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.
Trump doesn’t know what to say. He’s faking it.
Embarrassing.
>>>If only 37% of the people support Trump and the other 67% can decide on another person. Then the person that 67% find acceptable is much more likely to win.
Yep, it’s just math.
Now, Trump would say, and has said, “a majority is just a random number.”
Rational minds disagree.
Beautifully stated! Thank you!
This is a fellow who wants to be populist on one level — and I think he’s sincere enough — but has a difficulty grasping the concrete implications of this.
There’s no shortage of pollage about general American popular sentiment, and it leans heavily towards calling Roe v. Wade an excess of regulation. This is exactly what we should expect out of fiats of one size fits all answers, and hints at other folly that we risk by keeping our court-centric model.
Till you follow it into the world of implementation. Because some generality is espoused in the Constitution does that mean the Federal government is responsible for handling all issues that touch on this generality?
I see way too much cloud-cuckoo-land thinking here.
1 >> Miller: [Trump] doesn’t disagree with the proposition that abortion is murder.
2 >> Trump: I would’ve preferred states’ rights, I think it would’ve been better if it were up to the states.
3 >> Trump: The laws are set now on abortion and that’s the way they’re going to remain until they’re changed.
Not sure what the Cruz clowns are bitching about. But I suppose a clown would complain about #3.
Trumpster is the ultimate expert scammer.
He says what we want to hear, or at least to those he thinks are important to him at the moment.
He says many things that I wish were true, but its obvious he is FOS and just making it up as he goes along.
He is like the evil genie in the early 1960s Twilight Zones. Little good can come out of him.
How so many here could be scammed by him is very discouraging.
Biblically invasion and conquest are consequences of child sacrifice. Not even DDT will be able to hold back the wrath of God.
Doesn’t congress write laws? They can outlaw it.
Embarrassing. He must be the guy that taught John Kerry how to windsurf.
....”But doesn’t your own opening sentence bid fair to contradict itself?”.....
Perhaps so.........For as is often quoted... “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.”...and we certainly can’t say this nation’s people nor governance is that today..... Rather each man creates his own standards oftentimes based on nothing more than his own desires.
“Yes, It’s Constitutional for Congress to Pass Abortion Laws”
by Ramesh Ponnuru January 23, 2015 5:36 PM
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/412681/yes-its-constitutional-congress-pass-abortion-laws-ramesh-ponnuru
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/412681/yes-its-constitutional-congress-pass-abortion-laws-ramesh-ponnuru
“No, Abortion Actually Isn’t A Constitutional Right”
subtitle: “The Court not only broke the law, but legalized others breaking it as well.”
http://www.westernjournalism.com/scholars-argue-roe-v-wade-is-actually-unconstitutional/
***********
Tue Oct 17, 2006 - 12:15 pm EST
Scalia Says Roe vs. Wade Abortion Decision Was “improper” Action of Liberal Judges
By Gudrun Schultz
“WASHINGTON, D.C., October 17, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia defended his opposition to legalized abortion on Sunday, reiterating his long-held position that nothing in the U.S. Constitution guarantees a woman’s “right” to abortion.
In a one-hour televised debate with American Civil Liberties Union president Nadine Strossen, broadcast by C-SPAN, Scalia said un-elected judges have no authority to decide on issues that are not addressed by the Constitution, such as abortion, reported the Associated Press. He said the Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973 that made abortion a constitutional right was the “improper” action of liberal judges granting new political rights.
“Someday, you’re going to get a very conservative Supreme Court and regret that approach,” Scalia said. “On controversial issues on stuff like homosexual rights, abortion, we debate with each other and persuade each other and vote on it either through representatives or a constitutional amendment.”
“Whether it’s good or bad is not my job. My job is simply to say if those things you find desirable are contained in the Constitution.””
You make very good points.
>>American popular sentiment, and it leans heavily towards calling Roe v. Wade an excess of regulation
The majority is against Hillary and the democrats position on abortion. Unfortunately, conservatives seem unable to articulate that.
>>>This is a fellow who wants to be populist on one level —
He wants power, however he can get it; “populist” in that sense.
>>and I think he’s sincere enough —
Sincerely, he’s ok with abortion, always has been.
>>>but has a difficulty grasping the concrete implications of this.
No, he hasn’t thought it through, because he hasn’t had to, wanted to and it’s not what he believes is important to.
He has a big problem discussing the issue in specifics or in general. As anyone does when they are faking it.
Thanks very much for your reply.
In the meantime, I'd sooner see individual states be more lax than I would like on a constitutional value, than to see the Federal government arrogate that to itself. I can sooner go to a different state that does things more like I want, than I can go to a different country.
"Thou preservest man and beast." How about taking that more seriously.
You can say that almost anyone is “ok with abortion” by sufficiently manipulating the question. You could even have characterized the most restrictive states just prior to Roe v. Wade that way, because typically the women would get slapped on the wrist.
That is not an illuminating accusation.
I disagree. Not prosecuting women does not equate with being ok with abortion.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433532/donald-trump-abortion-wrong-punishing-women
The goal is to end abortion.
And anyhow you lie, because you treat all my points as bad.
“The goal” as if it were uber alles?
With no anchor, your boat will only drift.
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.