Trump: I would change GOP platform on abortion CNN ^ | 04/21/16 | David Wright (Posted on Trump-Republic 4/21/2016, 1:32:44 PM by writer33)

The GOP platform as written and the CCC as written is correct. When making life saving medical decisions, both the woman and the baby are considered.

Here's JR's reaction

To: Jim Robinson

I will not Vote For The Liar Trump!!!

566 posted on 4/20/2016, 6:31:22 PM by tallyhoe

To: tallyhoe

Second opus accepted. bye.

573 posted on 04/20/2016 3:34:06 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!)

CNN once again misrepresents the platform on abortion. Not even the Catholic church uses language in the CCC to doom a woman to death.

If you look carefully above he said :"rape, incest and the life of the mother"

If you look carefully above he said :"rape, incest and the life of the mother"

Yes and no Pro-Life Christian will support a platform which includes the premeditated murder of a child conceived in rape and incest. Two wrongs never make it right.

I dropped my 2 cents on that thread as I can still post over at FR.

This is what he believes.

Now, a "No abortion, no exceptions" (the mother dies, the baby born of rape or incest is born, or the mother who breaks the law and aborts is punished) policy is pure, and is what I believe.

It also will not be the law of this land until 75% of the people are strict pro-lifers, enough to amend the Constitution.

The pure position cannot be enacted into law in a democracy. Trump knows that, and so do I.

I am a Catholic purist and willing to lose on the issue forever in order to take a pure position. Trump is neither Catholic nor a purist. He would argue that forbidding abortion even in the case of rape and incest is so offensive that no such law will ever be passed or upheld. He would say that there are very few abortions for rape and incest, most abortions are not those cases. He would say that a law outlawing abortion, but with a life/rape/incest exception, will save a million and a half babies a year, and COULD BE legislated.

And he would say that he's not willing to sacrifice all of those babies in order to be a purist, which would simply mean losing.

He would say that my position has the effect of killing a million babies that could be saved. so it's immoral.

I am not willing to concede that. That said, I do agree that he's right: something probably CAN be passed as long as there's a life/rape/incest exception in it. So if the pragmatic desire is to save babies now, his approach will do that better than mine.

I'm willing to accept his judgment on the matter, because I could see how a country that was weaned from the general case of abortion would have fewer supporters for maintaining the rape/incest exception, and also how there would be more resources to devote to those few cases, which might allow a benefits package to be put together to allow more of those babies to live.

So, what I see is that Trump is very practically pro-life, and as a not- very-religious guy is grasping the nettle and making a change to the Republican platform that is necessary if legislation is actually going to be proposed and passed.

Moot point. Nothing will change on abortion no matter Trump's position. Even IF the abortion issue went back to the states, each state would decide that aspect.

Trump has always said that he's a "common sense" conservative. So I would expect him to take a common sense approach to abortion.

That's what I see too:

No abortion except to save the life of the mother or in the case of rape or incest is a very strong position, but it avoids the three absolutist positions that make the pure position politically untenable.

Also, Trump will name at least one, and as many as four, justices to the Supreme Court. (Scalia's seat is open, and there are three more justices in their eighties.)

With four of his own appointees plus Thomas, he can make striking down Roe a litmus test for appointments, and get Roe stricken, on a couple of possible bases. One would return the issue to the states. The other would outlaw abortion as a matter of the civil rights of infants.

With four of his own appointees plus Thomas, he can make striking down Roe a litmus test for appointments, and get Roe stricken, on a couple of possible bases.

The question is why would he do this? He has shown by his responses he is not interested in the abortion issue. Why would he fall on his sword for an issue he does not really believe in.

I would gather he would focus his SCOTUS nominees on business friendly judges.

With four of his own appointees plus Thomas, he can make striking down Roe a litmus test for appointments, and get Roe stricken, on a couple of possible bases. One would return the issue to the states. The other would outlaw abortion as a matter of the civil rights of infants.

He could but there's no reason to believe that he would. Because we don't know what he believes.

The rape loop-hole is a really shady one. Its not like we haven't seen false rape charges smear innocent men.

The question is why would he do this? He has shown by his responses he is not interested in the abortion issue. Why would he fall on his sword for an issue he does not really believe in.

I would gather he would focus his SCOTUS nominees on business friendly judges.

That is false. He has shown by his responses repeatedly that he IS interested in the abortion issue. Very much so. He has brought up abortion in various contexts. And he has consistently said that he supports life, rape and incest exceptions.

He has made his controversial departures from Republican orthodoxy on the matter known for well over a year. I have known this all along because I have listened to the man. He has never hidden it. He has brought it up.

He has said point blank that he wants to appoint judges like Scalia. He said that long before Scalia died. There are websites that have pages of Trump's ACTUAL POSITIONS, and both of these things have been there to be known for a year.

If people don't know Trump's positions, it's because they have chosen not to look them up. Trump has a whole set of very clear and oft-repeated policy positions.

BECAUSE Trump cares about abortion, he insists upon life, rape and incest exceptions. He knows for sure that if THOSE exceptions are not granted, that any talk about opposing abortion is just piss and wind, because Americans will NEVER go from abortion on demand to "No abortion even in the case of teen rape-incest."

And he's right about that. This is a case of "perfect" being the enemy of the good. The "perfect" position GUARANTEES that abortion stays legal and on demand, because only a small minority will stand for it.

No abortion except for life, rape and incest addresses 95% of abortions. That's huge progress - and remember well: Republicans have moved the ball in the WRONG DIRECTION ever since they imposed Roe v. Wade and then Casey.

And Trump has aimed at the real power too: the Supreme Court.

He's not going to have to fall on his sword at all.

There are a lot more people queasy about abortion than there are hard-core Christians who will ban abortion in the case of rape-incest.

Trump has opted for a route that has the prospect of getting somewhere.

Rumsfeld said something back in 2001 that was on point. He said "You go to war with the Army that you've got."

Look at the army of political support we've got.

BECAUSE Trump cares about abortion, he insists upon life, rape and incest exceptions. He knows for sure that if THOSE exceptions are not granted, that any talk about opposing abortion is just piss and wind, because Americans will NEVER go from abortion on demand to "No abortion even in the case of teen rape-incest."

I see no indication from his comments or speeches he understands what you state above. I believe he has stumbled on his positions by first saying the woman and provider would be punished by law for any abortion, but now coming out and making exceptions of rape and incest. Does he realize no states before Roe had laws preventing a woman from life saving medical procedures while pregnant? I don't think he does.

Trump is approaching the major campaign issues like he approached state conventions and delegates.

He may be a viable candidate but his campaign and campaign team is an embarrassment.

I guess Trump decided he won the GOP nomination and is safe to say stuff like this.

It is safe, politically, to say stuff like this. Ted Cruz can orate about how safe it is to say "no exceptions." The majority of the American people are not there.

Here is what the GOP platform says. The proposed constitutional amendment extending the 14th Amendment to a fetus could have unintended results. Perhaps the definition of anchor babies could be enlarged to include fetal anchors.

A fetal right to life could be subjected to more than one definition.

At issue is how much power the American people desire to give to the Federal government to define and enforce a federal government definition of morality regarding the unborn.

https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/docs/2012GOPPlatform.pdf

2012 Republican Party Platform at 13-14:

[excerpt]

The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life

Faithful to the “self-evident” truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. We oppose the nonconsensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from people with disabilities, including newborns, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose active and passive euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Republican leadership has led the effort to prohibit the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion and permitted States to extend health care coverage to children before birth. We urge Congress to strengthen the Born Alive Infant Protection Act by enacting appropriate civil and criminal penalties on healthcare providers who fail to provide treatment and care to an infant who survives an abortion, including early induction delivery where the death of the infant is intended. We call for legislation to ban sex-selective abortions – gender discrimination in its most lethal form—and to protect from abortion unborn children who are capable of feeling pain; and we applaud U.S. House Republicans for leading the effort to protect the lives of pain-capable unborn children in the District of Columbia. We call for a ban on the use of body parts from aborted fetuses for research. We support and applaud adult stem cell research to develop lifesaving therapies, and we oppose the killing of embryos for their stem cells. We oppose federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

We also salute the many States that have passed laws for informed consent, mandatory waiting periods prior to an abortion, and health-protective clinic regulation. We seek to protect young girls from exploitation through a parental consent requirement; and we affirm our moral obligation to assist, rather than penalize, women challenged by an unplanned pregnancy. We salute those who provide them with counseling and adoption alternatives and empower them to choose life, and we take comfort in the tremendous increase in adoptions that has followed Republican legislative initiatives.