Donald Trump: Don't change abortion laws

CBS News ^ | April 1, 2016 | Jake Miller

[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.

[Jane Long]

Trump has no idea who he would appoint, as he has not thought thru this or any other position.

---

Pure BS.

He’s about to put a list out, of types of who he’d appoint for SCOTUS.

His positions, some based on input from patriot Sen Jeff Sessions, are clearly thought through and posted, on his website.

Stop the fibbing.

[BillyBoy]

Using the logic of Georgia Girl 2, the U.S. constitution is silent on the existence of unicorns. Therefore, it is up to each of the 50 individual states to determine if unicorns exist. If the state of Massachuttes passes a law tomorrow declaring unicorns exist and all its citizens have to recognize them, then unicorns will now exist in that state. The fact that science proves there's no such thing as unicorns doesn't matter.

[little jeremiah]

Here is how I view that statement. Which I remember. (It isn’t from 1999, his pro-abortion statement in the video is.)

I consider that he views (as do I) my personal relationship with God a very private thing, my most private thing. I may talk to my closest friends to some degree, or online in discussions to an even lesser degree. But there are aspects of my personal private spiritual relationship that I never disclose to anyone. And anything Trump says, he knows will be picked apart and dissected, vivisected and twisted by a media who hates him and two political parties who hate him.

So I consider that is a public statement but not indicative of his relationship with God.

I am sorry that it took him so long to become pro-life, better late than never. Also I read something he said (direct quote) that shortly after that 1999 interview, he spoke with a doctor about exactly what partial birth abortion is, and changed his month totally about it when hearing, he had not known what it was.

I am not trying to provide cover for him. I wish he had been pro-life for decades. But we are where we are, and thus I support him, after doing a lot of reading and listening.

[EternalVigilance]

Exactly.

Or, to use another analogy, if a court, or the Congress, or a state, decides that up is down and down is up, there is no legitimate obligation for the other officers of government - in the other branches, or at other levels - or for the people of this country, to then go jump off 80-foot cliffs with them. Because the rocks at the bottom of the cliff won’t care at all about their silly, arbitrary opinions or lawless “laws.”

[Georgia Girl 2]

Those powers not expressly assigned to the Federal govt fall to the states.

[Catsrus]

Oh bull crap. He gave some very conservative names in one debate. On the other hand - Cruz pushed John Roberts. Now, you tell me who has the better grasp on SC judges. You are so misguided and misinformed it seems. Oh yeah - you are also deceived.

[NKP_Vet]

“Obviously, if a politician says they believe something, it MUST be true, right? “

Are you kidding. Ted SCruz has blown that idea straight our of the park. He was for amnesty before he was against it. He was for NAFA before the was against it. He was for TPP before he was against it. Now on abortion he sounds like the biggest liberal this side of the moon. The reason. He does not the have integrity on the subject to agree with Trump that any woman who aborts her child (if abortion is illegal) should be held accountable. He adopted the liberal line that the woman has no control and she needs needs a hug and to be told everything is OK. Makes no difference that she murdered her child.

[Georgia Girl 2]

The Constitution is about law and the powers of the Federal and State governments to make law and regulate. It does not attempt to prove or disprove the existence of anything. You have no argument with this line of reasoning.

Powers that are not “expressly” assigned to the federal govt fall to the states. The Constitution does not “expressly” assign the power to determine the legality of abortion or marriage to the US govt so it falls to the individual states. You should agree with this because right now the Federal govt is controlling both abortion and gay marriage and guess what they are both legal in all 50 states. So you can rage on about it all day long but it would still be better if even half the states could reject these two abominations.

[EternalVigilance]

Those powers not expressly assigned to the Federal govt fall to the states.

It's impossible for any man, government, law, or constitution to legitimately "assign" powers to anyone that it does not possess.

The laws of nature and nature's God precede and supersede all human governments.

The founders of this country fully understood that, and said so.

That's why John Adams rightly said that we are a government of laws, not men.

[EternalVigilance]

The Constitution does not “expressly” assign the power to determine the legality of abortion or marriage to the US govt so it falls to the individual states.

Both the federal and state governments not only have the power to equally protect innocent human life, they both have the absolute duty to do so. It's the very reason that those governments exist in the first place. It is their raison d'etre.

This is the first principle of the repubic, as spelled out in our national charter.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."

[Morgana]

“Liar and loser. Trump doesn’t even know what “pro-life” means.”

I second that.

[highball]

At this point in society, someone who admits to mistakes will be attacked relentlessly.

They're already attacking him on his business failures. When he lies about it, he's given them something much bigger, and much more important, to attack him on. He turns their nitpicking into a substantive attack, one he richly deserves.

He should just say "Not everything works out. But I learn from it, and more things work out than don't." But instead he goes for the easily-disproved lie. That choice doesn't make any sense.

[TomasUSMC]

Trump just lost it all. Face it, it was a good run but ....well they all stink. bad.

[Laser_Ray]

As much as this is going to rankle the feathers of my hardcore prolifers, I have to grit my teeth and admit that as things currently stand this is the reality we need to face. Abortion is not going to be high on the priority list of an increasing number of Americans who have lost their jobs, their house, their savings, their 401k’s, all four of the above and/or more. An overnight repeal of Roe is frankly not in the cards no matter how much we want it to be short of direct divine intervention.

[Republican Wildcat]

Accepting all of that as true, in what way is that a defense of Donald Trump’s statements? It isn’t in the least. Would he even reinstate the Mexico City policy? Doesn’t sound like it with these latest comments.

Even though it is irrelevant, your list is incomplete and overly simplistic. You really think getting that ban on partial birth abortion through was an insignificant achievement? You think that if they took the position of impeaching judges that the 2/3 of the Senate would go along with it - you have quite exaggerated the powers of the House - they wouldn’t be able to do much of that...even if they wanted to. But assuming they could, your comments are just a shiny object - in no way is it a defense of Trump.

[Republican Wildcat]

That’s pretty much typical - posting pictures and slogans...no substantive argument as to how Trump big government, statist agenda is what we need...this past week he blasted Scott Walker for failing to raise taxes and government spending - consistent with his philosophy of proposing one big government solution and authoritarianism to pretty much every problem - he started his campaign blasting conservatives and what we stand for. Just imagine how bad it will get if he were to get the nomination sewn up.

[Republican Wildcat]

He already said he would appoint justices to conduct criminal investigation and believes that judges “sign bills”, coupled with is views on First Amendment and private property rights we have a great deal to be concerned about with this man when it comes to judicial appointments.

[fatima]

Not good enough.Why didn’t he meet with Pro-Life Leaders and get a feel for this.He is failing miserable in this area.Limp along Donald.I have the best to recommend.Give me a ping.

[BillyBoy]

>> So you can rage on about it all day long but it would still be better if even half the states could reject these two abominations. <<

That's right, Mr. Lincoln. The right of human beings to own and enslave other human beings as their personal property is clearly 100% up to the states, and the federal government and everyone else for that matter has absolutely no say in the matter. Whether people are property is a state issue. You going on about abstract theories of morality or invoking God won't change that. So you think its morally wrong, good for you, you should be glad ONLY 50% of the states allow human beings to be sold as property. 100% of them would do that if the slave owners let this get decided at a national level. Is that what you want? Isn't freeing people in 50% of the states better than NONE, Mr. Lincoln?

[EternalVigilance]

Bulls-eye.