Donald Trump’s plan for a 16-week, national abortion ban wasn’t supposed to be public. Democrats are ready to pounce
LATE LAST WEEK, the New York Times reported that Donald Trump privately told his allies he backs a 16-week national abortion ban with some exceptions. Inside the Trump campaign, the news was immediately met with deep annoyance, anger, and a scramble for damage control, two people familiar with the matter tell Rolling Stone.
Prior to the report, the former president and 2024 GOP frontrunner had repeatedly stressed to advisers that he wants to avoid announcing specific abortion policy positions, at least during this stage of the election cycle, sources close to him say. This is, of course, largely because he understands the dismantling of Roe v. Wade — which he engineered — has become a grave political liability for Republicans.
Members of Trump’s senior staff were maddened by the leak to the Times, venting to one another that whoever blabbed to the media about this wasn’t being helpful, the two sources recount. They weren’t the only ones upset by it: The report also served to inflame some of the anti-abortion movement’s most uncompromising figures, who lashed out at Trump for being insufficiently “pro-life.” Some Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill winced at the news too; they, like Trump, hoped to spend the first half of 2024 talking about abortion as little as possible, according to one GOP lawmaker who bemoaned the recent string of conservatives’ election losses that have largely been attributed to “the Dobbs effect.” Democrats, on the other hand, were thrilled.
The Times reported that Trump favors a national ban at 16 weeks in part because it is “a round number.”
You know…
I realize nothing should surprise me about this man anymore… but…
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!
I mean technically 16 is a round number, but it’s also a square which makes it sound less round and more pointy.
A real square peg in a round hole.
Somebody’s been watching in my my bedroom window at night.
This yours?
Mine’s much more worn than that. I’ve been using it a few months after all
16 is a round number
I don’t remember that episode of Number Blocks.
Right? 112 days is hardly round
the numbers were always arbitrary
A national abortion ban will bring people out protesting that have never protested before. Would probably also mean states ignoring federal law. Would lead to a lot of chaos honestly, never thought abortion ban could be the trigger for a civil war, but it might. Scary stuff.
I agree with national unrest and protests, but imo a civil war would be over before it began. America as a country hasn’t been pumping billions into the industrial war complex for no reason; anyone on the other side of the people who control the military are fucked.
anyone on the other side of the people who control the military are fucked.
That’s how it generally goes. But in a civil war, the loyalties of the military are often divided as well.
fair point tbh, but I’ve seen (from my personal experience) the military and it’s leaders are mostly conservative. idk much about civil wars and how they begin though; I’d assume we need people in strong political positions to lead a concerted opposition, no? otherwise it’s less civil war and more rebellion/revolution?
the military and it’s leaders are mostly conservative.
The very last poll that Star & Stripes published before Trump shuttered it (due to that poll) showed that 1/2 of the enlisted & most of the officers didn’t like Trump at all.
My experience is hardly exhaustive, but I’ve known a lot of military folks who hate Trump. I couldn’t say what their political leanings are (certainly not far left, you know?), but I think even among conservative soldiers and particularly among the leadership, you’d find people unwilling to go along with Trump.
That being said, I sure as fuck don’t want to find out.
Yeah, same. I don’t really want to find how such a scenario would play out, but we are very much approaching such a situation. It really sucks that there are external actors that are trying to stoke the flames of this, but it’s our own doing really. We didn’t deal with this shit back during the first Civil war, and now we’re dealing with the consequences. I don’t know that I’d stay in the country if a civil war erupted, but you bet your ass I’d be out there picketing for the first time in my life if a national abortion ban went into effect.
I feel like there will be “support” for a civil war until those people actually experience it. They imagine a bunch of other people will do the fighting and they get to sit back as only the “other side” will suffer. Once they start realizing the consequences, support will quickly wane.
Only people low in the intelligence department think a civil war won’t affect them at all.
Approx 1/3 of the populace is absolutely paste-eating stupid.
Yeah, I figured that out when we couldn’t wear a piece of fabric over our face during covid bcz mUy FrEedum…
I mean maybe, the military isn’t one big uniform blob of people. I know plenty of liberal folks who’ve been a part of the military, and plenty of conservative people. It wouldn’t be fun for anyone.
I really wish we would just live by the motto live and let live. Just fucking leave people alone, how hard is that? Apparently very…
I also think current service members are significantly more progressive than veterans. I got out shortly before dip shit took office in 2016 so I’m not sure how much has changed though.
The officer force is definitely more progressive and generally better informed. One of the worst parts of living next to a military base is the maga conservative bullshit from retirees, vets, and the enlisted workforce. I have a high confidence in our uniformed officers. That’s not to say they don’t have their own crazies but as a general rule I don’t see the officers toeing the line to support bringing up arms against their friends, family, and communities who are protesting their rights being stripped away. It would be a mess in so many unpredictable ways.
You’re vastly overestimating the US military’s ability to deal with an insurgency. Did we quickly “win” in Iraq? Did we quickly “win” in Afghanistan? There may be some quick quelling of fighting, but we’ve proven to be terrible at managing insurgencies.
And there’s the matter of just how many guns are present in the US. We have more guns than people. Over 400 million guns and growing. There are times where a lone gunman in Afghanistan was able to occupy an outpost for hours just by taking a few shots, moving position, taking a couple more shots, and then leaving.
Any civil war will be long, messy, and involve a LOT of different factions.
All according to the plan then? You guys going in civil war would be perfect for other interests…
“People will die of preventable illness but I like this number because it’s shaped round” motherfucker.
To be fair here, the article states that “some exceptions” apply in this “proposal” that is apparently not even written down as of yet, so your criticism is a little too early. There might be exceptions for illnesses or such.
Fuck Trump and his cronies to hell and back and then to hell again, but we can’t lower ourselves to the same shady tactics of baseless outrage and assumptions we see doing so much harm when the GOP employs them.
“Might be exceptions” was said about all the state laws that don’t have exceptions for rape, incest, or the health of the mother.
We know there won’t be exceptions based on the actions previously taken by Republicans.
They’ll make exceptions for a national ban, and design them in such a way that they’re mostly only available to rich people.
Even without exemptions the rich will just travel outside the US.
I don’t think I need to be fair to these folks who have neither a worry or a care of the consequences of their actions. However, it is already more than generous to mock someone who makes a healthcare decision en masse based upon the stated reasons. Mocking ridiculous statements is the minimum. And honestly, we already know how the exceptions are playing out in states with 6-week bans. How would you like to be on deaths door before reviving care because biology wasn’t your side? Or just allowed to die because you lack the resources to flee reprehensible policy? Yeah, I was already being overly generous. Thank you though.
If I or my wife ends up in an American inquisition because she had a miscarriage, we leave. Regardless of the outcome. Leave the States, leave the continent, run to Australia or somewhere far, far away from here.
To be fair?
None of the mainstream media are reporting this leak. That tells me it must be a really bad news for repubes.
Why?
Well obviously because States’ Rights.
he understands
Doubt
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Prior to the report, the former president and 2024 GOP frontrunner had repeatedly stressed to advisers that he wants to avoid announcing specific abortion policy positions, at least during this stage of the election cycle, sources close to him say.
In recent months, President Joe Biden‘s team has determined that campaigning on abortion rights, including by elevating highly personal experiences of specific women willing to tell their stories, has been particularly powerful and effective.
While Democrats and their allies were hastily working to draw attention to the Times report, operatives at the hardline anti-abortion political action group Students for Life — who supported Trump in 2016 — were fuming.
Though it is common for the notoriously mercurial Trump to endorse policies then later adjust or reverse himself, a source with direct knowledge of the situation confirms to Rolling Stone that this month, the ex-president privately expressed enthusiasm for a 16-week federal prohibition, claiming this is a position that most Americans share.
Trump and his team’s irritation at the leak isn’t that surprising, given how much he and his lieutenants have been working to thread a needle that at first glance seems nearly impossible for him — as the self-described “most pro-life president ever” and the man most responsible for destroying the federal right to an abortion.
At the same time, his quiet support for some form of national ban has been driven by his desire to keep influential pro-life figures firmly in his corner during a general election, even though they were largely powerless to pressure him to publicly commit to their wish lists in the GOP primary.
The original article contains 1,414 words, the summary contains 266 words. Saved 81%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Party Democrats love it when the right goes too far. That encapsulates a lot of our electoral woes at the moment.
