abortion. You do understand in doing so, would be against stare decisis in the Rowe v. Wade 1973 Supreme Court case?

Trump maybe a RINO but he's giving air cover to all other Republican candidates by going after Obama. Not bad for a RINO.

20 posted on 04/19/2011 1:01:41 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TN4Bush
Trump said, "Well, that's a pretty strange way of getting to pro-life. I mean, it's a very unique way of asking about pro-life. What does that have to do with privacy? How are you equating pro-life with privacy?"

Just how is that a stumble? Trump disagreed with the SCOTUS bogus and concocted justification for legalizing abortion. So what if he didn't immediately recognize that the "right to privacy" was the bogus excuse used by the court. He disagreed with it!

The constitution does imply and guarantee a right to privacy in several places (no unreasonable searches and seizures, religious freedom and others), but how many would stretch that to mean a right to kill a developing baby? Trump didn't.

21 posted on 04/19/2011 1:03:01 PM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TN4Bush
In 1973, the Supreme Court never even considered whether the unborn child was human or not. That's where they failed.

I would agree we have a right to privacy. But the right to privacy does not give you the right to "privately" kill another human being.

22 posted on 04/19/2011 1:03:23 PM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MichaelCorleone

“Didn’t Judge Ruth B Ginsberg admit that this decision stands on faulty or shaky legal ground?”

I don’t know anything about that, but I do know that Judge Ginsberg stands on shaky ground!


23 posted on 04/19/2011 1:04:56 PM PDT by Batman11
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

Exactly and thus my post above. Make these reporters address it directly. They like to ‘personalize’ the issues ala Alynski (sp?). We should turn it back on them ‘personally’ and see how long it takes them to stop the ambush journalism.


24 posted on 04/19/2011 1:07:03 PM PDT by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TN4Bush
I'm in favot of some of the things Trump is saying and doing but there are far better choices for president.

I want Allen West to run, and win!

25 posted on 04/19/2011 1:07:42 PM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER

Palin/West or West/Palin works for me ;)


26 posted on 04/19/2011 1:09:07 PM PDT by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
We only have a right to privacy if it involves murdering a baby. If you want to ride an airplane, drive a car, and soon surf the internet there will be no privacy.

I agree 100%.

27 posted on 04/19/2011 1:11:21 PM PDT by exist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TN4Bush
The answer is that the Government has NO RIGHT to interfere in private behavior, EXCEPT when murder is involved....baby-killing has been legalized in order to slow down the explosive growth of the black population, period. It has NOTHING to do with the cutesy "women's right to choose" phaseology that Leftists use to justify the murders. It has EVERYTHING to do with the FACT that black babies are born at a greater-than-75% out-of-wedlock rate, EVEN WITH THE MURDERS OF THE UNBORN, and we try to ignore it.

The right to choose includes keeping your knees together.

28 posted on 04/19/2011 1:11:29 PM PDT by traditional1 ("Don't gotsta worry 'bout no mo'gage, don't gotsta worry 'bout no gas; Obama gonna take care o' me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TN4Bush
Trump appeared to stumble into a contradiction in an interview Tuesday

Wait...they noticed a contradiction in an interview? And reported on it? Oh, wait. How foolish of me. They are trained to only notice contradictions in interviews when it's a Republican (or, in Trump's case an 'alleged' Republican).

Meanwhile, O'Blah-blah-blah is allowed to contradict himself daily on every issue without so much as a word from the press.

29 posted on 04/19/2011 1:11:57 PM PDT by erkyl (We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office --Aesop (~550 BC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traditional1

“phaseology”=”phraseology”


30 posted on 04/19/2011 1:12:14 PM PDT by traditional1 ("Don't gotsta worry 'bout no mo'gage, don't gotsta worry 'bout no gas; Obama gonna take care o' me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: traditional1

Something I once read by Margaret Sanger would seem to back you up 100%.

I can’t fathom why the MSM won’t report on it...


31 posted on 04/19/2011 1:14:45 PM PDT by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: TN4Bush

THAT WAS SPOT ON. An excellent answer by Trump. As if “privacy” trumps infanticide of innocents. How was that a “stumble”????? It was wonderful, unless I missed something.


32 posted on 04/19/2011 1:17:30 PM PDT by RitaOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: erkyl

“Meanwhile, O’Blah-blah-blah is allowed to contradict himself daily on every issue without so much as a word from the press.”

Yup, that is what makes the crap they spew so maddening!


33 posted on 04/19/2011 1:19:11 PM PDT by Batman11 (Obama's poll numbers are so low the Kenyans are claiming he was born in the USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: TN4Bush
Trump is a liberal dunce.

A) There is a right to privacy, and it's in the Constitution. See the Fourth Amendment.

B) We would still have a right to privacy whether it was in the Constitution or not. Read the Ninth Amendment.

C) The right to life is the supreme right, and it trumps the right to privacy. You can't kill an innocent person just because you did it in private.

D) Roe was at its core not about privacy. It was about whether or not the fetus is a person.

"The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment."

-- Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Roe vs. Wade, 1973


34 posted on 04/19/2011 1:19:59 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (The GOP has jumped the Trump.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Will88

” How are you equating pro-life with privacy? “ ==========

Lifesite headline is surprisingly incorrect.


35 posted on 04/19/2011 1:20:41 PM PDT by RitaOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: TN4Bush

To be honest, I have always thought of the abortion debate to be based on the issue of a person being able to make a personal choice, not an issue of privacy. If that’s not the way it was originally argued, then Trump and I both have it wrong.

That doesn’t mean that I support abortion. I don’t.

I’m not convinced Trump opposes it, but I’m not up to speed on each of his views.

Trying to blow this aspect of his comments out to be a huge mistake, seems rather silly to me. If he said he opposed abortion, it would take more than this to convince me otherwise.

It’s my guess that there’s plenty out there that would cause me to come to that conclusion (my impression only), but this sure wouldn’t reach that level.


36 posted on 04/19/2011 1:20:53 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (The only thing higher than Obama's chin, is his ass facing West five times a day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart

I’d love to hear Col. West tell Obama “don’t try to blow sunshine up our butts”!


37 posted on 04/19/2011 1:23:12 PM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER

Buddy, you and me both ;)

West is so impressive from so many angles that he’s a natural for the job. Plus, the fact that he didn’t bow down to the witch hunters that ended his military career proves he puts honor and integrity over everything.

Of course, the left will call us all racists for voting for him... because white people would only do that because he’s black.(liberal logic)


38 posted on 04/19/2011 1:31:00 PM PDT by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: TN4Bush

...a misstep that could haunt the potential GOP presidential candidate amongst social conservatives....

&&&
Trump is not going to appeal to social conservatives anyway, idiot!


39 posted on 04/19/2011 1:32:24 PM PDT by Bigg Red (Palin in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TN4Bush
a misstep that could haunt the potential GOP presidential candidate amongst social conservatives.

John King of CNN is just expressing his fervent hope. Anyone who bothers to read Trump's words will see that he expressed puzzlement over how anyone could tie a right to privacy to the abortion question. The only thing he revealed was that he hadn't studied Roe v. Wade, and would disagree with one of its key assumptions.

40 posted on 04/19/2011 1:37:46 PM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TN4Bush

BFD


41 posted on 04/19/2011 1:40:31 PM PDT by Rudder (The Main Stream Media is Our Enemy---get used to it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

‘You do understand in doing so, would be against stare decisis in the Rowe v. Wade 1973 Supreme Court case?’

Stare Decisis is little more than a loin cloth to cover for the poor decisions of the Supreme Court in the past. Particularly Roe VS. Wade which is a particularly poorly thought out decision. The fact is thatthe Supreme c=Court, and NO fFederal Court had any reason to even hear an abortion rights case considering that the Constitution makes no reference to it OR Privacy.

There never any right toprivacy in the constitution. It is inferred, which is the worst sort of law making. The Katz case in the late sixties actualy overturned TWO previous rulings concerning the right to privacy and the expectations of privacy.

If they can over rule one they can over rule others.


42 posted on 04/19/2011 1:47:34 PM PDT by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town
You are right on...

Stare Decisis is little more than a loin cloth to cover for the poor decisions of the Supreme Court in the past. Particularly Roe VS. Wade which is a particularly poorly thought out decision.

I agree.

The fact is thatthe Supreme c=Court, and NO fFederal Court had any reason to even hear an abortion rights case considering that the Constitution makes no reference to it OR Privacy.

I agree.

There never any right toprivacy in the constitution.

I agree.

It is inferred, which is the worst sort of law making.

I agree.

The Katz case in the late sixties actualy overturned TWO previous rulings concerning the right to privacy and the expectations of privacy.

Thanks for the info on the case. No expectation; I agree.

If they can over rule one they can over rule others.

Yes, I agree.

43 posted on 04/19/2011 1:56:22 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: TN4Bush
When NBC's Savannah Guthrie wondered how that line of legal theory "squares" with his pro-life stance, Trump said, "Well, that's a pretty strange way of getting to pro-life. I mean, it's a very unique way of asking about pro-life. What does that have to do with privacy? How are you equating pro-life with privacy?"

He stumbled, but this was a DAMN good response after that. Intentionally or not, I think he called her out.

44 posted on 04/19/2011 2:05:00 PM PDT by RockinRight (Trump's "fake" conservatism is still better than the "real" conservatism of most of the GOP.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith

Trump don’t need no steenkin’ teleprompter.

He does, however, need to brush up a bit.


45 posted on 04/19/2011 2:05:46 PM PDT by RockinRight (Trump's "fake" conservatism is still better than the "real" conservatism of most of the GOP.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TN4Bush

Get with me when Trump tops the AnnointedIdiot’s “above my paygrade” mention concerning abortion.... =.=


46 posted on 04/19/2011 2:24:12 PM PDT by cranked
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TN4Bush
Where was CNN asking Mitt Romney why he was attending Planned Parenthood fundraisers in Massachusetts? Or why he included $50 abortions in his health care bill?

Trump has his issues but the liberal media wouldn't be beating him if he wasn't kicking Obama's butt on a daily basis.

47 posted on 04/20/2011 9:26:24 AM PDT by RINOs suck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
The stink'n media thinks it's a private right to have abortions.

That was actually the ridiculous argument used by SCOTUS in Roe.

48 posted on 04/20/2011 9:27:43 AM PDT by RINOs suck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

The fact, based on the record of Trump’s comments, is that Trump has no consistent beliefs on abortion.


49 posted on 04/22/2011 3:59:58 AM PDT by reasonisfaith (Sarah Palin is above taking the fake high road.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight

He needs a teleprompter so that he can be fed information on the basic principles of conservative ideology.

Inevitably, if he keeps up with this, Trump will be asked questions that expose his lack of philosophical thinking, and his lack of true commitment to constitutional conservatism.


50 posted on 04/22/2011 4:06:02 AM PDT by reasonisfaith (Sarah Palin is above taking the fake high road.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson