Graham breaks with Trump on national abortion ban

[mystery-ak]

 Graham breaks with Trump on national abortion ban
by Alexander Bolton - 04/08/24 10:54 AM ET

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) broke with former President Trump on Monday over Trump’s decision to back away from endorsing a national 15-week abortion ban, declaring that leaving the issue entirely to the states “runs contrary to an American consensus that would limit late-term abortions.”

“I respectfully disagree with President Trump’s statement that abortion is a states’ rights issue,” he said in a statement responding to Trump.

Trump on Monday reversed course on his plan to support a 15-week or 16-week national abortion ban amid pushback from top Republicans, who warned it would put the issue of abortion rights at the forefront of the 2024 campaign and hurt their chances of taking back the White House and the Senate majority.

Graham, however, argued that “the pro-life movement has always been about the wellbeing of the unborn child — not geography.”

“The science is clear — a child at fifteen weeks is well-developed and capable of feeling pain,” he said. “I will continue to advocate that there should be a national minimum standard limiting abortion at fifteen weeks because the child is capable of feeling pain, with exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.”

He reiterated his argument that 47 of 50 European countries have national limits on abortions between 12 and 15 weeks.

more
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4580756-graham-trump-abortion-ban/

[mystery-ak]

Trump fires back at Graham and abortion ‘hardliners’ over criticism

Former President Trump on Monday pushed back against Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and other conservatives who were critical of his statement on abortion earlier in the day, in which Trump declined to take a position on federal legislation limiting the procedure.

In a lengthy post on Truth Social, Trump wrote that Graham was “doing a great disservice to the Republican Party, and to our Country” and argued others who publicly favor stricter abortion laws were committing political malpractice.

“Terminating Roe v. Wade was, according to all Legal Scholars, a Great Event, but sometimes with Great Events come difficulties,” Trump wrote. “Many Good Republicans lost Elections because of this Issue, and people like Lindsey Graham, that are unrelenting, are handing Democrats their dream of the House, Senate, and perhaps even the Presidency.”

Trump pointed out that Democrats would never approve of any legislation Graham favors restricting abortion and have benefitted politically from the push among conservatives to restrict abortion access following the end of Roe v. Wade.

more
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4581510-trump-abortion-fires-back-graham-hardliners-criticism/

[Sighlass]

You get the feeling that Trump in hindsight wouldn't even appoint the same SCOTUS justices if he had a a redo. I do.

[Fishrrman]

Sighlass sighed:
"You get the feeling that Trump in hindsight wouldn't even appoint the same SCOTUS justices if he had a a redo."

I believe Mr. Trump is working up a "second list" of potential Supreme Court picks (as he did the first time around).

So... you'll soon find out about that.

[Right_in_Virginia]

[corbe]

   Are you not Entertained, Yet?

 

[Right_in_Virginia]

You get the feeling that Trump in hindsight wouldn't even appoint the same SCOTUS justices if he had a a redo. I do.

No @Sighlass

I get the feeling Trump understands the Dobbs decision removes abortion as a federal concern and returns the passage of legislation regulating it to the State governments.  Abortion is no longer a concern for federal elections ---- if we respect the SC, the nomenclature "pro-life candidate for POTUS" is finished.  The battle moves to elections for governors and statehouses.

Here's how Trump explained the change, primarily to Graham --- but, I think many would benefit from reading this message ----

[Sighlass]

I guess you and I will forever be 180 degrees off RiV... One of the few powers I concede to a federal government is the protection of innocent life of it's citizens. States should have the same mentality.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.... foremost being "Life".

I don't rationalize a government that doesn't support the most important gift given from God as one worth protecting at all costs. Replacing life with ambiguous "choice" without consent of both parties isn't very encouraging either. It is life, something any (and all) government should respect utmost. You worry  about the next win, I worry that something that gives the same outcome isn't winning, it is supporting the same as the enemy even if in lesser degrees.

Also a bill (passed by Congress and signed by the President) would make the Federal government in the right (yes even protecting the Life Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness God Given rights). Trump has just dumped on government actually acting in it's citizens best interest.

Ok, I understand you want Trump to play it safe, and not stir the water on the issue because he is already so hated he can't hold an pro-life opinion, well it cuts both ways. Spitting on pro-life only makes me like him less than I already did. If he wanted to deflect away from the question, he could say, he doesn't make the laws, Congress does and leave it at that.

[Sighlass]

Sighlass sighed:
"You get the feeling that Trump in hindsight wouldn't even appoint the same SCOTUS justices if he had a a redo."

I believe Mr. Trump is working up a "second list" of potential Supreme Court picks (as he did the first time around).

So... you'll soon find out about that.

What list did Trump make last time, he was bound to list that he promised to use. A list I am certain didn't contain any Roy Moores and Ted Cruzes. When not bound to a list we saw him appoint gun grabbers and homosexuals in California.

[Right_in_Virginia]

One of the few powers I concede to a federal government is the protection of innocent life of it's citizens. States should have the same mentality.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.... foremost being "Life".

You know you need not wait for the government, state or federal, to do your heavy lifting ----- do you not @Sighlass ?

[Smokin Joe]

I guess you and I will forever be 180 degrees off RiV... One of the few powers I concede to a federal government is the protection of innocent life of it's citizens. States should have the same mentality.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.... foremost being "Life".

I don't rationalize a government that doesn't support the most important gift given from God as one worth protecting at all costs. Replacing life with ambiguous "choice" without consent of both parties isn't very encouraging either. It is life, something any (and all) government should respect utmost. You worry  about the next win, I worry that something that gives the same outcome isn't winning, it is supporting the same as the enemy even if in lesser degrees.

Also a bill (passed by Congress and signed by the President) would make the Federal government in the right (yes even protecting the Life Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness God Given rights). Trump has just dumped on government actually acting in it's citizens best interest.

Ok, I understand you want Trump to play it safe, and not stir the water on the issue because he is already so hated he can't hold an pro-life opinion, well it cuts both ways. Spitting on pro-life only makes me like him less than I already did. If he wanted to deflect away from the question, he could say, he doesn't make the laws, Congress does and leave it at that.

All Trump aside, the issue (and I believe, rightfully) resides with the states. Unlike some one size fits all edict which often is the wrong thing, at least some States can protect the unborn through their legislatures. That the others do not is ultimately between them and Almighty God. Did he spit on pro life? Or did he instead call it like it is, with at least those states which are pro life able to reflect that in their laws instead of being bound by some baby killer rule like those the Democrats would want for a national law.

In my belief, all children are precious, those babies can grow up to be scientists, make real medical breakthroughs, add volumes to literature or vistas to art, it is up to us to guide them and nurture them and teach them Conservative values. While I find it sad that some of them will not be protected because of where they are being carried, ultimately, that is little different from what happens in other countries where life is cheap. Each of the Several States, prior to the War between the States, had the autonomy of separate nations with the small exceptions of the Federal Compact (the Constitution). Dodd is a step in the right direction toward restoring a Republic, as messy as that is.