Everyone knows that Donald Trump can’t be trusted on abortion policy (or many other things). But his particular lies on abortion are worth noting, as I explained at New York.
There is no exercise more exhausting and probably futile than examining a Donald Trump speech or social-media post for lies, half-truths, and incoherent self-contradictions. But it’s important on occasion to highlight some very big whoppers he tells that are central to his political strategy. It’s well known that Trump’s own position on abortion policy has wandered all over the map, and it’s plausible to suggest his approach is entirely transactional. Now that he’s staked out a “states’ rights” position on abortion that is designed to take a losing issue off the table in the 2024 presidential election, he’s telling two very specific lies to justify his latest flip-flop.
The first is his now-routine claim that “both sides” and even “legal scholars on both sides” of the abortion debate “agreed” that Roe v. Wade needed to be reversed, leaving abortion policy up to the states:
This claim was the centerpiece of Trump’s April 9 statement setting out his position on abortion for the 2024 general election, as CNN noted:
“In a video statement on abortion policy he posted on social media Monday, Trump said: ‘I was proudly the person responsible for the ending of something that all legal scholars, both sides, wanted and, in fact, demanded be ended: Roe v. Wade. They wanted it ended.’ Later in his statement, Trump said that since ‘we have abortion where everybody wanted it from a legal standpoint,’ states are free to determine their own abortion laws.”
This is clearly and demonstrably false. The three “legal experts” on the Supreme Court who passionately dissented from the decision to reverse Roe are just the tip of the iceberg of anguish over the defiance of precedent and ideological reasoning underlying Justice Samuel Alito in the majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The Society of American Law Teachers immediately and definitively issued a “condemnation” of the Dobbs decision. When the case was being argued before the Supreme Court, the American Bar Association filed an amicus brief arguing the constitutional doctrine of stare decisis required that Roe be left in place. None of these views were novel. Back in 1989 when an earlier threat to abortion rights had emerged, 885 law professors signed onto a brief defending Roe.
Sure, there was a tiny minority of “pro-choice, anti-Roe” liberals over the years who claimed resentment of the power of the unelected judges who decided Roe would eventually threaten abortion rights (not as much, it turns out, as the unelected judges that decided Dobbs). And yes, there have always been progressive critics (notably Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg) of the particular reasoning in the original Roe decision, but by no means have any of them (particularly Ginsburg) favored abandoning the federal constitutional right to abortion even if they supported a different constitutional basis for that right. So Trump’s claim is grossly nonfactual and is indeed not one that any self-respecting conservative fan of Dobbs would ever make.
The second big lie that Trump has formulated to defend his latest states’-rights position is that he’s just supporting the age-old Republican stance on the subject, as he has just asserted at Truth Social:
“Sending this Issue back to the States was the Policy of the Republican Party and Conservatives for over 50 years, due to States’ Rights and 10th Amendment, and only happened because of the Justices I proudly Nominated and got Confirmed.”
Yes, of course a growing majority of Republicans have favored reversal of Roe as a way station to a nationwide ban on abortion, but not as an end in itself. The GOP first came out for a federal constitutional amendment to ban abortion from sea to shining sea in its 1980 party platform, and every single Republican presidential nominee since then has backed the idea. There have been disagreements as to whether such a constitutional amendment should include exceptions for pregnancies caused by rape or incest. But the last GOP presidential nominee to share Trump’s position that the states should be the final arbiter of abortion policy was Gerald R. Ford in 1976, as the New York Times reported at the time:
“[Ford] said that as President he must enforce the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that forbids states to ban abortions. But he has come out in favor of a constitutional amendment that would overturn that ruling and return to the states the option of drawing up their own abortion laws.”
Ronald Reagan, who challenged Ford’s nomination in 1976 and was already a proponent of a “pro-life” constitutional amendment, and the GOP formally adopted that position in 1980; four years later, it adopted its long-standing proposal that by constitutional amendment or by a judicial ruling the protection of fetal life under the 14th Amendment should be recognized and imposed on the country regardless of what states wanted. Anti-abortion leader Marjorie Dannenfelser noted this well-known history in a not-so-subtle rebuke to Trump’s revisionist history, as NBC News reported:
“’Since 1984, the GOP platform has affirmed that 14th Amendment protections apply to unborn babies and endorsed congressional action to clarify this fact through legislation,’ Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said in a statement to NBC News. ‘Republicans led the charge to outlaw barbaric partial-birth abortions federally, and both chambers have voted multiple times to limit painful late-term abortion. The Senate voted on this most recently in 2020. In January 2023, House Republicans also voted to protect infants born alive during an abortion.’”
It’s pretty clear that anti-abortion activists know Trump is lying about both Roe v. Wade and the GOP tradition and will support him anyway. But the rest of us should take due notice that the once and perhaps future president’s word on this subject, including his current pledge to leave abortion policy to the states, cannot be trusted for even a moment. Absent the abolition of the Senate filibuster (which, lest we forget, Trump backed as president out of impatience with the Senate’s refusal to bend the knee to his every demand), there isn’t going to be a complete federal ban on abortion in the foreseeable future. But Trump can be counted on to use the powers of the presidency to make life miserable for women needing abortion services, among the many “enemies of the people” he wants to punish.
When republicans lie and misrepresent us, all we can do is speak to each lie – that puts us on the defensive and talking about specific issues that do not carry the weight that “country first” and patriotism does.
I think we should attempt to redefine patriotism – it’s not just about fighting and dying for your country – it could mean making your country a better place for future americans. The man or woman who works two jobs to give their children more opportunities than they had is equally as heroic and patriotic as a kid who goes to war to fight for what he/she thinks their country believes in.
I think Obama should give a speech that addresses the footprint or the legacy of our country – A speech that harkens to America’s past as a benevolent world leader – an indicate that we could be that again – It’s not that we care about what the French think of us – we should care about what future generations of americans think about us – we want our children to know that we saw policies that were wrong and we stopped doing them.
So I’m thinking you play the Iraq card – most of the country believes that Iraq was a mistake – the architects of it can not own up to it – but that doesn’t mean we as a people can’t own up to it – Barack should spell out the mistake – point to that “mission accomplished” moment and say that it was the one thing Bush got right. We had indeed overthrown the evil Saddam – and we should have left – The republicans who continue to believe that the war in Iraq can still be won have somehow forgotten that their leader had already declared it over and won five years ago – They’ve kept calling an occupation a war because it’s good for business – That should be our theme – Everything the republicans do is “good for business.”
“…they passed this bill and gave out that contract because it was… good for business.” Repeat and rinse several times and then finish with… “in fact for the last 8 years they’ve been giving us… THE BUSINESS!
Point out that people were the ones that benefitted the least – and then jam “People first” down their republican throats.
People are no more perfectly rational in their political decisions than they are in their economic ones. Issues, character, narrative and emotion all play a role, in infinite combination of importance, making it all but impossible to know what truly motivates an individual voter in any given election. Last week, issues took a back seat to biography and curiosity. I agree with Ed that issues are still a key variable in voter decision-making this year. But issues are being strongly challenged by character and narrative. McCain’s greatest strength is his biography; Obama’s advantage is issues. Going after McCain and Palin’s character won’t be as effective as attacking them on issues. Obama just doesn’t have the “character brand strength” that McCain does; his experience lacks a convincing and seamless arc, and, unfortunately, many voters find him “different.” But he’s savvy, smart and dead-on aligned with voters on the main issues of this election. I believe that if Obama can, as Ed said, recapture the narrative, as well as continue his success in mastering the fundamentals of voter turnout, then Obama can win. I’m optimistic. My guess is that McCain and Palin have hit their apex; I just don’t see how they go up from here. It’s highly doubtful that Obama will self-destruct, and he still has a lot of upside potential.
Good point: “Unless we are incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time, we can do what you want and what I want, and in fact, we should.” But who said the voting public can walk and chew gum at the same time? Driving through Pennsylvania last month, I saw this message spray painted on the back of an 18-wheeler: “Shut up and drill.” Or today, this bumper sticker was stuck on the back of a pickup in my town: “Liberals s**k.” Last night, I spoke with a labor organizer who called to urge me to vote for a Democratic candidate running in a primary for state office. He was knocking on doors for Kerry in NH in 2004 and met another union member who told him he would never vote for Kerry because of what he heard from the swiftboaters. In other words, this union member was going to vote against his own interests! I hope you’re right that American voters can walk and chew gum at the same time. Too bad so many people seem to want to “keep it simple and stupid.” I believe that most Americans want to “Bring on the passionate wonkery, the compelling talking points, the policy debates wrapped in narrative and the needs of ‘real people!'” At least, I hope they do.
I strongly disagree. The McCain bump happened because the GOP oonvention shifted the playing ground from issues to those vague substitutes for issues, the “maverick” pose.
We need to shift it back, and if we don’t, we’ll lose. As my post indicated, I believe it’s a false choice to suggest that we have to reject issue appeals in order to maintain what you call a “fighting image.” Fights can be over policy, you know. Unless we are incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time, we can do what you want and what I want, and in fact, we should.
Ed Kilgore
“But voters do have concrete concerns that are connected to specific needs, for themselves and their country, and specific grievances about the performance of those in power today.”
They do. And they voted AGAINST their own said issues in 2004 to give Bush the White house again. Why?
BECAUSE IT IS ALL ABOUT THE FIGHTING IMAGE!
Bring on the policy wonkery? Bring out the initiatives and numbers? You forgot to add one thing to your list..bring out the loss!
Democrats, and out numbers, and figures, and ideas are not, not, NOT sexy enough to win elections against war heroes and beauty queens that lie and fight ugly. Policy will not work, because it has not worked. We went from 7 points up to for down..ine ONE WEEK. One week people! An eleven point drop in one week, why? Because the country dissaproves of Barack’s health plan? No! It is because of IMAGE…because of the MILF on the ticket.
As long as we continue to actually believe the voting public has enough energy or intelligence to make a decision based on numbers and policies, (despite all eveidence to the contrary…2004, the low approval rating of the Democratic Congress), we will continue to be beaten badly, as we are well on our way to being this year.