Well, that's tricky, because Trump usually in the end doesn't pay for the things he's supposed to be paying for, as anyone who's tried to do business with him knows.
He was a frequent flyer to Epstein island and loves Falwell’s ‘Liberty University’ in Lynchburg, VA (which has a history of campus rape cover ups and lawsuits)….Trump without a doubt paid for abortions, how many and in what country will be the not so fun task of historian one day.
This is NOT A "NEW" POSITION for Trump. He has long acknowledged that Roe v Wade was a bad decision and rightly was overturned...which returned the issue to the STATES. It's no surprise to hear him say that this is as it "should be."
I’m not sure what your all caps are about, although I suspect I know, but you’re ignoring basically everything after the first clause of this post in your comment — as shown by your inaccurate comment about the effect of the Dobbs decision, which goes beyond “the STATES” and is discussed in the post.
I don't want to give anyone any ideas - but the worst part of all of this is the necromancy of Powell having narrowed what may be allowed to be litigated as substantive due process. How do you legislate that ? There's a lot going on beneath the surface most people aren't aware of.
To be honest, I think the "shouting" (all caps) was my spontaneous reaction to your attempt to accuse Trump of waffling on this subject by the title of the post: "new abortion position" (it's not), and "don't fall for"...there's nothing to fall for, except your misleading title.
It's not misleading, and I'm not sure where you get this discussion of "waffling." He is running for president in a post-Roe era. He has never done that. It is a new position because he previously was not saying his position, something that I covered previously back in February: https://www.lawdork.com/p/trump-abortion-scotus-cases
Trump, in his video today, says, "Many people have asked me what my position is on abortion and abortion rights." Trump himself thought he had to share his position. It is, very simply, new.
Additionally, you're not accurately presenting his position — during the 2016 campaign, as president, during the 2020 campaign, or now. The question is not only about Roe v. Wade. In any event, my headline and my report are not misleading. Be well.
Not that this isn't more than bad enough, but Comstock also applies to many forms of contraception, since these groups claim they are 'abortifacients', and all laws in this area are governed by legislators' imaginations rather than any kind of scientific or medical fact. Of course Comstock's broad application to 'obscenity' would be interpreted very differently by the Christian Nationalists the Republicans are empowering, compared to how anyone else would understand it.
The medical fact that goes against mailing prescription abortion drugs is 1 in 25 of the women will need medical treatment after they take it, because they took it. What other drug with those metrics is considered safe enough to mail?
Here’s the thing. When the evangelicals yell at Trump about abandoning them, only to have a short chat then come out the next day assuring the cult that “all is well,” there’s really nothing left to wonder.
Basically the word has gone out to ixnay on the federal ban talk until AFTER they win. Just like Chris says.
Which might work but for the fact that Ds have no intention of shutting up about it and will continue to highlight the cruel, abusive reality women are *already* enduring in states with bans.
Chris is correct. Trump doesn’t care about abortion. He doesn’t care about women nor does he seem to care for women. He probably doesn’t fully understand the Comstock Act. He might have been given a one page summary of the 2025 Document, but didn’t read it. He doesn’t seem to care about what happens to our democracy. He cares about getting out of the losing column at any cost. Republican state legislators are doing whatever they can to help by trying to enact voter suppression laws. He’s already doing the rigged election redux. It’s difficult to stay positive.
The thing that collapsed me was the statement (as reported, I will not watch a video of him) that "the Democrats are the radical ones on this position because they support abortion up to and even beyond the ninth month. The concept of having an abortion in the later months and even execution after birth, and that's exactly what it is."
He has no clue what the decision he is so proud of overturning actually said. It wasn't that. Or he's just lying. Take your choice.
Trump, the adjudicated rapist and fraud, says SCOTUS reversed Roe because of him. First time he ever told the truth. Now the fascist evangelicals want to consign women to the depths. They want to outlaw birth control. They support a rapist and fraud as leader of their fascist agenda.
It's nothing personal against you I'm just using your comment - but in reality what annihilated Roe v Wade was a line of cases that culminated in the practice of using ultrasound as evidence of a woman's pregnancy. That was the beginning of the end. People back then were saying that it would never be overturned. It's not simply a matter of voting nor of religion - those are hypocritical appeals to pity - it's an epistemology generally against Due Process, which has been going on for a long time.
It was how the 1st wave movement - the Goldwater coalition members - incited the various circuits, so it was a 70s thing, which trickled down to the state level by the 1980s. But the 1st Wave at the state level were less radical. It doesn't work because of "The New Federalism". This guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Searle_Holdsworth and then Goodhart after him suggested that the USA could never have a case law system of jurisprudence. The precondition for that is having Judges that are far more Mastered in the law than those that appear before them. To be politely accommodating they said there are as many judges that fit that bill in the US as there are in England except that there are far more Judges in the US and inevitably they make bad law. The Goodhart piece was published c. 1930 I believe in the Cornell law review ? Anyway the suggestion was that the us will tend towards a Roman Law type of affair where Judges are allowed a great deal of freedom to interpret statutes - perhaps what Breyer is getting at? I have a copy of his book but haven't read it yet. But from my point of view it's not what Goodhart imagined. What happened instead is everything has devolved to the states and no one knows what they're doing and there's no adverse consequences. It will be interesting to see how the USSCt responds to that because inevitably in will also effect their interests.
Looking forward to your take on the AZ Supreme Court ruling.
With the pushback Trump has gotten from the religious fanatics, we'll see him totter back towards a national ban, and then when the media jumps on that, he'll totter back to his mumble about states, states, something to do with states. He doesn't care about abortion other than what it gets him. And he doesn't care about women dying because they don't have access to healthcare, because all he cares about is himself.
He is what he is. But now let's talk about the media and what an appallingly bad job it is doing this year covering Trump.
"Return the issue to the states." Where the legislatures are gerrymandered and voting is restricted. Plus, a national abortion ban is probably unconstitutional under 10th Amendment/Federalism. Republicans thought Obamacare was beyond the scope of Federal legslation and it was only saved by Roberts' tax theory.
I agree. He's essentially repeating the Holier than Thou political bosh that was already way too old from when he was young. Most of the people that used that are long dead. The irony is that those to right of the SPM hyphen in the last 20 years or so has been totally opposed to the existence of the post office they treat it like it's a Satanic Communist Conspiracy against God who is naturally a capitalist businessman that dresses like they do, is clean shaven and has a short haircut. So I'm wondering how do they propose to prohibit Fed Ex or UPS from delivering the pill? Other various courier services all the way down to people on bicycles. All of the various movie channels ought to air "A Place in the Sun" - Liz Taylor and Montgomery Cliff which was released in 1951. Surely a Diabolical Liberal Communist Satanic conspiracy (word order contest for the best arrangement for our latest Talismanic Acronym) from Hollywood Hell.
There is a strong segment of his base that emotionally and spiritually are firmly against abortion. They don't want it just to be a federalism issue. They think it is evil. Maybe, they firmly realize Trump got them and will get them much closer to what they want than any realistic alternative. So, they won't hold what he says against him. It is necessary for him to win as noted. But it's a risk.
If Trump's lips are moving, he's lying. And I agree, Trump doesn't care about abortion. He's also probably paid for quite a few.
Well, that's tricky, because Trump usually in the end doesn't pay for the things he's supposed to be paying for, as anyone who's tried to do business with him knows.
Trump paid hush money, he's paid for abortions.
He was a frequent flyer to Epstein island and loves Falwell’s ‘Liberty University’ in Lynchburg, VA (which has a history of campus rape cover ups and lawsuits)….Trump without a doubt paid for abortions, how many and in what country will be the not so fun task of historian one day.
Agreed.
This is NOT A "NEW" POSITION for Trump. He has long acknowledged that Roe v Wade was a bad decision and rightly was overturned...which returned the issue to the STATES. It's no surprise to hear him say that this is as it "should be."
I’m not sure what your all caps are about, although I suspect I know, but you’re ignoring basically everything after the first clause of this post in your comment — as shown by your inaccurate comment about the effect of the Dobbs decision, which goes beyond “the STATES” and is discussed in the post.
I don't want to give anyone any ideas - but the worst part of all of this is the necromancy of Powell having narrowed what may be allowed to be litigated as substantive due process. How do you legislate that ? There's a lot going on beneath the surface most people aren't aware of.
To be honest, I think the "shouting" (all caps) was my spontaneous reaction to your attempt to accuse Trump of waffling on this subject by the title of the post: "new abortion position" (it's not), and "don't fall for"...there's nothing to fall for, except your misleading title.
It's not misleading, and I'm not sure where you get this discussion of "waffling." He is running for president in a post-Roe era. He has never done that. It is a new position because he previously was not saying his position, something that I covered previously back in February: https://www.lawdork.com/p/trump-abortion-scotus-cases
Trump, in his video today, says, "Many people have asked me what my position is on abortion and abortion rights." Trump himself thought he had to share his position. It is, very simply, new.
Additionally, you're not accurately presenting his position — during the 2016 campaign, as president, during the 2020 campaign, or now. The question is not only about Roe v. Wade. In any event, my headline and my report are not misleading. Be well.
I was thinking the same thing.
Not that this isn't more than bad enough, but Comstock also applies to many forms of contraception, since these groups claim they are 'abortifacients', and all laws in this area are governed by legislators' imaginations rather than any kind of scientific or medical fact. Of course Comstock's broad application to 'obscenity' would be interpreted very differently by the Christian Nationalists the Republicans are empowering, compared to how anyone else would understand it.
The medical fact that goes against mailing prescription abortion drugs is 1 in 25 of the women will need medical treatment after they take it, because they took it. What other drug with those metrics is considered safe enough to mail?
Don’t worry. He’s the little boy who cried, “Wolf!” Too many times. We all know what he is.
Here’s the thing. When the evangelicals yell at Trump about abandoning them, only to have a short chat then come out the next day assuring the cult that “all is well,” there’s really nothing left to wonder.
Basically the word has gone out to ixnay on the federal ban talk until AFTER they win. Just like Chris says.
Which might work but for the fact that Ds have no intention of shutting up about it and will continue to highlight the cruel, abusive reality women are *already* enduring in states with bans.
Chris is correct. Trump doesn’t care about abortion. He doesn’t care about women nor does he seem to care for women. He probably doesn’t fully understand the Comstock Act. He might have been given a one page summary of the 2025 Document, but didn’t read it. He doesn’t seem to care about what happens to our democracy. He cares about getting out of the losing column at any cost. Republican state legislators are doing whatever they can to help by trying to enact voter suppression laws. He’s already doing the rigged election redux. It’s difficult to stay positive.
He was given bullet points in his briefings as president, due to his short attention span. He'd never understand
the Comstock Act much less
the Constitution. Oh wait...he's actually pretty conversant with Article 1.
The only reliable thing out of tRumps mouth that you can count on is a LIE.
The thing that collapsed me was the statement (as reported, I will not watch a video of him) that "the Democrats are the radical ones on this position because they support abortion up to and even beyond the ninth month. The concept of having an abortion in the later months and even execution after birth, and that's exactly what it is."
He has no clue what the decision he is so proud of overturning actually said. It wasn't that. Or he's just lying. Take your choice.
Trump, the adjudicated rapist and fraud, says SCOTUS reversed Roe because of him. First time he ever told the truth. Now the fascist evangelicals want to consign women to the depths. They want to outlaw birth control. They support a rapist and fraud as leader of their fascist agenda.
Write the MSM to call them out for what they are.
It's nothing personal against you I'm just using your comment - but in reality what annihilated Roe v Wade was a line of cases that culminated in the practice of using ultrasound as evidence of a woman's pregnancy. That was the beginning of the end. People back then were saying that it would never be overturned. It's not simply a matter of voting nor of religion - those are hypocritical appeals to pity - it's an epistemology generally against Due Process, which has been going on for a long time.
I agree ! Substantive due process has been a thorn in the side of originalists. They are trying to eleiminate it on a case by case basis.
It was how the 1st wave movement - the Goldwater coalition members - incited the various circuits, so it was a 70s thing, which trickled down to the state level by the 1980s. But the 1st Wave at the state level were less radical. It doesn't work because of "The New Federalism". This guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Searle_Holdsworth and then Goodhart after him suggested that the USA could never have a case law system of jurisprudence. The precondition for that is having Judges that are far more Mastered in the law than those that appear before them. To be politely accommodating they said there are as many judges that fit that bill in the US as there are in England except that there are far more Judges in the US and inevitably they make bad law. The Goodhart piece was published c. 1930 I believe in the Cornell law review ? Anyway the suggestion was that the us will tend towards a Roman Law type of affair where Judges are allowed a great deal of freedom to interpret statutes - perhaps what Breyer is getting at? I have a copy of his book but haven't read it yet. But from my point of view it's not what Goodhart imagined. What happened instead is everything has devolved to the states and no one knows what they're doing and there's no adverse consequences. It will be interesting to see how the USSCt responds to that because inevitably in will also effect their interests.
I'm an older woman, so I've
been through the wars for
birth control, safe abortion if
necessary, especially where
rape and incest resulted in
pregnancy.
I had a friend in high school
who got pregnant in 10th
grade. She was beside
herself with fear, because it
was her uncle's child. There
was no abortion available. No
Planned Parenthood that
could counsel her and send
her to a medical practice if
she decided abortion was the
only answer.
At 3 mos pregnant, she took
a wire coat hanger and
aborted the baby. 3 weeks
later she was dead.
This is why women will never
go back. No back alleys and
hacks. No wire coat hangers.
We are not going back!
Trump wouldn't know a "legal standpoint" if it walked up and introduced itself to him.
Both he, the former GOP and Arizona are going to eat every word of their anti abortion handcuffs on women.
Thank you Chris.
Looking forward to your take on the AZ Supreme Court ruling.
With the pushback Trump has gotten from the religious fanatics, we'll see him totter back towards a national ban, and then when the media jumps on that, he'll totter back to his mumble about states, states, something to do with states. He doesn't care about abortion other than what it gets him. And he doesn't care about women dying because they don't have access to healthcare, because all he cares about is himself.
He is what he is. But now let's talk about the media and what an appallingly bad job it is doing this year covering Trump.
"Return the issue to the states." Where the legislatures are gerrymandered and voting is restricted. Plus, a national abortion ban is probably unconstitutional under 10th Amendment/Federalism. Republicans thought Obamacare was beyond the scope of Federal legslation and it was only saved by Roberts' tax theory.
I think the right are falling for it, all Kennedy has to do is say he supports a federal abortion ban and Trump will lose votes 😋
I agree. He's essentially repeating the Holier than Thou political bosh that was already way too old from when he was young. Most of the people that used that are long dead. The irony is that those to right of the SPM hyphen in the last 20 years or so has been totally opposed to the existence of the post office they treat it like it's a Satanic Communist Conspiracy against God who is naturally a capitalist businessman that dresses like they do, is clean shaven and has a short haircut. So I'm wondering how do they propose to prohibit Fed Ex or UPS from delivering the pill? Other various courier services all the way down to people on bicycles. All of the various movie channels ought to air "A Place in the Sun" - Liz Taylor and Montgomery Cliff which was released in 1951. Surely a Diabolical Liberal Communist Satanic conspiracy (word order contest for the best arrangement for our latest Talismanic Acronym) from Hollywood Hell.
There is a strong segment of his base that emotionally and spiritually are firmly against abortion. They don't want it just to be a federalism issue. They think it is evil. Maybe, they firmly realize Trump got them and will get them much closer to what they want than any realistic alternative. So, they won't hold what he says against him. It is necessary for him to win as noted. But it's a risk.