US Trump says abortion should be decided by the states, 'will of the people' - Trump vows support for IVF, abortion laws should be decided by the people and the states

Link
Archive

Former President Trump announced on Monday his position on whether abortion should be banned, following months of not taking a stance on the combustible and crucial issue in his 2024 rematch with President Biden.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee took to his social media platform on Sunday night to say that he would issue a statement on "abortion and abortion rights." In video posted hours later on early Monday morning, Trump explicitly affirmed his support for in vitro fertilization (IVF) and he emphasized his support for states determining their own laws for abortion so long as there are exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.

"The states will determine by vote, or legislation, or perhaps both, and whatever they decide must be the law of the land – in this case, the law of the state," Trump said. Many states will be different. Many states will have a different number of weeks…at the end of the day it is all about the will of the people."


The former president told reporters last week at a campaign stop in Michigan that he would make a statement in the coming week, after he was asked about his home state of Florida's controversial six-week abortion ban, which will soon be going into effect.

WHERE AMERICANS STAND ON ABORTION IN OUR LATEST FOX NEWS POLL

Former President Donald Trump at a campaign event in Grand Rapids, Michigan, on April 2, 2024, teased he would make an abortion announcement in the coming days. (Fox News - Paul Steinhauser)
Trump in his video reiterated that he was proud of the role he played in overturning Roe v. Wade, saying legal scholars on "both sides" had been in favor of the move.

"The Republican Party should always be on the side of the miracle of life and the side of mothers, fathers and their beautiful babies. IVF is an important part of that," Trump said.

A leading anti-abortion group wasn't pleased with Trump's announcement.

Majorie Dannenfelser, President of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life, said she was "deeply disappointed" by Trump's announcement on Monday, arguing his statement was a victory for Democrats.

"Saying the issue is ‘back to the states’ cedes the national debate to Democrats who are working relentlessly to enact legislation mandating abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy," Dannenfelser emphasized. "If successful, they will wipe out states' rights."


Also taking aim at Trump was his two-time running mate, former Vice President Mike Pence.

Pence, who ran unsuccessfully for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination, charged that "Trump’s retreat on the Right to Life is a slap in the face to the millions of pro-life Americans who voted for him in 2016 and 2020."

Former Vice President Mike Pence speaks to guests at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition Spring Kick-Off on April 22, 2023 in Clive, Iowa. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)
The blockbuster move nearly two years ago by the Supreme Court’s conservative majority to overturn the landmark nearly half-century-old Roe v. Wade ruling, which had allowed for legalized abortions nationwide, moved the divisive issue back to the states.

A KEY STATE ISSUES A MAJOR RULING ON ABORTION

And it's forced Republicans to play plenty of defense in elections across the country, as a party that's nearly entirely "pro-life" has had to deal with an electorate where a majority of Americans support at least some form of abortion access.

In the wake of the Supreme Court move, Republican-dominated states have implemented a new wave of restrictions on abortion, including Florida's six-week ban.

As Democrats target Trump and other Republicans over the divisive issue, the former president has tried to thread the needle on abortion.


As he did on Monday, Trump regularly takes credit on the campaign trail for appointing the Supreme Court associate who overturned Roe v. Wade and touts that he's the "most pro-life president in American history."

But he has also repeatedly criticized fellow Republicans for taking a hard-line stance on the issue, blaming candidates who did not allow for exceptions in cases of rape, incest and when the life of the pregnant person is at risk, for the GOP's setbacks in the 2022 midterm elections.

"A lot of politicians who are pro-life do not know how to discuss this topic and they lose their election. We had a lot of election losses because of this, because they didn’t know to discuss it. They had no idea," he said last year at a leadership summit of the Concerned Women of America.

Until his announcement, Trump had for over a year declined to spell out when in a pregnancy he would push to ban abortions.

Trump recently suggested in a WABC radio interview that he was considering a 15-wee ban, saying "the number of weeks now, people are agreeing on 15. And I’m thinking in terms of that."

"It’ll come out to something that’s very reasonable. But people are really, even hard-liners are agreeing, seems to be, 15 weeks seems to be a number that people are agreeing at," he emphasized.

But he also said multiple times that rather than implementing a federal ban, the issue should stay in the states.


"Everybody agrees — you’ve heard this for years — all the legal scholars on both sides agree: It’s a state issue. It shouldn’t be a federal issue, it’s a state issue," Trump said.

And Trump has also said that if elected he would "come together with all groups" to negotiate something that would "make both sides happy."

But anything less than a total ban would likely anger anti-abortion hardliners in his own party. And any type of ban would also infuriate many in the abortion rights movement.

Polling has consistently shown that most Americans believe abortion should be legal through the initial stages of pregnancy.

And a recent Fox News poll indicated that nearly two-thirds of voters support a nationwide law guaranteeing access to legal abortion. According to the survey, most Democrats (89%) and two-thirds (65%) of independents favor a national law, while just over half of Republicans are against it (53%).

That same poll found that in just the past year, support for a 15-week ban dropped by 12 points, with 54 percent of voters now opposed.

President Joe Biden speaks at the Washoe Democratic Party Office in Reno, Nev., Tuesday March 19, 2024. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin) (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

President Biden, in a statement, argued that "Donald Trump made it clear once again today that he is – more than anyone in America – the person responsible for ending Roe v. Wade.

And the president reiterated his ballot box warning that "Trump and all those responsible for overturning Roe don't have a clue about the power of women in America. But they are about to find out."
 
Not that I'm expecting you to have a coherent justification for mass feticide, as even the best pro-abortion arguments are thoroughly remedial. Abortion doesn't stop parenthood, you're just the parent of dead children.

View attachment 5889273
Imagine if all the babies were real instead of ghosts. Now that's a horror story.
 
Why are people wanting to ban IVF all of a sudden. I cannot see that as being very popular at all. I live in an absolute blood red state full of evangelical Christians and I've never seen a single person opposing it. Then all of a sudden, starting a few months ago, I see anti abortion people wanting to get rid of IVF.

I think it's a bad idea. All of our replacement population is coming from mostly illegal immigrants. Sperm counts are down in the western world and infertility rates are up. Birth rates have plummeted. Let normal white Americans have their IVF kids. Republicans cry and bitch all the time about the browning of America but do everything they can to make it impossible for whites to have families.
 
Why are people wanting to ban IVF all of a sudden. I cannot see that as being very popular at all. I live in an absolute blood red state full of evangelical Christians and I've never seen a single person opposing it. Then all of a sudden, starting a few months ago, I see anti abortion people wanting to get rid of IVF.

I think it's a bad idea. All of our replacement population is coming from mostly illegal immigrants. Sperm counts are down in the western world and infertility rates are up. Birth rates have plummeted. Let normal white Americans have their IVF kids. Republicans cry and bitch all the time about the browning of America but do everything they can to make it impossible for whites to have families.
A new wedge issue is required so that both the mainstream parties can continue the game of token opposition.
 
A new wedge issue is required so that both the mainstream parties can continue the game of token opposition.
This. Neither party establishment actually wanted the Abortion Question resolved because it's an easy way to rally the base. The broader American political realignment is not something the establishment wants, because they may lose their jobs and, more importantly, their grifts.
 
Why are people wanting to ban IVF all of a sudden. I cannot see that as being very popular at all. I live in an absolute blood red state full of evangelical Christians and I've never seen a single person opposing it. Then all of a sudden, starting a few months ago, I see anti abortion people wanting to get rid of IVF.

I think it's a bad idea. All of our replacement population is coming from mostly illegal immigrants. Sperm counts are down in the western world and infertility rates are up. Birth rates have plummeted. Let normal white Americans have their IVF kids. Republicans cry and bitch all the time about the browning of America but do everything they can to make it impossible for whites to have families.
The way IVF is done requires fertilised eggs and embryos being stored at least for a while outside the recipient. (Hence, 'test tube baby'.)

The usual techniques also require destruction of both fertilised eggs, and unwanted embryos. There are also embryos which are frozen for storage, and later destroyed.

Some clinics still practice selective reduction after implantation, where they will abort one or more embryos which have implanted in the woman, to reduce a multiple pregnancy to a singleton. The risks of miscarriage, stillbirth and serious or potentially life threatening complications of pregnancy are all lower in singleton pregnancies than multiples. Also, couples often do not want multiples for financial or other reasons.

Which makes drafting legislation around fetal personhood and 'life beginning at conception' more difficult. It is doable - you could carve out a complete decriminalisation of any embryo destruction done in the course of fertility treatment at a suitably-licensed treatment centre - but things like destruction of frozen embryos and selective reduction often do not sit well with prolife campaigners. It is difficult to both hold an ethical position that life begins at conception, and make a significant ethical distinction between the destruction of two embryos depending on where they were at the time.

That can be done, but difficult arguments arise, and there is not unanimity in the prolife movement on those arguments.
 
That can be done, but difficult arguments arise, and there is not unanimity in the prolife movement on those arguments.
I think the prolife movement isn't being reasonable on this one. It's one thing it they were against some woman aborting a perfectly healthy baby but being against fertility treatments is just being stubborn and extremist. Human births are down even in places like the Middle East. All of the chemicals, micro plastics and toxins in our food and water supply are no doubt affecting everyone. I'd rather have some embryos die than prevent these IVF babies from being born.
 
Why are people wanting to ban IVF all of a sudden. I cannot see that as being very popular at all. I live in an absolute blood red state full of evangelical Christians and I've never seen a single person opposing it. Then all of a sudden, starting a few months ago, I see anti abortion people wanting to get rid of IVF.

I think it's a bad idea. All of our replacement population is coming from mostly illegal immigrants. Sperm counts are down in the western world and infertility rates are up. Birth rates have plummeted. Let normal white Americans have their IVF kids. Republicans cry and bitch all the time about the browning of America but do everything they can to make it impossible for whites to have families.
I don't know if anyone really does, at least I've never met someone against it. Any time I hear of people upset about IVF it's always some article condemning people who are against it.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Pissmaster
I want something like a credit score for coochie where I can look up how haunted that womb is.
1712618783458.png
It's always good to know how many miles of dick she got on her hoedometer
 
I think the prolife movement isn't being reasonable on this one. It's one thing it they were against some woman aborting a perfectly healthy baby but being against fertility treatments is just being stubborn and extremist. Human births are down even in places like the Middle East. All of the chemicals, micro plastics and toxins in our food and water supply are no doubt affecting everyone. I'd rather have some embryos die than prevent these IVF babies from being born.
Why is it ok for IVF to kill thousands of embryos daily, but it's not ok for a woman or girl to yeet an embryo from her body?
 
Why is it ok for IVF to kill thousands of embryos daily, but it's not ok for a woman or girl to yeet an embryo from her body?
Depends on the reason to yeet the embryo. I don't give a shit about bullshit religious reasons, I care about demographic ones. If it's some deformed retarded incest rape baby I really don't care if they abort it. But a healthy child (that is actually a westerner) is something that we need more of. If we don't, then we """have to""" (according to the geniuses that rule our countries) import infinite levels of third worlders and if you claim to care about women's quality of life, well you can see what happens in many of those countries to women. So it's actually in western women's best interest to have a kid or two because only by continuing our culture do we really have rights. Sorry but I'd rather not be surrounded by people who think I should have acid thrown on my face for not wearing a burka. If that means that some embryos are destroyed in a fertility clinic, or some woman has a kid at a less than ideal time , then so be it.
 
Depends on the reason to yeet the embryo. I don't give a shit about bullshit religious reasons, I care about demographic ones. If it's some deformed retarded incest rape baby I really don't care if they abort it. But a healthy child (that is actually a westerner) is something that we need more of. If we don't, then we """have to""" (according to the geniuses that rule our countries) import infinite levels of third worlders and if you claim to care about women's quality of life, well you can see what happens in many of those countries to women. So it's actually in western women's best interest to have a kid or two because only by continuing our culture do we really have rights. Sorry but I'd rather not be surrounded by people who think I should have acid thrown on my face for not wearing a burka. If that means that some embryos are destroyed in a fertility clinic, or some woman has a kid at a less than ideal time , then so be it.
Ah ok, you think women exist to be broodsows for retarded /pol/ race autism reasons.

You realize well off white women are who are most able to work around abortion bans, right?

Personally I'd rather not be surrounded by people who think I shouldn't have control of my own body.
 
Ah ok, you think women exist to be broodsows for retarded /pol/ race autism reasons.

You realize well off white women are who are most able to work around abortion bans, right?

Personally I'd rather not be surrounded by people who think I shouldn't have control of my own body.
Those well off white women will usually have IVF eventually.

Achmed and Muhammad don't think you should have control of your body, so good luck.
 
There really ought to be a federal ruling on what counts as a person. If it were up to the states to decide, we'd still have slavery. Or, rather, we'd have it outside of prison as well.
 
Oooooooooh a thread about abortion! And with AR too! And blumpf! And red states/dems what-the fuck-ever lmao.
You know, I generally tend to think that abortions is a reasonable path towards diminishing witchy tendences in rebellious women.
However...
Pregnancy is making their bodies uglier and uglier the more they do it, so that's quite a big no-no.
We really need other ways to fight witchcraft IMO.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Coldgrip
So destroying embryos is ok as long as they aren't in the body of a woman or girl that doesn't want them there?

Interesting how that works.
The way IVF is done requires fertilised eggs and embryos being stored at least for a while outside the recipient. (Hence, 'test tube baby'.)

The usual techniques also require destruction of both fertilised eggs, and unwanted embryos. There are also embryos which are frozen for storage, and later destroyed.
The quality of comments/arguments between libtards and regular users is astonishing
No wonder she got that pink triangle
 
I've literally never heard of IVF until Trump and this article brought it up. It sounds like they incubate the sperm into a makeshift womb for a baby to be "born" through machine. Or it's a way to store sperm for future use. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Back