Image 01 Image 03

New RNC Platform Doesn’t Mention Abortion

New RNC Platform Doesn’t Mention Abortion

Never forget that without our natural rights don’t matter if we don’t protect our natural right to life.

Republican National Committee’s (RNC) 2024 mirrors Donald Trump’s platform.

It does not mention supporting protections for unborn human beings.

1. Seal the border
2. Carry out largest deportation op in US history
3. End inflation
4. Make US dominant energy producer
5. Stop outsourcing manufacturing
6. Large tax cuts for workers, no tax on tips
7. Defend the Constitution and fundamental freedoms
8. Prevent WW3
9. End weaponization of gov’t
10. Stop migrant crime epidemic
11. Rebuild US cities, make them safe, clean again
12. Strengthen/modernize military
13. Keep US $$ as reserve currency
14. Protect SS and Medicare
15. Cancel EV mandate
16. Cut funding for schools pushing gender ideology
17. Keep men out of women’s sports
18. Deport pro-Hamas radicals, esp from colleges
19. Secure elections: voter ID, paper ballots, proof of citizenship
20. Unite our country by bringing it to record levels of success

The previous platform said “the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed.”

Now it says: “We believe that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees that no person can be denied life or liberty without due process and that the states are, therefore, free to pass laws protecting those rights.”

“This process is not how the rules of the Republican Party claim the process is supposed to work,” said Kristen Ullman, president of Eagle Forum. “The rules say that we are an open and transparent party and that the delegates have historically had the opportunity to read, digest, and amend the platform, and they were not given this opportunity. And it is very disappointing.”

Exactly. The platform only mentions the process.

Even if the party wants to keep it at the state level the platform can still say that the party supports protecting unborn human beings.

It’s not hard.

The absence betrays the defenseless babies.

It’s also a slap in the face to those who fought and still fight to end abortion.

RedState’s Jennifer Van Laar made an excellent point:

The absence or inclusion of language about abortion (or any other issue, for that matter) doesn’t restrict individual candidates or elected officials’ position or actions on the issue, but the absence of the ban language takes away one issue Democrats can use to scare swing voters – and there’s some polling to suggest that Dem scaremongering in 2022 was a big factor in the predicted “red wave” not materializing.

But it also means compromising principles to own the libs.

LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Then again, until the government accepts the science that life begins at conception, nothing can happen. Therefore, life doesn’t apply to unborn human beings.

If you bring up Dobbs, remember that SCOTUS ruled abortion is not in the Constitution. They left it to the people and their elected officials.

In other words, PUT IT THROUGH CONGRESS. I don’t think SCOTUS mentioned only at the state level so elected officials could mean Congress.

I see people on social media okay with compromising their principles. They forget that our other natural rights do not matter if we don’t have LIFE.

As I told Stevie…gotta own the libs!


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


979AggHokie | July 8, 2024 at 5:15 pm

The ProLife Movement needs to take the fight to each state now. Starting at the precinct level. Overturning Roe was a great win. Since then, complacency has set in.

    MarkSmith in reply to 979AggHokie. | July 8, 2024 at 5:21 pm

    “Since then, complacency has set in.”

    No it hasn’t! We are fighting harder than ever. I am spending at least 2 hours a week trying to prevent it in my state with new laws.

    OwenKellogg-Engineer in reply to 979AggHokie. | July 8, 2024 at 5:38 pm

    Vote. NO on Florida 4.

    geronl in reply to 979AggHokie. | July 8, 2024 at 6:13 pm

    But they can invite Amber Rose, founder of the Slut Walks to give a speech. Crazy

      inspectorudy in reply to geronl. | July 9, 2024 at 1:46 am

      She kissed Trump’s ring.

        Concise in reply to inspectorudy. | July 9, 2024 at 9:28 am

        She is a popular female celebrity who will relate that she is no longer brainwashed into supporting the left. I can see why you would prefer she not speak. Better to silence such views. Maybe you guys can get this censored as “misinformation”?

      Concise in reply to geronl. | July 9, 2024 at 9:18 am

      I don’t think the party that has propped up a corrupt brain damaged candidate who showered with his daughter and whose son has a penchant for crack and other diversions is quite in a position to throw stones but it’s your call.

      Concise in reply to geronl. | July 9, 2024 at 10:06 am

      Yeah, can’t have someone walking off the democrat planation. And at a republican convention no less. Might encourage others.

    They’ve largely been complacent since Roe to begin with. Since there was nothing politically they could do, they could demand and expect Republicans to pledge very pro-life positions with impunity, since voters knew the politicians could do nothing about that.

    Now that it is a political question again, the pro-life movement has been caught flat-footed because they have almost zero experience with actual retain politics with an electorate whose Overton window is to the left of the more extreme pro-life positions.

    The pro-life movement should learn from the pro-gun movement which reversed the then prevailing trend of, and popular support for, gun control that was popular in both parties.

chrisboltssr | July 8, 2024 at 5:28 pm

You don’t win a fight by avoiding a fight.

This is disappointing. Frankly, the GOP should have just adopted Project 2025.

    henrybowman in reply to chrisboltssr. | July 8, 2024 at 6:20 pm

    Oh, don’t you? Ask the left how they took over our school systems and our election processes.
    Sometimes it isn’t about whether you choose to play checkers or chess.
    Sometimes you have to play poker.

      chrisboltssr in reply to henrybowman. | July 8, 2024 at 7:53 pm

      The Left never avoided the fight though, did they? The reason the Left controls everything is because the Right never fought back.

        henrybowman in reply to chrisboltssr. | July 8, 2024 at 10:13 pm

        Of course they did. They achieved it all by stealth. Like not saying stuff out loud.

          CommoChief in reply to henrybowman. | July 9, 2024 at 10:26 am

          Yep. Th #1 priority is to win the election. Only by having the power of the Executive offices and working majorities in the legislature can policies get enacted. Not ‘working’ not mere majority; folks in CD and States who keep sending politicians uncommitted to enacting policy changes need to be willing to ‘throw the bum out’ at some point. If that means a contested primary OR refusing to participate in a general election in order to get them out office ….so be it. The power of incumbency is nearly insurmountable but when we routinely elect politicians less committed to change than their constituents (John Cornyn as one) then we have to temper expectations.

Dobbs moved abortion back to the status quo ante that existed prior to Roe. IOW it was an issue for the voters of each State to decide based upon the culture, traditions, religious outlook and history. This action automatically put into practice the State laws re abortion. In my own State of Alabama we had passed a very restrictive abortion statute that went into effect post Dobbs. We subsequently tightened it up further; abortion is for all practical purposes illegal and unavailable in Alabama.

The voters in each State who wish to emulate Alabama need to roll up their slaves and do the hard work in THEIR State to build the consensus for the most restrictive abortion statute they can achieve. Keep Congress the hell out of it. If not then be prepared for a temporary political alliance between Congressional delegations from very restrictive States like Alabama and the very unrestrained abortion States to oppose the imposition of a National abortion policy from DC. Any possible comprise at the National level would be more restrictive than Massachusetts would want and less restrictive than Mississippi would want.

My advice is do the work at home in your State and let the people of Mississippi and the people of Massachusetts figure out their own path. DC should be doing far less top down dictating to the States not more of it. I really don’t understand why we are having an internal issue among folks who profess to be in favor of a limited Federal govt. This is part of what that looks like; sovereign States in the laboratory of democracy working out solutions for themselves on issues unrelated to explicit Federal powers.

    henrybowman in reply to CommoChief. | July 8, 2024 at 6:22 pm

    “The voters in each State who wish to emulate Alabama need to roll up their slaves and do the hard work”
    Paging Doctor Freud…. 🤣

      CommoChief in reply to henrybowman. | July 8, 2024 at 6:47 pm

      Sleeves obviously but considering how much some want to equate abortion to slavery/abolition you may have a point…through I don’t see many who make that claim ready to begin a civil war, prosecute it, do all the things necessary to win a bloody civil war then pass Constitutional amendments outlawing the practice….though I must admit that the idea of the victorious Pro Life Forces occupying the formerly Pro Abortion States and instituting a period of ‘reconstruction’ for a decade or so does have a certain appeal.

To the extent it abortion becomes a Republican brand, Republicans lose every election.

The message from Republicans to right to life and anti-immigration ought to be: we can give you some things but we can’t give you everything. Otherwise we get nothing at all.

    geronl in reply to rhhardin. | July 8, 2024 at 6:10 pm

    RNC invites the founder of the Slut Walk to speak.

    The RNC deserves the scorn.

      Concise in reply to geronl. | July 9, 2024 at 10:10 am

      The RNC deserves credit for giving voice to someone who has escaped democrat intellectual servitude. Don’t be so worried. I’m sure there are more than enough anti-Semite thug radicals that the democrats can promote at their convention.

        This is a bad trend of accepting anyone who kisses Trump’s wing and engages the fantasy of many on the Right of having that “celebrity” support that the Left seems to have a monopoly on. Most of these people aren’t actually conservative or even on the Right beyond not being the woke far Left, and more often than not are just in it for the grift.

    henrybowman in reply to rhhardin. | July 8, 2024 at 6:24 pm

    “and anti-immigration” <— mission creep!
    Now that the RNC mounted his hobbyhorse on abortion!

The picture has to make the fetus cute, which requires a longer gestation time. That’s where the majority vote is, and therefore the stable law. I like 15 weeks. It needs to be long enough so that you find out you’re pregnant with a minimum of horror stories to overturn it; and in addition be cute.

It’s against the law in many places to kill puppies, as animal cruelty. That’s popular agreement on cuteness.

This is very sad especially when the RNC is now inviting the founder of “Slut Walking” to speak…. seriously… what the crap…

henrybowman | July 8, 2024 at 6:15 pm

I don’t see anything about the Second Amendment, ditching the UN, or auditing the Fed in there, either. Ask me how upset I am about it.
Abortion is now “no longer a federal issue.” That’s the party line, andit’s the truth.
If the RNC wants to do the smart thing and “say the quiet part quiet” to avoid startling their new WalkAway voters, I’m willing to try it for a cycle. It’s not like the Republican platform is chiseled in granite tablets.

“If you see a bag on the street and something inside of it is moving, do you go and kick it?”

This was said the last time the GOP was set up for a landslide victory as big as 2024 is going to be. The left is aching for an issue to get voters fired up. I neither applaud nor condemn their spinelessness machinations. It’s the same thing they do on every day that ends in y.

The Republican party wanted Roe overturned because the constitution neither approved of or prohibited abortion. It’s now been returned to the states where we’ve said for decades, it belonged. Any abortion battle needs to be fought on the state level.

    Mary Chastain in reply to Sanddog. | July 8, 2024 at 8:25 pm

    You realize that the RNC includes Republicans at the state level…

      Subotai Bahadur in reply to Mary Chastain. | July 8, 2024 at 9:02 pm

      Yes, and at the state level they can be reached by party activists, lose or hold their particular party, have to deal with electoral campaigns AND opposition if they attack what the activist and party members want, and can be reached with publicity [pro or con] campaigns. On any issue. National level Republicans are as immune to citizens as Democrats.

      Subotai Bahadur

      henrybowman in reply to Mary Chastain. | July 8, 2024 at 10:18 pm

      Yeah, and state parties have their own platforms/
      More to the point, states can always ADD to national platforms, but can’t REMOVE stuff.

“Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing,” Abortion is no longer a Federal issue and Republicans should not fall into that trap. Being President has to do with things like national defense, foreign wars, protecting the border, a strong economy, inflation, standard of living, national debt. Biden has screwed up on all of these and any comments on other issues should be met with, “Speak to the issues the President is responsible for addressing in the next 4 years.” You can’t do “squat” for the bad position this country and the average American are now in if you do not win.

    txvet2 in reply to jb4. | July 8, 2024 at 11:38 pm

    Everybody has their own list, and I hope almost nobody is going to agree with yours. “a strong economy, inflation, standard of living” probably wouldn’t appear on most lists, if they understood “socialism” (although it appears that most don’t anymore). IF the government does seriously pay attention to its obligation to “form a more perfect union, establish domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and ensure the blessings of liberty”, the rest will take care of itself. It isn’t the job of the federal government to guarantee a standard of living, and once again, if they do their job, the other things you mention won’t be a problem, just as they hadn’t been until socialism became all the rage a century or so ago. Does that mean that everybody was “middle class” or above? Of course not. Through most of our history, the bulk of the population was poor as church mice, but they were able to make their way and live their lives without interference from the government.

Bear in mind that the abortion issue is one of a cluster of issues that belong with the States, not the Federal government.

The abortion issue was sent to the States. Promise kept. So, those who want to end abortion can now turn to action in the States instead of at the Federal level.

Education is another issue that needs to be sent to the States. The Dept. of Ed. has been a rancid failure, and it’s time to pull the plug on it.

Next up, close the damn border. THAT’s a Federal issue. So is taxing structure.

CDC, EPA, FBI, and CIA are all Federal Agencies that have lost their way. Restructuring them is a Federal issue.

It makes sense to divvy up the issues along the lines of where they should be decided,

    ChrisPeters in reply to Valerie. | July 8, 2024 at 11:22 pm

    Abortion, the ending of a life, is a very different thing than education. Abortion violates a fundamental right.

ChrisPeters | July 8, 2024 at 7:50 pm

“If you bring up Dobbs, remember that SCOTUS ruled abortion is not in the Constitution. They left it to the people and their elected officials.”

Is the term “murder” in the Constitution?

Others in this forum have disagreed with me in the past, but Dobbs was not much of a victory, if it was a victory at all. The right to life is fundamental, and no government, whether federal, state, or local, should have laws that allow innocent human being to be murdered.

    CommoChief in reply to ChrisPeters. | July 8, 2024 at 8:09 pm

    Seems like a big victory in Alabama. Our 2019 anti abortion legislation passed in anticipation of Roe eventually being overturned went into immediate effect. Abortions illegal in Alabama, all abortions clinics in Alabama are closed. Voters in other States have also been successful in passing very stringent anti abortion legislation. If you can get a majority in your State you can do the same…. but only if you spend your time, money and attention to build a workable consensus at home.

      ChrisPeters in reply to CommoChief. | July 8, 2024 at 11:17 pm

      Good news in Alabama, but those seeking abortions likely just find their way to other states that still allow them.

        CommoChief in reply to ChrisPeters. | July 9, 2024 at 7:10 am

        Not just Alabama though, other States have passed restrictive statutes. It is up to the voters and Citizens in the remaining States without restrictions who oppose abortion to do the heavy lifting to build a majority consensus and pass the most restrictive statute they can get within their State.

        CaptTee in reply to ChrisPeters. | July 9, 2024 at 9:22 pm

        But if you have to travel to do something that you are not sure about, you are less likely to do it or at least you have more time to think about it if someone is pressuring you to do it.
        [Comment applies to any topic.]

henrybowman | July 8, 2024 at 8:05 pm


“If you bring up Dobbs, remember that SCOTUS ruled abortion is not in the Constitution. They left it to the people and their elected officials.”

Is the term “murder” in the Constitution?

No. Murder is not anywhere there, either. And federal laws penalizing murder are arguably unconstitutional.

RNC invited the founder of Slut Walk to speak at the convention but no family values are in the platform

    CommoChief in reply to geronl. | July 8, 2024 at 8:30 pm

    The presumptive nominee wields great influence over both the party platform for the election cycle and what people are selected to speak at the party nominating convention. I can absolutely assure you the neocons and chamber of commence folks or other old fogey, establishment types ain’t responsible for her inclusion. Those sorts of pearl clutching folks are headed for the fainting couch after their apoplexy subsides.

I 100% supported Ron DeSantis.

However nominating Donald J Trump by definition means we are all with no exception signed onto what Donald J Trump believes is needed to win the 2024 election.

It is either Trump deciding to tactically retreat in the near term in order to win in the long term or it is Biden continuing to fight to continue the massacre of the innocents.

It isn’t just not a close call it isn’t even a concern.

The time to question if Trump’s judgement was the best for knowing how to get votes in 2024, and if he was the one who should determine when the Republican Party should moderate in the name of winning was the primary that is what they are for.

I fully support Trump in this, he doesn’t need to be second guessed he is in charge of how we try to retake the White House, us retaking the White House will absolutely be great news for the pro-life movement.

Again this is from someone who thought Trump would lose (I am glad I am wrong that he had no chance), it is time right now to just trust Trump and try to help him win.

    jb4 in reply to Danny. | July 8, 2024 at 9:19 pm

    Maybe. Trusting Trump gets a big test with his VP choice. No one should underestimate the ability of the Dems to generate millions of mail-in ballots from illegals or dead people – making all polling overestimate Trump’s lead. Given that being President is being CEO of the country, Burgum is, in theory, best qualified with substantial private and public sector CEO experience. However, he may actually cost votes because of “two old white guys”. Trump needs to appeal to suburban women or minorities with his choice. I also believe that Trump needs every vote he can get and a VP choice MUST add votes, before traditional qualifications. That leaves me 3 possibilities. Rubio adds a play for Hispanic votes. Haley is a well-known, credible candidate that will add female votes, Youngkin puts VA in play, without which the Dems likely can”t win. (IMO Vance probably costs votes and would cause me to question Trump’s judgment.)

      henrybowman in reply to jb4. | July 8, 2024 at 10:25 pm

      Haley would be the kiss of death. Rubio is constitutionally unqualified to be president, isn’t he? (Or am I thinking of some other Dixie Hispanic?) Youngkin is squishy… but check out Winsom Sears — she would not only be a kick-ass constitutionalist choice, she would check a whole bunch of boxes for brainless Democrat voters.

        Mauiobserver in reply to henrybowman. | July 8, 2024 at 11:29 pm

        I have seen other sites speculating that it is Dr. Carson for VP.

        If so that is checkmate against Harris or Michelle Obama. He is a brilliant brain surgeon who pioneered many state of the art procedures and rose from a poor broken family to an Ivy League education and excelled in an extremely challenging profession. He was initially a poor student with temper issues but through hard work and faith overcame those challenges.

        I think someone like him would be a great role model for minority youth or any youth not born into wealth and status. He would destroy any Democrat VP candidate in a debate and takes away the race issue that the Dems want to play.

          Mauiobserver in reply to Mauiobserver. | July 9, 2024 at 12:46 am

          The Dr. Carson selection works best if Harris (or Michelle Obama) is the Dem candidate. If Biden stays in my preference would be Vance. He came from a humble background served as a Marine in Iraq, is a Yale law graduate and author of a bestselling book. He is a great campaigner and debater and appears to deeply support the populist cause and 2024 Republican platform. I think he would be a very strong 2028 Presidential candidate to boot.

          henrybowman in reply to Mauiobserver. | July 9, 2024 at 12:45 pm

          I loves me some Ben Carson. But for this position… the man is 73. I’d rather have someone younger who could leverage his incumbency.
          But he could replace the current Secretary of Mopwigs by yesterday, with my blessing.

        “Rubio is constitutionally unqualified to be president, isn’t he?”

        He was born in Miami and wasn’t part of a diplomat’s family or few other exceptions to America’s jurisdiction in America being total. He’s a Natural born citizen who meets all the qualifications.

          Exactly. The idea that at the time of his birth his parents needed to both be citizens as well has no basis in law or history. It’s entirely based on a book that had little if any influence on those who drafted and ratified the constitution.

          What’s funny is that some of its proponents have been claiming, as evidence that it was highly influential, the fact that after the constitution was already ratified and operating, and after he was already serving as president, George Washington borrowed a copy of this book and may or may not have read it. I’d guess, from the fact that he never returned it, that he never got around to reading it. But at any rate the fact that he borrowed it then is no proof at all that he had already read it previously and was intimately familiar with it, let alone that all the other people involved had also read it and were also familiar with it and convinced by it.

      Danny in reply to jb4. | July 8, 2024 at 11:30 pm

      I am inclined to agree I may have overstated the case on trust Trump’s judgement.

      I should have said trust his judgement unless he does something so utterly idiotic it is no longer credible.

      On this one I would like to use available means to drag the abortion overton window to the right.

      However the argument against is a valid one which is we need to take the issue off the table in light of defeats on the issue in very deeply red states like Ohio. It could be people like us need to be told “they are not ready yet outside of the party wait a couple of years”.

Cheeselogue | July 8, 2024 at 8:56 pm

All abortion is murder.

    Dean Robinson in reply to Cheeselogue. | July 9, 2024 at 11:36 pm

    So don’t get an abortion. Live according to your beliefs. But when you go beyond that to force your opinions on others then you will lose, and in the process enable victory for the progressives who will go right on murdering those you claim to be protecting.

Nothing about the Second Amendment either. It’s under attack by the judiciary by taking forever to issue their decisions. The lower courts are holding on awaiting a change in the SC make up.

There’s a valid case to be made that there is simply no point in the party having its own platform apart from the president’s. It’s not as if he is bound by the party’s platform; he’s going to campaign on his own platform, and if elected he will try to implement his own platform, and will ignore whatever the party puts out. So why bother with it? Just because we always have? For better or worse we have our candidate, so it’s better to let him run on his own platform.

    Dimsdale in reply to Milhouse. | July 9, 2024 at 1:01 pm

    It gives voters an unadulterated (although no doubt deliberately misinterpreted by the media) list of what the party wants to do. The Dems just lie/cheat their way into office, but now they have to answer to why their method is better or will address these points.

    It kind of boxes them in, and gives Republicans a framework to run on.

      Milhouse in reply to Dimsdale. | July 9, 2024 at 1:08 pm

      It gives voters an unadulterated list of what the party wants to do.

      But it doesn’t, really. It says what the party organization wants the candidates it has endorsed to do if elected, but it doesn’t reflect at all what those candidates actually intend to do if they are elected. They are all busy telling people that information themselves, and find the party’s platform, which they intend to ignore, an annoyance. People are constantly asking them “Why are you planning to do X”, and they’re constantly replying “I’m not planning to do that, I have no intention of doing that, why do you keep asking me this?”

      Unless the party makes it a firm rule that all endorsed candidates must endorse the platform and pledge themselves to try to implement it if they get the opportunity, there doesn’t seem to be much point in having one.

    “There’s a valid case to be made that there is simply no point in the party having its own platform apart from the president’s.”

    The platform is for the party at large and for more than just the election, regardless of who wins or loses. The platform has also, until now, been a way for different parts of the Republican coalition to come together and make sure that their own individual voices are heard and attended to.

    What we are seeing here is Hobbesian. For the moment, the GOP is Leviathan with Trump as the kingly head. Sooner or later we’ll be living in a post-Trump world with a post-Trump GOP, and whoever is in, or may end up becoming part of, that post-Trump coalition will inevitably go back to using the platform to hash out compromises and attain assurances as a coalition member.

inspectorudy | July 9, 2024 at 1:54 am

The last thing any Democrat wants is to let the people decide. They have lied for at least the last ten elections about their stances on many issues and as usual, it turned out to be all lies. They depend on the courts for their victories. Roe v Wade was a court victory of horrible legal precedent. The 2020 election was won by ALL courts refusing to hear the cases brought before them on voter fraud. Look at the stupid DIE and CRT laws/rules that we have to abide by. They have all come through the courts. The Dems do not want the people to vote by state on Abortion, they want it to be federal and crammed down all of our throats. Look at their latest attempt to win using lawfare and the courts to stop Trump. The courts have always been the left’s partner along with the msm.

E Howard Hunt | July 9, 2024 at 5:55 am

Kamala won’t campaign on platforms because she complains of heel pain.

None of you play chess.

It was left out deliberately.

Because the right won. Roe has been overturned, and the issue has been returned to the states–which is what the pro-life movement has been fighting for since Roe was decided..

Democrats will fixate on abortion, as they always do– in answer to nothing.

Not because the right doesn’t want to talk about it–but because the right has won and moved it to a place where it CAN be settled.

    E Howard Hunt in reply to Azathoth. | July 9, 2024 at 10:48 am

    When President Harris is in office she will be playing 5 dimensional chess because her cabinet will look like a Fifth Dimension tribute group.

    This, exactly. The Dems have built an immense pro-abortion political machine, with cash to burn. They would love to turn the Presidential election into an abortion-only argument. Fear and wild exaggeration are their primary weapon. Just look at the red-cloaked idiots parading. If the Republican platform had taken a big stand on abortion, a fight that has *already* been won on the Federal level, the Dems would dominate the female voters with lies about how Republicans want Handmaidens outfits for every woman, forced pregnancies, et al… And the Dem obvious weaknesses on spending and illegal immigration would be ignored. Sun Tzu says to attack the enemies where they are weakest, and the Dem poll numbers on immigration and overspending are horrid.

Abortion, which I oppose, is NO LONGER a federal issue. Let the left foam at the mouth on the level of individual states.

    Milhouse in reply to MAJack. | July 9, 2024 at 1:15 pm

    It is still a federal issue so long as there are Republicans who advocate a national ban. Of which there are many.

Capitalist-Dad | July 9, 2024 at 9:52 am

Really? “If you bring up Dobbs, remember that SCOTUS ruled abortion is not in the Constitution. They left it to the people and their elected officials.

In other words, PUT IT THROUGH CONGRESS. I don’t think SCOTUS mentioned only at the state level so elected officials could mean Congress.”

Nice try at a lie, but the lack of an enumerated power (meaning the issue is not a federal government thing to do) does NOT mean “put it through Congress.” If you want it to be a federal issue, the first step constitutionally would be to ask the people to approve an anti-abortion amendment granting the federal government power over the issue. Otherwise, conservative’s are only engaging in the same despotism that leftists love: expanding federal power by whim of Congress, bureaucratic decree, judicial fiat, or executive diktat—however you can jam it through.

    Milhouse in reply to Capitalist-Dad. | July 9, 2024 at 1:13 pm

    Who says there’s no enumerated power? SCOTUS certainly didn’t. Those who advocate a national ban would have Congress use the fourteenth amendment. Would the courts uphold that? Who knows?

    Or Congress could use the interstate commerce power, since a national market in abortion certainly exists, which is getting more national all the time.

      CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | July 9, 2024 at 3:48 pm

      If it was an enumerated power it should have been ….enumerated. Did the 10th amendment get repealed or we all still pretending it is inoperative? What specific Federal power is being served/furthered by the Federal govt usurping this issue from the sovereign States? Equal protection is a stretch unless we cede every possible commercial transaction to the Federal gov’t to ensure equality across the USA.

        Milhouse in reply to CommoChief. | July 10, 2024 at 1:02 am

        The 14th amendment and the interstate commerce clause are both enumerated.

          CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | July 10, 2024 at 9:21 am

          But abortion and a Federal police power which some seem to presume exists are not.

          That’s the key distinction. The enumerated powers and those things which are clearly required to to support the execution of the explicit power/responsibility of the Federal govt are unquestionably Constitutional. When we properly apply the 9th and 10th amendments instead of skipping over them as discarded relics a great many things the Fed gov’t seeks to do become far less tenable.

          If the 14th amendment demanded/required conformity across the Nation then how do we have Circuit splits? Sure SCOTUS does wade in from time to time to resolve those very UNEQUAL differences in application of law and our Constitution between the States which comprise the Federal Circuits but not always and certainly not in a speedy manner.

          Sure Wickard ‘granted’ the Federal Gov’t all sorts of power but we all know that was a horrible decision that expanded the power/reach of the commerce clause to unprecedented levels. Sooner or later it too will be gutted just like Chevron.

          The key is what is a Federal power and what is a State power. There is a distinction both historically and constitutionally that far exceeds a mechanical application of the Supremacy clause so that if Congress decides X is a Federal power it can simply pass a statute and everyone else can pound sand.

          IMO, properly viewed our Constitution is a limitation on Federal power in relation to the traditional State powers (police power), divides those powers among three branches and reserves remaining powers to individual Citizens. Opinions on this topic obviously vary.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | July 11, 2024 at 12:41 am

          I think you’re making a fundamental error here, assuming that every single thing Congress can do must be specifically enumerated by name. That’s not how the enumerated powers work (even leaving aside the “necessary and proper” clause, which we should not).

          For instance the first congress relied on its power to regulate interstate commerce to establish a hospital for sailors, and a tax on interstate shipping to pay for it. That’s not specifically in the constitution, but it’s a valid use of the general power. Even something that doesn’t directly involve interstate commerce at all is valid, if it’s necessary and proper to the regulation of interstate commerce, e.g. purchasing an office building for the regulators to work in, chairs and desks for them to sit in and at, and paper, quills, and ink for them to use in their work. (And, contrary to some cranks I have come across, Congress is entitled to buy property anywhere it likes, and doesn’t need permission from the state in which that property is located.)

          Those who advocate a national ban on abortion generally rely on the power granted to Congress by the fourteenth amendment. That is a valid power, and they see a ban on abortion as a proper exercise of it. If they ever pass it, we’ll see whether the courts agree.

          Another possible basis for a national ban on abortion, or for national regulation of abortion, is the interstate commerce clause as currently interpreted. While you and I may wish Wickard were overturned, for now it is the law of the land, and I suspect that if it were to come before today’s supreme court it would be upheld 8-1, with only Thomas voting against it. And under current commerce clause jurisprudence, if a national market exists in some service Congress may, if it chooses, impose a comprehensive national regulatory scheme on that service, preempting any state regulations on it. Or it may choose to regulate it but allow the states to add their own regulations on top. So under that theory Congress could either impose a 15-week ban and forbid the states from making it any stricter, or ban it altogether, or declare it completely legal and forbid all state restrictions on it.

destroycommunism | July 9, 2024 at 11:16 am


been calling for this forever

abortion has always been a states right

the gop has always used the abortion issue to cover up for their miserable job of protecting the middle class via congressional action to limit the government ..not the people

It’s not like Trump ever cared about the pro-life movement outside of transactional benefit. The pro-life movement and the religious right all accepted their 30 pieces of silver. Trump could kick a pregnant woman on 5th Avenue to the point where she miscarried and pro-life and/or religious voters would still vote for him.

You could argue that aside from a small number of NatCons who treat Christianity as an identity rather than a faith and those who literally believe that God sent Trump as the only possible savior of America, the religious right has effectively been neutered if not euthanized.

Heck, the Trump administration tried to pass Unconstitutional restrictions on bumpstocks during his first term, and pro-2A people are still going to vote for him en masse.

    Conservatives and religious people are going to vote for Trump, not because they think he’s either one, but because he’s a whole lot better than the alternative. No, he doesn’t really believe in our principles. I doubt he really believes in any principles. I think that if the Clintons had accepted his overtures after the 2016 election they would have ended up with enormous influence in his administration and he would have governed as a liberal Democrat. Their insane hatred for him prevented that, and drove him into the conservatives’ hands; so we should thank them for that.

If you want to win the abortion issue leave it out in Federal races. Try to get what you want in the States and collect horror stories of late term abortions. Women coerced into abortions buy acquaintance rapists and even “loving partners”. Start working to change hearts show women their child in the womb. Require better sonograms before abortions. Let people face what they are actually doing.