The New York Times reported that Donald Trump has been telling friends privately that he supports a national ban on abortion at 16 weeks, with exceptions for rape, incest or the life of the mother.
A 16-week national ban would eliminate the authority of some 30 states that do not have abortion bans, but it would cancel the highly restrictive laws of states like Florida that have enacted a six-week ban, that is, before women know they are pregnant, and Texas, where abortion has been outlawed.
Very clever! A 16-week ban would restore abortions wherever it has been prohibited.
A 16-week ban would not end many abortions: nearly 94 percent of abortions happen before 13 weeks in pregnancy, according to data collected by the Centers for Disease Control. Nor is such a ban grounded in medical research. Even 15 weeks falls before the point when significant screens take place in a pregnancy to examine the fetus for rare — but potentially fatal — conditions. Instead, it has become a position that some Republicans, based on polling, believe will be the most politically palatable to voters.
Trump makes clear that this is a political calculation. It would please many in red states who support abortion rights, and he could still say he was against abortion.
For most of his life, Trump has been pro-abortion but turned against it when he realized he needed the support of Catholics and Evangelicals.
He has boasted to his right flank that he delivered what he promised: a Supreme Court that overturned Roe v. Wade.
But he recognizes that voters are angry about the loss of abortion rights, and Republicans are losing elections because of abortion restrictions.
So now, at his transactional best, he proposes a 16-week ban that enables almost every abortion to proceed at the same rate as before the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe. He would openly revive abortion, bypassing the Supreme Court.
I have this visual image of Trump looking at his anti-abortion followers and cynically smirking, “Fooled you! Hahaha.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
A deeply dishonest man trying to have it both ways
He’s only picking up this issue because Nikki Haley has stated that Republicans need to have an honest and open discussion about reproductive rights for women. Trump doesn’t like to lose (we all know that) and he will do everything in his power to stay in the news cycle to win his “throne”. It really shows that trump sees Haley as a true threat. If he “wins” will trump keep his promise?…..probably not.
I think you nailed it, Lisa.
Trump loves to dominate the news cycle. He’s doing it now, with a half-billion $$$$$$$ judgment against him in New York.
Trump didn’t promise anything. The article never said he promised anything, it was just written to convince independent voters that Trump promised not to be rabidly anti-abortion, even though he didn’t.
Mexico is going to pay for the wall. The Russian war upon Ukraine will be ended in one day.
And when Trump is reelected, Leprechauns are going to settle the national debt with pots of gold.
Let us bear in mind as well that Trump has the blood on his nasty little hands of the women unprotected by Roe v. Wade who have died as a result of abortion bans enacted by the “Justices” he appointed.
Reportedly he likes 16 weeks because it’s a nice round number divisible by four.
Reportedly, he has Superglue instead of cerebrospinal fluid.
Lol
The idea that Trump is concerned with powers of two amuses me
Yes, Roy, yesterdays story said Trump picked 16 weeks because it’s a round number.
This decision by Trump is no surprise to anyone who follows national politics closely. Trump publicly stated that signing the six week abortion ban in Florida would severely hurt Ron DeSantis if he became the GOP nominee. A 16 week limit would put the U.S. in line with almost all European countries which are actually far more restrictive than many U.S. states regarding later term abortions.
The American news media has rarely informed their audiences about European abortion laws, leading most Americans to believe that Europe has always been far more permissive regarding abortion. I read a wide variety of news and opinion outlets, including a few respectable conservative outlets which have often discussed European abortion laws. Over the last 10+ years I rarely came across any discussion of European laws in non-conservative outlets. Some combination of genuinely not knowing the European abortion laws and journalists’ deliberate partisan slanting of their work product resulted in news consumers being poorly served by most of the media.
Before personal attacks are hurled at me, I am not stating here my own opinions about abortion. I am just noting legal realities that are easily found by a few minutes of Internet research.
Jack, fyi, this is what will happen when Trump wins, and has nothing to do with Europe:
NYT 2/17/2024
“Allies of former President Donald J. Trump and officials who served in his administration are planning ways to restrict abortion rights if he returns to power that would go far beyond proposals for a national ban or the laws enacted in conservative states across the country.
Behind the scenes, specific anti-abortion plans being proposed by Mr. Trump’s allies are sweeping and legally sophisticated. Some of their proposals would rely on enforcing the Comstock Act, a long-dormant law from 1873, to criminalize the shipping of any materials used in an abortion — including abortion pills, which account for the majority of abortions in America.”
Jack, please don’t tell me you believe ANYTHING Trump says!
lol! Trump plans to ban abortion in all cases, mother’s life is not important. Trump getting support from the Christian right to stay in power is all that matters.
Long ago we should have had a rational discussion on all issues of life. End of life, beginning of life, medical privacy, quality of life, individual vs community mores.
I have always faulted our system for failing to confront technological changes in law. We need discussion and compromise, but such is hard to come by and has been most of my life.
Jack, re: “almost all European countries are far more restrictive than many US states.” This is not a true picture.
For example, 16 US states have either total ban or 6-wk ban (virtually the same thing). In Europe: tiny Andorra has a total ban; 4 teeny-weeny ‘states’ (like Faroe Islands)– plus N Ireland and Poland– have very restrictive circumstances allowing abortion. [None have a 6-wk limit.]
Only 4 US states have a 12-15wk time limit for abortion on demand. Vs., the largest bunch of Euro states restrict abortion on demand to 12-15 wks. But of these 26 states, only half (13) have no exceptions. The other 13 [including most of your major Euro/ Nordic states] have many broad exceptions. E.g., all include threat to the physical or mental health of the mother, defined loosely [not ‘endangering mother’s life’]; all include rape but do not require legal proof; most include likelihood child will have lifelong serious health condition, or even simply malformation/ defect.
The comparisons that support your depiction: 5 US states limit abortion on demand to 18-22 wks, compared to in Europe only Iceland and Sweden. 19 US states limit abortion on demand to 24 wks/ viability vs in Europe only UK and Netherlands. 7 US states have no restrictions vs none in Europe.
My take: the difference between US & Europe is (a)very few Euro nations have onerous restrictions or outright bans, vs 1/3 of US states, and (b) most major Euro states have legislated more precisely than US, & express a preference, i.e., abortion on demand through roughly 1st half of 2nd trimester, with many well-defined & liberally implemented exceptions for up to end 2nd trimester, & beyond.
Thanks, Ginny, for your research.
According to NYTimes, 93% of abortions occur by 13th week.
Thank you, Ginny, for doing the hard work to set this straight! Much, much appreciated!
Trump said in 2016 that he wanted investments in infrastructure and a return of U.S. manufacturing too. We know how that turned out.
That entire news story was propaganda planted by the Trump campaign.
Whenever Trump wants some “news” he believes is beneficial to his campaign that will make him look less dangerous to the folks who read the NYT and identify as non-crazy conservative or Independent, he goes to his stenographer Maggie Haberman and she writes up a news story that presents this propaganda as fact.
Trump desperately needs independent voters. The type that read the NYT. The type that is concerned with abortion bans.
Nothing with Maggie Haberman’s byline that says “privately support” or “sources in the Trump campaign” is journalism. It’s simply Maggie Haberman purveying the propaganda Trump thinks will help him most with the voters he needs. Trump needs Maggie Haberman to write it up this way so he can tell his right wing supporters it’s just more NYT lies, while being pleased that independent readers of the NYT will think Trump isn’t crazy right wing.
I noticed that one of the other 2 authors of that article — Lisa Lerer — must have realized she got played to disseminate untrue pro-Trump propaganda in that article, because today there is a new article written by her:
“Allies of former President Donald J. Trump and officials who served in his administration are planning ways to restrict abortion rights if he returns to power that would go far beyond proposals for a national ban or the laws enacted in conservative states across the country.
Behind the scenes, specific anti-abortion plans being proposed by Mr. Trump’s allies are sweeping and legally sophisticated. Some of their proposals would rely on enforcing the Comstock Act, a long-dormant law from 1873, to criminalize the shipping of any materials used in an abortion — including abortion pills, which account for the majority of abortions in America.”
“Trump Allies Plan New Sweeping Abortion Restrictions:
His supporters are seeking to attack abortion rights and abortion access from a variety of angles should he regain the White House, including using a long-dormant law from 1873.” NYT Feb. 17, 2024
This new article, without Maggie Haberman’s byline, is what will happen if Trump wins.
THE BIBLE DOES NOT CONDEMN ABORTION
Out of more than 600 laws of Moses, which includes The Ten Commandments, NONE — not one — rejects abortion. In fact, the Mosaic law in Exodus 21:22-25 clearly shows that causing the abortion of a fetus is NOT MURDER. Exodus 21:22-25 says that if a woman has a miscarriage as the result of an altercation with a man, the man who caused the death of a fetus should only pay a fine that is to be determined by the woman’s husband; but if the woman dies, the man is to be executed: “If a man strives with a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet there is no harm to the woman, he shall be punished according to what the woman’s husband determines and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if the woman dies, then it shall be life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth.” Ex. 21:22-25. So, the Bible orders the death penalty for murder of a human being — the mother — but not for the death of a fetus because the fetus is not yet a human being.
There are Christian denominations that allow abortion in most instances; these denominations include the United Church of Christ and the Presbyterian Church USA. The United Methodist Church and Episcopal churches also allow abortion in cases of medical necessity. If abortion is anything more than a denominational belief and is absolutely forbidden by the Bible, how is it that all the millions of Christians in these Christian denominations allow abortion?
The opposition to abortion comes from Christians who believe that a full-fledged human being is created at the instant of conception. Note that is a religious BELIEF and religious beliefs cannot be recognized by our government because that is unconstitutional according to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of our Constitution. Moreover, the belief that a fetus is a human person, complete with a soul, is an interpretation of the Old Testament by only some Christian denominations — not by all. Plus, Jewish scholars whose ancestors actually wrote the Old Testament and who know best what the words of the Old Testament mean say that is a WRONG INTERPRETATION of their Old Testament writings.
Those Christians who oppose abortion largely base their view that a fetus is a complete human being and that abortion is murder on the Jewish Bible’s Psalm 139: “You knit me together in my mother’s womb…You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion as I was woven together in the dark of the womb. You saw me before I was born.”
But, who better to translate the true meaning of Psalm 139 than the Jews who wrote it? And Jewish scholars point out that Psalm 139 merely describes the development of a fetus and does not mean that the fetus has a soul and is a person. In fact, the Jewish Talmud explains that for the first 40 days of a woman’s pregnancy, the fetus is considered “mere fluid” and is just part of the mother’s body, like an appendix or liver. Only after the fetus’s head emerges from the womb at birth and takes a breath is the baby considered a “nefesh” — Hebrew for “soul” or “spirit” — a human person.
THE COURT BENDS THE FACTS: The University of London scientist whose research is cited by the Supreme Court in its ruling to take away abortion rights says that his research has been misinterpreted by the Supreme Court’s activist conservative majority: Neuroscientist Dr. Giandomenico Iannetti says that the Court is ABSOLUTELY WRONG to say that his research shows that a fetus can feel pain when it is less than 24 weeks of development. “My results by no means imply that,” Dr. Iannetti declares. “I feel that my research was used in a clever way to make a point.”
And Dr. John Wood, molecular neurobiologist at the University, points out that all serious scientists agree that a fetus can NOT feel pain until at least the 24th week “and perhaps not even then.” Dr. Vania Apkarian, head of the Center for Transitional Pain Research at Chicago’s Feinberg School of Medicine, says that the medical evidence on a fetus not feeling pain before 24 weeks or longer has not changed in 50 years and remains “irrefutable” today.
LIFE OF WOE: In its 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling upholding abortion rights, the Supreme Court set “viability” — the point at which a fetus can survive outside of the womb — as the dividing line after which some restrictions can be imposed on abortion rights. The anti-Roe ruling by the current activist conservative majority on the Court ignored the concept of viability, yet even with all of today’s medical miracles to keep a prematurely born or aborted fetus alive, of all the tens of thousands of cases, 90% OF FETUSES BORN BEFORE OR AT 22 WEEKS DO NOT SURVIVE, and data shows that the majority of those that manage to be kept alive will live the rest of their lives with a combination of BIRTH DEFECTS that include mental impairment, cerebral palsy, breathing problems, blindness, deafness, and other disorders that often require frequent hospitalizations during their lifetimes.
THE 9th AMENDMENT
There is no right to interracial marriage stated in the U. S. Constitution — but Clarence Thomas lives in an interracial marriage in spite of state laws that outlawed it but which were overturned.
THE 9th AMENDMENT SAYS THAT RIGHTS DO NOT HAVE TO BE STATED IN THE CONSTITUTION IN ORDER TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. There is no constitutional right to privacy mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but We the People have it because of the 9th Amendment. Here is the 9th Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Then, the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause protects all those unstated rights. The right to abortion does NOT have to be stated in the Constitution in order to be a constitutional right…and there are many, many more unstated rights.
Benjamin Franklin, key Founding Father of America, shaper and signer of our Constitution, published a handbook titled “The American Instructor” that featured a long, detailed section on do-it-yourself abortion and conception prevention. The book was very popular throughout America, especially in the many farming towns where unwanted pregnancies were an economic hardship on farming families.
Franklin’s book should be republished and complimentary copies given to each of the “originalists” on the Court who claim that America has always been opposed to abortion.
https://www.propublica.org/article/abortion-roe-wade-alito-scotus-hale
Terrific & comprehensive post, quikwrit!
I would only add that, until the late 1970’s, evangelists, as represented by Southern Baptist Conference, had no interest in pro-life/ anti-abortion issue. They considered it [disdainfully] as a “Catholic issue.” Evangelists were at that point not particularly involved in politics, most often didn’t even vote. 3 consecutive ’70s Southern Baptist Conventions supported Roe v Wade. It took Paul Weyrich, working with Jerry Falwell at the behest of RNC politicos to create the “Moral Majority”– a handshake between conservative Catholics and evangelists aimed at fortifying the move of Dixiecrats to the Republican party.
Take into account how often Traitor Trump broke his campaign promises.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/?ruling=true
Short answer: the traitor broke 53% of his campaign promises or 55 total
Biden only broke ONE.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/biden-promise-tracker/?ruling=true
Why would anyone trust Traitor Trump for anything, even if he said he had to pee?