Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, April 09, 2024

As Donald Trump continues to brag that he was "proudly the person responsible" for overturning Roe v Wade, voters, even in deep red states, continue to support abortion rights.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

March 20, 2024

NEW YORK (AP) " Donald Trump suggested Tuesday that he'd support a national ban on abortions around 15 weeks of pregnancy, voicing for the first time support for a specific limit on the procedure.

apnews.com

He flipped before he flopped.

Trumpy has made it clear that expediency is his mantra... whatever helps him win.

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2024-04-08 01:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Trump is having trouble finding a way to guarantee abortion rights while at the same time taking them all away. It is possible, just possible, that he may not be a god at all.

#2 | Posted by Zed at 2024-04-08 04:53 PM | Reply

It is a fact that if ------- is reelected his administration will attempt to enforce the Comstock Act, de facto (see jeff that is how you use that phrase) outlawing abortion across the nation.

That is not hyperbole, it is the policy being espoused by people who will be high up in his administration. ------- is just too ignorant to be aware of it.

#3 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-04-08 04:56 PM | Reply

IDK why Pelosi/Schumer/Biden didn't pass abortion and immigration laws.

One can only assume its a get out the votes ploy. Given this, the elite dems don't seem to care about it, don't see it as a problem.

But it sure gets TruthCrying upset, that is the point, to manipulate the hoi poloi.

#4 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-04-08 06:25 PM | Reply

"IDK why Pelosi/Schumer/Biden didn't pass abortion and immigration laws."

Why didn't Ryan/McConnell/Trump? One can only assume your assumption applies:

"One can only assume its a get out the votes ploy. Given this, the elite dems don't seem to care about it, don't see it as a problem."

#5 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-04-08 08:11 PM | Reply

IDK why Pelosi/Schumer/Biden didn't pass abortion and immigration laws.

Why would they? Roe was decided law. Ask any of Lewzer's SCOTUS nominees.

#6 | Posted by REDIAL at 2024-04-08 08:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

The ----- -------- gets stupider by the hour.

#7 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2024-04-08 09:01 PM | Reply

The plain meaning of Der Dotard's pronouncement: Don't blame me, it's the states who did this to you womenfolk. Oh, and don't listen to that guy who claimed credit for getting rid of Roe V. Wade. He had nothing to do with the mess we're in...

#8 | Posted by catdog at 2024-04-09 10:57 AM | Reply

"Why would they? Roe was decided law. Ask any of Lewzer's SCOTUS nominees."

Slavery was decided law. I guess maybe that explains why Dems ignored it so long until it impacted their pocketbooks and then fought in a civil war to keep slavery.

The saddest part is these comments prove beyond any doubt that so many liberals don't actually listen to what the other side says at all. In general, and most comment boards and online personality rhetoric proves it, cons have wanted it to be state law for a very long time. And when the SCOTUS reversed it, cons saw it as a huge win for state law. Now, I'm with liberals being irked that cons went way too far and didn't even compromise, but both sides do this often. But, cons went to the extreme and started wanting it banned everywhere and now the extreme right is fighting to make it federal...which is the dumbest response to the situation that one could come up with. That doesn't take away the fact that most cons want it to be left at a state level. To prove this, I went to Fox and opened an article about this, and the majority of the comments are about people agreeing with Trump and that it shouldn't be tackled at the federal level.

But, don't let doing doing your own research across multiple paths get in the way of making knee-jerk, partisan responses. In fact, I KNOW that DR members don't since not long ago and article came up about this and someone commented how using multiple sources isn't a good thing, and many agreed with that person. I'm still blown away by that, which says a lot coming from DR comments.

#9 | Posted by humtake at 2024-04-09 12:14 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Abortion: Let Individual States Decide Rights, Trump Says"

If it's okay for states to let you kill your baby, just leave it up to the woman.

Sheesh.

#10 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-04-09 12:26 PM | Reply

This is the worst position he could take.
On one hand he's ok with women being denied their fundamental right to healthcare if they happen to live in one of the s-hole states. On the other hand he's taking a weak moderate pro-choice position which will turn the religious right against him unless they happen to be huge hypocrites. Fortunately for Trump they are frequently huge hypocrites.

#11 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2024-04-09 12:42 PM | Reply

Trump punted.

#12 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2024-04-09 01:03 PM | Reply

I think Trump is calling it a states rights issue to attract moderate voters.

I also think Trump is lying. That's what Trump does.

If Trump is reelected and Republicans win enough control of Congress, Trump would sign a total ban on abortion in a heartbeat (no pun intended).

#13 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2024-04-09 01:22 PM | Reply

Why would they? Roe was decided law. Ask any of Lewzer's SCOTUS nominees."
Slavery was decided law. I guess maybe that explains why Dems ignored it so long until it impacted their pocketbooks and then fought in a civil war to keep slavery.
The saddest part is these comments prove beyond any doubt that so many liberals don't actually listen to what the other side says at all. In general, and most comment boards and online personality rhetoric proves it, cons have wanted it to be state law for a very long time. And when the SCOTUS reversed it, cons saw it as a huge win for state law. Now, I'm with liberals being irked that cons went way too far and didn't even compromise, but both sides do this often. But, cons went to the extreme and started wanting it banned everywhere and now the extreme right is fighting to make it federal...which is the dumbest response to the situation that one could come up with. That doesn't take away the fact that most cons want it to be left at a state level. To prove this, I went to Fox and opened an article about this, and the majority of the comments are about people agreeing with Trump and that it shouldn't be tackled at the federal level.
But, don't let doing doing your own research across multiple paths get in the way of making knee-jerk, partisan responses. In fact, I KNOW that DR members don't since not long ago and article came up about this and someone commented how using multiple sources isn't a good thing, and many agreed with that person. I'm still blown away by that, which says a lot coming from DR comments.

#9 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE

Offs debating a conservative is like trying to grab an octopus.

We do listen to what the other side says. that is why we are disgusted and afraid for the future. Religious whacko fundamentalist will strip away the rights of 50% of the population over their parochial concept of when life begins. They are infringing their religious beliefs on the rest of us. We listen quite well and reject their archaic and barbaric way of life.

We HAD a compromise, we had a situation that worked for decades, to the point women were achieving a form of equality because they had a choice in when they could start a family, if they wanted one. That INHERENT right, was stripped by a noxious, illogical, results based judicial decision that flew in the face of what 6 justices said UNDER OATH.

People are ------- dying because of the Dobbs decision and the number of abortions increased. Because all "sending it to the states" did was make it more burdensome to get an abortion. THAT IS WHAT IT ACHIEVED. That and making pregnancy more dangerous for many women.

That is an idiotic and unworkable solution to the matter, so, LOGICALLY, the only thing conservatives can and WILL do is ban abortion nationwide. THEY ARE ------- PLANNING ON IT. A nationwide ban will become law the next time a Republican gains the white house because they will begin enforcing the Comstock Act. That doesn't require congressional action.

#14 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-04-09 02:00 PM | Reply

Again, so it is clear to the stupid amongst us.

The number of abortions since Dobbs has taken effect has increased.

www.guttmacher.org

The danger to pregnant women has increased.

www.kff.org

Those are the 2 undeniable effects of the Dobbs decision-to make abortion more difficult and pregnancy more dangerous.

That is it.

That is an untenable situation.

#15 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-04-09 02:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And make no mistake, Republicans are attacking reproductive freedom across the board and will ONLY settle for a nationwide ban.

That is NOT hyperbole.

They are attacking mifepristone-already seeing challenges in court all the way to the SC.

The author of Texas SB-8 (the abortion bounty law) and attorney for ------- in the Colorado case, who will definitely have a high-ranking position in -------'s DoJ is PLANNING on using the Comstock Act to enforce a de facto nationwide abortion ban-no interstate transport of abortion drugs or the equipment for performing an abortion.

Fetal personhood is already being quoted and questioned in reproduction related court cases.

Fetal Personhood is coming giving the radical justices throughout the federal court system.

So, no, despite what the commenters on a Fox News website think or believe, a nationwide ban is coming in the next Republican administration.

#16 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-04-09 02:10 PM | Reply

#15 They don't give a ---- about "danger to women."

If they cared about women, they wouldn't have leaned on the guy who pioneered the legal doctrine that men cannot rape their wives to overturn Roe.
www.propublica.org

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-04-09 02:11 PM | Reply

#15 They don't give a ---- about "danger to women."
If they cared about women, they wouldn't have leaned on the guy who pioneered the legal doctrine that men cannot rape their wives to overturn Roe.
www.propublica.org

#17 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Women's rights today are based on the beliefs of that guy, but women aren't second class citizens.

#18 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-04-09 02:18 PM | Reply

So he supports Arizona's ludicrous ban?

#19 | Posted by northguy3 at 2024-04-09 03:06 PM | Reply

He has to vote in November for Florida's 6 week ban. People should ask him how he will be voting.

#20 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-04-09 03:07 PM | Reply

Hey humbug. The only reason Lincoln wrote the emancipation proclamation was to prevent European nations, especially Great Britain, from recognizing the Confederacy as legitimate.
He'd have been happy to win the war and preserve slavery.
Read his inauguration speech.

#21 | Posted by northguy3 at 2024-04-09 03:13 PM | Reply

For to many election cycles, democrats were not sufficiently focused on state elections. The overturning of Roe vs Wade has refocused their attention.

#22 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2024-04-09 03:13 PM | Reply

Saying "Let the States decide" when it comes to fundamental rights such as sovereignty over one's own body is like saying 'let's disband the Union and give the Confederacy another chance'. It is not only offensive and unconstitutional, it is also ridiculous. "Let the States decide whether or not to have slavery". "Let the States decide whether women can own property or vote". And so forth.

And do not lie to yourselves. That is what Trump is now publicly espousing through clear and unambiguous language.

#23 | Posted by moder8 at 2024-04-09 04:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The problem with letting the states decide:
How can anti abortionists genuinely support a regime where baby murder is sometimes 100% legal? They can't. They are lying.

If you're okay with baby murder in Minnesota, you're okay with baby murder in Mississippi.

There is no coherent reason to sometimes allow baby murder into the third trimester, sometimes prohibit baby murder at conception.

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-04-09 04:49 PM | Reply

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

I blame myself for Lindsey Graham, because the only reason he won in the Great State of South Carolina is because I Endorsed him!

truthsocial

www.independent.co.uk

Looks like mommy and daddy are fighting.

#25 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-04-09 05:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#23 #24
I've stated this information when SCOTUS rulesd against RvW.
These were known arguments when Pelosi and Schumer had Congress under control.

So why not do something about it then?

Because your outrage will bring you to the ballot box, but won't change a thing.

There's a reason Congress let SCOTUS decide.

#26 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-04-09 05:12 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Regardless of what Trump says, he appoints exclusively hard-right anti-abortion judges. When you "leave something to the states," assuming he would even do that, the matter doesn't end there. Any state law permitting abortion will be subsequently attacked by rightwing recreational litigators. And if Trump is elected, a greater number of the people deciding those lawsuits will be far-right partisan operatives looking for any reason to make abortion illegal.

#27 | Posted by JOE at 2024-04-09 05:21 PM | Reply

Why anyone would ever take anything ------- says at face value is beyond me, he is like jeffj, he lies non-stop. You should believe NOTHING he says.

#28 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-04-09 05:42 PM | Reply

Now that the republicans dogs have caught the car they are trying to blame democrats for the results.
They say things like why didn't Pelosi and Schumer change the law.

Simple answer, they tried and the GOP blocked the effort along party lines. Republicans wanted to deny women the right to their fundamental right to healthcare care family planning. We must make them own the consequences.
apnews.com

#29 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2024-04-09 06:43 PM | Reply

Cool! each state will just put in laws that R's will hate. You won the battle but lost the war.

#30 | Posted by Brennnn at 2024-04-10 01:33 PM | Reply

"How can anti abortionists genuinely support a regime where baby murder is sometimes 100% legal? They can't. They are lying."

They can if they believe in the constitution.

I'm not pro-abortion, but I certainly think it should be legal. People don't get abortions for the fun of it.

But unlike many things, abortion isn't protected in the constitution. If the intent is to make abortion legal nationwide permanently, the answer it to add another amendment to the constitution.

#31 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-04-10 02:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Saying "Let the States decide" when it comes to fundamental rights such as sovereignty over one's own body is like saying 'let's disband the Union and give the Confederacy another chance'."

During COVD, it was the states that were protecting sovereignty over one's own body.

...or was that totally different?

#32 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-04-10 02:54 PM | Reply

Totally different.

#33 | Posted by Zed at 2024-04-10 03:10 PM | Reply

During COVD, it was the states that were protecting sovereignty over one's own body.

...or was that totally different?

#32 | Posted by madbomber

Was it totally different from all the other vaccines that people are required to get to go to public school?

The "let states decide" argument is --------- because half of republicans admit their plan is to keep fighting til it's banned federally. The other half of republicans want these people to shut up and stop telling the truth about their plans so they can win enough elections to put that plan into action.

#34 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-04-10 03:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Abortions aren't contagious. I thought at first I would not have to spell it out, but changed my mind.

#35 | Posted by Zed at 2024-04-10 03:11 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"During COVD, it was the states that were protecting sovereignty over one's own body."

Nope.

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-04-10 03:37 PM | Reply

"They can if they believe in the constitution."

The Constitution allows murder to be legalized on a state by state basis, am I reading this correctly?

There is no Right To Life in the Constitution, am I reading this correctly?

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-04-10 03:43 PM | Reply

There is no Right To Life in the Constitution, am I reading this correctly?

#37 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Not exactly.

the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the states from depriving "any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

#38 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-04-10 03:53 PM | Reply

But unlike many things, abortion isn't protected in the constitution. If the intent is to make abortion legal nationwide permanently, the answer it to add another amendment to the constitution.

#31 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

What prevents a state government from requiring vaccines on every person?

What prevents a state government from requiring mandatory organ donation?

What prevents a state government from requiring mandatory participation in drug studies?

Now what is the difference with a state requiring a person carry a fetus to term?

#39 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-04-10 04:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#39 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-04-10 04:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

What prevents the loonie left from eliminating a persons right to own a firearm and defend themselves/family?

A constitutional amendment.

#40 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2024-04-10 09:47 PM | Reply

#39 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-04-10 04:22 PM | Reply | Flag:
What prevents the loonie left from eliminating a persons right to own a firearm and defend themselves/family?
A constitutional amendment.

#40 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRD

Your post is non-responsive to my post #39.

As an aside, the 2nd Amendment didn't do what you said it does for well over 200 years of our nation's existence.

But you know that.

#41 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-04-10 09:50 PM | Reply

The woman in the photo holding the Bans Off Our Bodies sign . . . I'm definitely leaving her alone.

#42 | Posted by Dbt2 at 2024-04-10 11:22 PM | Reply

"What prevents the loonie left from eliminating a persons right to own a firearm and defend themselves/family?"

Same thing that prevents us from eliminating a persons right to go on a shooting spree.

It's a double edged sword, except one side does a lot more work than the other.

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-04-11 09:30 AM | Reply

Now, I'm with liberals being irked that cons went way too far and didn't even compromise, but both sides do this often. But, cons went to the extreme and started wanting it banned everywhere and now the extreme right is fighting to make it federal.
#9 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE

I have some questions that people who take the compromise position typically avoid.

If you believe life begins at conception and that abortion is tantamount to murder then why should it be a states issue? Why is it that only the unborn whose mothers are located within a certain geographic boundary are entitled to protection under the law?

#44 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2024-04-11 11:49 AM | Reply

A constitutional amendment.

#40 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Supreme court just ruled that constitutional amendments can be ignored by allowing trump to remain on the ballot after attempting a coup.

#45 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2024-04-11 01:02 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2024 World Readable

Drudge Retort