What Trump Gets Wrong About Abortion Limitation Law and the Problem It Creates for the Right

Burying the lede a bit here, but I want to set this up so you can fully grasp what a problem was created with Trump’s last interview.

In order for the pro-life movement to be victorious states need to be free to restrict or ban abortion-as-birth control. We are there right now — 24 stats have moved to ban, restrict, or are on the path to do so.

This point was only obtained post-Roe with Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health. The Dobbs case undid the Roe argument that a woman’s private decision to have an abortion was enshrined somewhere in the Constitution. The justification for pro-abortionists has shapeshifted throughout the years, settling on some “right to privacy” argument, faulty logic that even Ginsburg did not support.

That states have reassumed authority on abortion restrictions is a greater measure of victory towards protecting life than the 15 week bans proposed by empty-headed Republican politicians who are unaware that a 15 week national ban would override the six states that have already passed six week bans. Presuming you’d ever get a 15 week ban passed in Congress, does anyone actually think Democrats would compromise on a 15 week ban but still allow states to further restrict the practice? So these Republican lawmakers would actually walk back state victories from six weeks to 15 weeks? Because that’s what will happen.

My pro-life activist friends say that settling on 15 week restriction for abortion-as-birth control as a refuge from debate is a coward’s compromise on life. They are not wrong.

You either believe in life or you don’t.

I understand the argument from my pro-life lawyer friends, too. They argue that the 14th Amendment specifically states “All persons born or naturalized in the United States …” thus, before attempting any national effort, there is great need to modify the amendment with wording that recognizes that unborn life of an American citizen.

I don’t disagree with their claim on language, but how would amending the 14th Amendment with today’s Democrats turn out for conservatives? Two thirds of Congress? Ratification of three-fourths of state legislatures? Or does anyone actually trust today’s Democrats with a Constitutional Convention, the likes of which hasn’t been held since the founder’s called one in 1787? Where the convention could literally write its own rules and potentially be influenced by special interests? That people think this route is safer today or more easily managed than our current legislative process absolutely bewilders me. I do not possess the suspension of disbelief required to buy into that argument.

States are currently on track to do more in the name of life than any lawmaker could hope to deliver nationally.

Which brings us to 45’s “Meet the Press” interview.

Trump was asked whether or not he would sign a 15 week ban on abortion if Congress passed it. He was asked this so that Democrats could use abortion as another GOTV scare tactic like they did in 2022. Many Republican candidates are wary of answering this question because they know it’s a trap and they are hesitant to make themselves the poster child for more Democrat scare tactics — yet there are multiple ways to do so and Trump should have known and answered better. He did not. He went rhetorically searching for a deflection, landing upon “DeSanctus” and it came off as unprepared and weak.

Here are several ways to answer this, with one best way:

"You mean if lawmakers elected by the people deliver to me a bill restricting abortion-as-birth-control after 15 weeks -- the time period on which the majority of Americans, Democrats and Republicans, have found consensus after years of polling? Yes."

As discussed above, I don’t think this is the best path but it’s better than just outright blasting fetal heartbeat bills from various states.

“If lawmakers, elected but the people to represent their interests, deliver to me a bill that includes the freedom for states to determine their own restrictions or outright abolition, then yes.”

Again, as discussed above, this risks making the debate on limitations look like a petty numbers game and could pit momentum against pro-life abolitionists.

“No, because I support the right of states to go further with their restrictions, such as a six week ban, than Congress would ever allow.”

This is the best answer, but Trump can’t say it without inadvertently giving credit to DeSantis.

No governor from any state that passed limitations has said that their way is the pathway for a national approach. All have indicated that what works specifically in their state won’t necessarily translate nationally. Trump didn’t speak to that, though, he specifically called Florida’s heartbeat bill “terrible” so he could take a jab at DeSantis: “I think what he did is a terrible thing and a terrible mistake.”

This is Trump trying to play to independents during a primary. Way too early. Pro-choice voters will never back him, pro-life voters feel betrayed, but don’t think that independents aren’t disillusioned and won’t see that 45 switched it up to grab for voters. Further, some will question his political acumen in doing so. Weaponizing himself for the left to use against pro-life opponents?

This is the president who was in office when Roe was undone thus this is part of his legacy. Most politicians would rhetorically kill for the chance to define their legacy with something so historical, but Trump is sprinting away from it to run to the left of the Republican platform. He’s never been particularly pro-life, but he’s motivated by positive affirmation, so the accolades he got from the community he lip-serviced on pro-life issues made the arrangement work. Now? He said he would compromise with a deal that makes everybody happy. Verbatim: “I would sit down with both sides and I’d negotiate something, and we’ll end up with peace on that issue for the first time in 52 years. I’m not gonna say if I would or I wouldn’t … Let me just tell you what I’d do. I’m going to come together with all groups, and we’re going to have something that’s acceptable.”

That’s not how abortion politics work. Is he banking on support of his candidacy outweighing support for what many view as a wedge issue? Or life issues not being a driver in primary politics?

---