Would Donald Trump Be a Pro-Abortion President?

The Weekly Standard ^ | January 17, 2016 | JOHN MCCORMACK

[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.

[Pravious]

“...The attack was more than a bit hypocritical because Trump himself was “very” pro-abortion not so long ago. In 1999....”

I didn’t need to read further than this. When you define “not so long ago” as seventeen years, nothing you say could possibly have any meaning.

I see the daily anti-Trump propaganda has started early today. Let’s see how many seminar Cruz-z-zer’s post today! :-)

[Elsie]

Are we really as idiotic as we seem????????

Well...

We've had...

People's Temple,
Mormonism,
Scientology,
Shakers,
bad popes,
Jehovan Witnesses,
ALIENS!!!
Jimmy Carter and Obama.

After all this reporting; what do you decide??

[anton]

Unless Trump is running for the Supreme Court, why would it matter?

[lodi90]

How many butchered babies has Ted Cruz saved? None. Zero. But he and his supporters doesn’t have a problem using them like political footballs. Hmmm. That’s exactly what the Dems do.

[Elsie]

Because you have killed 55 million Americans in the womb over the last 40 years.

It's a little higher now...

I'd like to thank the United States Government for protecting me and my kind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You see, 40 years ago, my odds of making it out of the egg, alive, were very poor; about 80% of us died. 

 (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rachel-carson-silent-spring-1972-ddt-ban-birds-thrive)

 

 

But a lady discovered our plight and wrote a book that addressed our problem,

and, in 1972, a law was ammended protecting us even further. (http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/protect/laws.html)

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I find strange is that the same government passed a law the very next year that allowed for killing

of unborn, and apparently unwanted, humans.  Little ones still nestled safely in their Mother's womb.

Around 25% of them are dying before birth - on average nearly 3,300 - every day of the year.

 

 

I hear that by now, somewhere around 58 MILLION of them have perished.

Wouldn't that kind of mess up the humans plans for growth, and welfare, and

retirement?

 

 

 

 

 

Strange birds; these Homo Sapiens.  Perhaps they'll come to their senses

before they are ALL dead!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd like to thank the United States Government for protecting me and my kind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You see, 40 years ago, my odds of making it out of the egg, alive, were very poor; about 80% of us died. 

 (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rachel-carson-silent-spring-1972-ddt-ban-birds-thrive)

 

 

But a lady discovered our plight and wrote a book that addressed our problem,

and, in 1972, a law was ammended protecting us even further. (http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/protect/laws.html)

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I find strange is that the same government passed a law the very next year that allowed for killing

of unborn, and apparently unwanted, humans.  Little ones still nestled safely in their Mother's womb.

Around 25% of them are dying before birth - on average nearly 3,300 - every day of the year.

 

 

I hear that by now, somewhere around 58 MILLION of them have perished.

Wouldn't that kind of mess up the humans plans for growth, and welfare, and

retirement?

 

 

 

 

 

Strange birds; these Homo Sapiens.  Perhaps they'll come to their senses

before they are ALL dead!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[don-o]

When the Daily Caller's Jamie Weinstein asked Trump....

When I read that I immediately went looking for source. So far...not finding it.

If accurate this is absolutely a death blow for pro-lifers support of DT.

Source must be found.

[patq]

“Leopards don’t change their spots.”

Ronald Reagan, Liberal Democrat, 1911 - 1962

[Elsie]

[MarDav]

Don’t know if this link has been posted before or not. If you’re like me and you are praying that God will be merciful and spare our nation, supporting a pro-choice candidate is antithetical to your prayer.

If there is a God, what must He think as He looks upon a world that does this:

http://www.numberofabortions.com/

[Campion]

Abortion and Presidents has been a non-issue since RvW and will forever remain so.......

So, if a President appoints a few more Ruth Bader Ginsburg clones to the SCOTUS, and they find that you have an obligation to pay for abortion with your tax dollars, that's a "non-issue" to you?

[Campion]

Trump is running to be the guy who appoints new justices to the Supreme Court. And since Congress, especially under Republicans, appears determined to rubber stamp judicial appointments, there’s no practical check-and-balance to that power.

[texhenry]

With Trump clearing them out, we get to fight another day.

---

He said he would build a wall,he did not say he would clear them out.

[lodi90]

Cruz has been a U. S. Senator 4 years and he’s spent barely 5 minutes there trying to save the dead babies. The only time they are important to him is when it’s time to pander for votes with his fairy tale social conservative agenda that has no hope of getting through a rotten Congress.

[Iscool]

Trump just days ago had a tv interview with George Steppalloverus or whatever his name is...Those questions were asked...He said he would appoint judges in the vein of Thomas...Every answer he gave showed he is as conservative as anyone running, even Cruz...Go Trump, go...

[texhenry]

Donald Trump will make certain that President Trump is one of America’s best EVER!

---

You are expecting a lot from a man that changes his mind on a weekly basis.

[MarDav]

So, with Trump are we looking at another Executive Orders president? If so, we are not voting for a president, but naming a king.

[PapaBear3625]

Currently, the most important issue is immigration. Nothing else matters at this point.

If the demographics of the US change much further, no conservative (as we define the term) will ever again gain national office. The House and Senate will be controlled by Democrats. They will make their agenda a permanent part of federal law. All hospitals will be required to offer late-term abortion as a condition of retaining accreditation.

Currently, all I care about in a candidate, is where he stands on immigration.

[Hot Tabasco]

they find that you have an obligation to pay for abortion with your tax dollars, that's a "non-issue" to you?

So you don't care about the legality of abortion, your only concern is about who pays for it........

We already are via Planned Parenthood but that can be rectified simply by defunding it.......

[bert]

abortion is a non issue in this race

to raise it is foolishness

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Currently, all I care about in a candidate, is where he stands on immigration.

And where does your candidate stand on that?