Trump, who has so far avoided taking a stance on abortion, recently privately expressed support for a 16-week national abortion ban, with exceptions only for rape, incest, or to save the mother's life. With this position, he seems to be hoping to appease the conservative Republicans without alienating independent or more moderate voters, although the flippancy with which he treats such an important right -- as a political bargaining chip and nothing more -- is quite off-putting: “Know what I like about 16? ... It’s even. It’s four months," he said in a private conversation.
As appalling as it sounds to implement a nationwide restriction on abortion, it's important to know that a 16-week ban wouldn't actually have much of an affect on the state of abortions right now -- almost 94% of abortions take place before 13-weeks of pregnancy according to the CDC. Plus abortion is currently banned before or at 16 weeks in 20 states. However, as Trump's remarks implied, there's also no real medical reason for a 16-week ban (15-weeks has been called for by many anti-abortion activists), and many scans and tests for rare but potentially fatal conditions in fetuses take place after this mark.
Also, while many countries do not allow abortion after 16 weeks -- the US is currently one of about a dozen that do -- these laws have very broad and much more flexible exceptions for a variety of reasons, like mental health or economic challenges. The bans currently in place in the US, however, do not -- for example, a few months ago, the Texas Supreme Court overturned a court order allowing Kate Cox to obtain an abortion. Cox was pregnant with a baby with trisomy 18, a rare condition where there is no live birth in about 70% of pregnancies (not accounting for the potentially short life-spans of babies who are born alive). She was frequently in and out of the emergency room, and doctors had declared that carrying the baby to term would have serious consequences to her health and ability to have more children. This is just one example of the strictness of US abortion bans, the likes of which Trump seems to support.
Trump has held off on publicly expressing his opinion prior to gaining the nomination according to the Times, so the fact that he's consistently and pretty obviously has a large margin on Haley has probably encouraged him to be more open about these ideas. He has historically been pretty inconsistent about supporting or opposing abortion, previously criticizing DeSantis's six-week ban in Florida. His campaign spokesperson Karoline Leavitt has officially stated that he has not committed to a national abortion ban, and that he'd be willing to “sit down with both sides and negotiate a deal that everyone will be happy with.” (Which is pretty ironic given how little negotiating has been happening, the lack of which has been due, at least in part, to Trump's influence, in Congress).
Beyond the nomination, however, Trump will have difficulty with abortion policy on the national stage as well -- nearly two-thirds of Americans disproved of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade (which was largely made possible due to Trump's three appointed justices), according to a CNN poll, and most do not support a national ban. The Democrats and Biden's campaign have been taking advantage of this issue in their campaign, and it seems to have hurt Republicans in elections as well. Plus, it just doesn't seem right (to put it lightly) for someone to take such a dismissive view on an issue that affects millions of lives and use it for their own political gain.
This goes to show how the Supreme Court, as we've learned in this unit, can and does have an influence on politics, and that their decisions, while missing the actual power of implementation, can open the door for legislators to take action. Plus, the overturning of Roe v. Wade also exemplifies the concerns many have about the undemocratic nature of the nomination process for justices, as the fact that Trump alone was able to choose three justices seems to highlight.
Sources:
- https://apnews.com/article/abortion-federal-ban-trump-2024-election-61c3edcd3780ce94be3bd8d65f100f23
- https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/17/us/politics/trump-allies-abortion-restrictions.html?searchResultPosition=1
- https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-campaign-scrambles-abortion-ban-report-democrats-16-weeks-rcna139223
- https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/17/politics/biden-democrats-attack-trump-abortion-report/index.html
- https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/16/us/politics/trump-abortion-ban.html?searchResultPosition=4
- https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-privately-favors-16-week-national-abortion-ban-new-york-times-reports-2024-02-16/
- https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/16/trump-16-week-abortion-ban-00142007
- https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/17/upshot/trump-16-week-abortion-ban.html?searchResultPosition=3
- https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/22/upshot/abortion-us-roe-global.html
- https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/16/trump-16-week-abortion-ban-exceptions-report
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/16/democrats-trump-abortion-report/
- https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-16/trump-tells-allies-he-backs-16-week-abortion-ban
- https://www.forbes.com/sites/mollybohannon/2024/02/16/trump-prefers-nationwide-16-week-abortion-ban-in-private/?sh=34a2e212551f
- https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22122830/abortion.pdf
- https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2023/nov/10/state-abortion-laws-us
5 comments:
From the American citizen's perspective, of course it doesn't seem right, as you say, "for someone to take such a dismissive view on an issue that affects millions of lives"; however, from Trump's perspective, I dare say it's a rather strategic political move. Because abortion is such an emotionally charged topic, taking an outspoken stance on it (either pro or against, but likely against, to appeal to his conservative fans) would only polarize voters even more. People on the fence who aren't quite supporters but also aren't anti-Trump may be pushed one way or another. Some people may view this as being beneficial for Trump's campaign, because the voters would theoretically split 50-50 Democrat and Republican, but the way I see it, Trump WANTS to have as many people on the fence as possible. Lots of these people would only vote for Trump because they identify as Republican or don't like their other options, which is exactly what Trump wants. Taking a stance on abortion would quickly push these voters away.
Trump's flippancy aside, 16 weeks is a somewhat reasonable proposal and I honestly think conservatives would be more outraged by its leniency than liberals would disapprove of the restriction altogether (only 8 weeks away from the viability mark). As Rachel mentioned, the VAST majority of abortions take place after the 16-week mark.
That said, how would the rape exception be enforced? Would the abortion-seeker not be able to get an abortion if they did not request a rape kit done right after the assault?
All of that aside, I guess the discussion is kind of just a series of hypotheticals because a nationwide abortion ban pretty much has no chance of happening with partisan gridlock.
I don't think that abortion should be treated as a "political bargaining chip" since abortion involves the fetus and the mother's health and well-being, as everyone has different situations when it comes to their pregnancy journey as a whole. Moreover, in Texas, it is illegal to get an abortion. Still, abortions are allowed only if the mother has a "life-threatening" condition or is at "serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function while pregnant. In Cox's case, the doctors even told her that there might be serious consequences to her health or her ability to have children in the future if she carried the baby to full term, so why wasn't Kate Cox's court order to get an abortion overturned? Cox's case goes to show how vague and inconsistent abortion laws can be because what is considered "life-threatening" or "substantial impairment of a major bodily function"??
I agree with Vishal that passing restrictions on abortion with such a polarized Congress would be difficult. While I agree with Carissa that it is shocking and disturbing to hear politicians use the topic of abortion as a means to advance politically, I think that capture the nature of politics: every law that our elected officials write and implement have a real impact on millions of lives, and sometimes there are components of political masterminding around that that can be upsetting. I believe that impact is the reason why political participation is so necessary.
I also think it is part of Trump's scheme to become popular to say outrageous things. I'm personally tired of politicians using a shock factor to make news headlines, and I think his flippant statement about why 16 is just another way to entice people to talk about him in wake of the upcoming election. He could be using this to test the waters to see news reactions to him mentioning an abortion ban.
What I'm most curious about is the detail that Trump's view on abortion was disclosed privately. It makes sense that he would have an opinion on abortion personally, but I'm hesitant he will make it part of his public campaign, as it is such a controversial and alienating topic. I think this statement would only reveal his personal standing on abortion, not his goals for a nationwide ban.
Maya and Carole bring up pretty good points about how, although a bit depressing, politics does have a lot to do with building influence and using laws to one's ends. Although, it is interesting when we learned in class that most of the time, politicians do tend to vote according to one's ideology, and that when they don't, it's often in-line with the desires of their voter base. For Trump, appeasing voters seems like the case rather than personal beliefs since, if I recall correctly, he flipped from being pro-choice to his current anti-abortion stance prior to his first presidential election, although who knows if those were his actual beliefs either (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live-updates/general-election/real-time-fact-checking-and-analysis-of-the-final-2016-presidential-debate/fact-check-trumps-views-on-abortion-rights/; https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trumps-evolving-stance-abortion/story?id=38057176).
As Vishal points out, this really is just a personal statement since actual legislation is unlikely to pass, and Carole also could definitely be right about the publicity factor.
I do share Carissa's opinion that I wish the "political bargaining chip" situation wasn't the case, and am equally appalled about Cox's case (she did end up traveling out-of-state to obtain an abortion, in case anyone was wondering... but what about women in similar situations who don't have the means to do so?)
Post a Comment