Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, August 12, 2024

An unclear answer on mifepristone access left observers guessing as to whether he was open to restricting it or didn't know what was being asked.

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.

More from the article...

... Former President Donald Trump said Thursday that he believes abortion will be a "small issue" in the November elections now that the power to ban abortion is in the hands of state lawmakers, but added that he is open to federal restrictions on abortion that would "supplement" state policy.

A reporter asked Trump if, for example, he would use presidential power to restrict access to one of the drugs commonly used in medication abortion.

His answer left observers guessing as to whether Trump was open to restricting mifepristone, which is used in about two-thirds of abortions, or simply didn't understand what he was being asked.

Here's the relevant portion of the news conference:

Reporter: There are other things the federal government could do, not just a ban. Would you direct your FDA [Food and Drug Administration], for example, to revoke access to mifepristone? That's one of the things that's been discussed.

Trump: Sure, you can do things that will supplement. Absolutely. And those things are pretty open, and humane, but you have to be able to have a vote, and all I want to do is give everybody a vote, and the votes are taking place right now as we speak.

Reporter: Is that something you would consider?

Trump: There are many things on a humane basis that you can do -- outside of that, but you also have to give a vote, and the people are going to have to decide.


The answer was part of an impromptu and meandering news conference at Mar-a-Lago, Trump's residence in Florida. ...


#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-08-09 07:51 PM | Reply

"or didn't know what was being asked."

BINGO.

#2 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2024-08-09 08:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"all I want to do is give everybody a vote, and the votes are taking place right now as we speak."

A - Another Lie
B - WTF is he talking about?

#3 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2024-08-09 09:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Walz signed a bill to allow abortion up to the minute of live birth. No questions asked. Harris has pledged to replicate that law nationwide. Weird how the press never asks her about her unpopular extremist views on abortion.

#4 | Posted by visitor_ at 2024-08-12 05:12 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Can you name a single case where a woman got an abortion up to the minute of delivery that wasn't a medical imperative?

Iow mind your own business

#5 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-08-12 05:18 PM | Reply

Restricting access to abortion is a despicable act

#6 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-08-12 05:19 PM | Reply

Here's hoping the daughters of all the anti reproductive freedom suffer the consequences of their parents actions

#7 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-08-12 05:24 PM | Reply

There is no doubt that the next republican president will restrict abortion access nationwide

#8 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-08-12 05:25 PM | Reply

#5 When it becomes the law what will prevent that from happening? How could we know how often it happens where it's legal? Medical records are private and the kind of people that would abort a viable child aren't likely to advertise it.

#9 | Posted by visitor_ at 2024-08-12 05:28 PM | Reply

I wonder how many of his babies he's flushed.

#10 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2024-08-12 05:40 PM | Reply

#5 When it becomes the law what will prevent that from happening? How could we know how often it happens where it's legal? Medical records are private and the kind of people that would abort a viable child aren't likely to advertise it.

#9 | Posted by visitor

So, let's take your argument on it's face. Our government is passing laws that will negatively impact women based on no information? On the thought that it might happen?

But, then again, you are wrong.

All sorts of groups study why, when, who, where, how women get abortions.

All of these studies show that women get late term abortions for one of 2 reasons-fetal viability and health of the mother. Full Stop.

If you had ever met a pregnant woman or ---- a woman, you will know that they do not go through 9 months of pregnancy to decide, f' it lets abort this ----.

But you want the government in that room interfering with a woman making the most profound, impactful, life altering, often hazardous decision of their lives.

I say stay the ---- out, it is none of your business

#11 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-08-12 05:47 PM | Reply

If third term abortions of viable babies never occur it wouldn't harm anyone to ban them. A reasonable compromise would be to require medical reasons for late term abortions.

#13 | Posted by visitor_ at 2024-08-13 09:37 AM | Reply

Unclear? he has been very clear; it is up to the States to decide

#14 | Posted by Maverick at 2024-08-13 10:25 AM | Reply

he (Trump)has been very clear; it is up to the States to decide

#14 | POSTED BY MAVERICK

Yeah, well. Trump clearly lies about everything.

#15 | Posted by Zed at 2024-08-13 10:56 AM | Reply

The Fedgov has bigger fish to fry.

#12 | POSTED BY PRESSERS_ON

Fyi - Whales are mammals.

#16 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-08-13 11:11 AM | Reply

A reasonable compromise would be to require medical reasons for late term abortions.

#13 | Posted by visitor

This already happens. What the heck do you think doctors and patients are discussing? The weather?

#17 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2024-08-13 01:26 PM | Reply

he (Trump)has been very clear; it is up to the States to decide

#14 | POSTED BY MAVERICK

And whenever it is on the ballot the states always decide the same thing.

Mind your own damn business!

Politicians and religious busy bodies have no business being involved in a woman's reproductive health care decisions.

#18 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-08-13 01:34 PM | Reply

third term abortions of viable babies never occur it wouldn't harm anyone to ban them. A reasonable compromise would be to require medical reasons for late term abortions.

#13 | POSTED BY VISITOR_ A

That's what we had with roe v wade you stupid stupid ----

#19 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-08-13 01:59 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