Donald Trump's Only Fixed Position on Abortion Is His Disdain for Women

By Richard Wolffe, Guardian UK

01 July 18

The thrice-married womaniser has veered dramatically on the issue but his supreme court pick could torpedo Roe v Wade unless women mobilise

onald Trump really doesn’t care about a woman’s right choose. Do U?

How could he care when he’s been all over the place on this core moral question for the entirety of his time in public life?

“I am very pro-choice,” Trump told NBC’s Tim Russert back in 1999. “I hate the concept of abortion. I hate it. I hate everything it stands for. I cringe when I listen to people debating the subject. But you still – I just believe in choice.”

Back in those days, Trump was so close to the pro-choice movement that he co-sponsored a dinner for the president emeritus of the National Abortion Rights Action League at the Plaza hotel, which he owned at the time. He didn’t show up because he received death threats from anti-abortion protesters.

It was so much more comfortable for him when he tried to woo those protesters as he started running for president three years ago. He can expect nothing but their prayers as he prepares to hand them their long-desired achievement: rolling back reproductive rights for women with his next pick for the supreme court.

With Justice Kennedy’s retirement, Trump’s next nominee is likely to tip the balance against Roe v Wade, just as soon as one or other state pushes forward with an attempt to ban abortion outright.

This is not some far-fetched scaremongering from the left. Just last month Iowa’s Republican-controlled legislation passed a law designed to do just that: banning abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected, which can be as early as six weeks. That’s earlier than many women even know they are pregnant.

“We created an opportunity to take a run at Roe v Wade – 100%,” said one Republican state senator.

Soon, with Trump’s supreme court pick, they will get exactly what they wish for, and will probably win. Where Anthony Kennedy sided with protecting Roe v Wade, his replacement is highly unlikely to follow suit. Normally conservative judicial nominees repeat the usual legal boilerplate about respecting settled law. Those words will stand for nothing when the new supreme court considers abortion rights next time.

For the warriors of the pro-life movement, their reliance on Donald Trump underscores the hollow nature of their supposed moral principles.

Trump’s conversion to the cause is even less convincing than that of Mitt Romney, who claimed he had a change of heart after talking to stem cell researchers about human embryos. At least Romney’s fantasy revolves around a scientific meeting, even though the Harvard researcher in question flatly denied the conversation.

In Trump’s case, the conversion supposedly came after an unnamed friend considered an abortion but didn’t proceed, and the child ended up being – in Trump’s words at a presidential debate, no less – “a total superstar”.

Perhaps the shaky nature of this story left Trump with a shaky grasp of the issue, because he seemed to have no sense of where he stood on reproductive rights through the course of the presidential election.

“I am pro-choice,” he told CNN’s Jake Tapper.

“You’re pro-life or pro-choice?” asked Tapper, throwing him a lifeline.

“I’m pro-life. I’m sorry,” said Trump.

Perhaps to compensate for his cluelessness, Trump later told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews that women who seek abortions should face criminal punishment. He didn’t know what that punishment should be, and obviously nor did his campaign, which released several reinterpretations of Trump’s position before the day was done. First they said the issue was “unclear” then they claimed the doctor performing the abortion should face punishment.

By the next day, Trump took yet another position, telling CBS he wanted to change the law, but maybe preferred the states to decide the whole thing.

“Do you think abortion is murder,” asked CBS’s John Dickerson.

“I have my opinions on it, but I’d rather not comment on it,” said the man who normally has no problem expressing an opinion on any subject at any time in any place.

How could it fall to Trump to tip the balance of the supreme court against abortion? Was it his strong sense of family values, developed some time between his three marriages and his several affairs with porn stars and Playboy models?

You can only assume that as the pro-life warrior he miraculously became, Trump had stern words for his friend Elliot Broidy, the former RNC deputy finance chairman.

Broidy is at the center of a literally unbelievable story that has him paying $1.6m to Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen. Cohen then allegedly passed on the money to another former Playboy model who allegedly had an affair with Broidy, became pregnant, and sought – you guessed it – an abortion to end the pregnancy.

These are the men who will help end a woman’s right to choose in as many as two dozen states within the next year or two.

At this point, Trump is fooling nobody about his true motives. He is as much the puppet of anti-abortion groups as he is the puppet of Vladimir Putin. His supposed moral strength is a masquerade hiding his amoral absence of character and values. He sold what little soul he has to a supposedly Christian movement that only cares about their generation-long campaign against women’s rights.

The only consistent part of Trump’s thinking is his disdain for women because, being a star, he naturally thinks he can “do anything” to them.

For now, there are very few people who can help women hold on to their reproductive rights. Two of them are pro-choice Republican senators: Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. They could vote against a pro-life supreme court pick, but they could also hide behind the Republican boilerplate last voiced by Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s first supreme court nominee.

Against their consciences stand three Democrats who also voted for Gorsuch – Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota. All of them are up for re-election this year in states that voted heavily for Trump.

All five senators might hope they can delay the final supreme court vote until the midterm elections, when Democrats have a slim chance of taking back the Senate and blocking Trump’s nominee.

But that’s a long shot that relies on some tricky parliamentary tactics. And it ultimately relies on female voters to lead an electoral tidal wave nationwide.

There are good reasons to believe that wave is already building. From the African American women who pushed Doug Jones into the Senate late last year, to the Latina political novice who unseated a Democratic leader in the House this week, the response to Trump’s political trainwreck is breaking all the established rules.

Trump’s war on women may well be successful in a supreme court he is now shaping for the next generation. But as we saw in Alabama and in Queens, the political backlash is breathtaking.

ALSO SEE: It's Not Just People in the US Illegally
- ICE Is Nabbing Lawful Permanent Residents Now

ALSO SEE: Sen. Elizabeth Warren Joins
Call to Get Rid of ICE

ICE Is a State-Sponsored Terrorist Organization - Abolish ICE

By William Boardman, Reader Supported News

01 July 18

ICE has strayed so far from its mission. It’s supposed to be here to keep Americans safe, but what it’s turned into is, frankly, a terrorist organization of its own, that is terrorizing people who are coming to this country.

– Cynthia Nixon, Democrat for Governor of New York, June 21, 2018

CE (US Immigration and Customs Enforcement) is the largest police agency (some 20,000 employees, offices in 50 states and 48 foreign countries) in the Department of Homeland Security. Created with little serious thought in the post-9/11 government panic, ICE was supposed to be a bulwark against the inflated threat of international terrorism. Over the past fifteen years, lacking enough serious criminals to justify its $6 billion budget, ICE has reduced itself (with poisonous political pandering in support) to the horrifying monster we’re finally seeing more clearly, littering the American landscape with caged parents and children, broken families (by choice, not by law), incarcerated innocents, harmless working taxpayers, and disrupted American businesses – a full range of social mayhem chosen by the past several presidents in preference to any humane, decent policy rooted in justice. In 2002, Congress voted to make ICE a national police force with Gestapo-like powers. Corrupt law and corrupt politics have produced corrupt results. What a surprise.

How best to respond to this paramilitary police state operation that mostly produces human carnage (including widespread sexual abuse of detainees since 2010)? How best to end the chronic violation of human rights law by this brutal regime that denies asylum to the persecuted and sends them back to suffer or die? The current movement to abolish ICE began last winter with a piece in The Nation magazine, in which Sean McElwee concluded: “It’s time to rein in the greatest threat we face: an unaccountable strike force executing a campaign of ethnic cleansing.” Abolishing ICE is no panacea, but it is a necessary first step to creating immigration policy based on law, compassion, and our own better history.

The political will to reinvent American idealism may or may not emerge in the face of vicious, bipartisan opposition. On June 21, Cynthia Nixon apparently became the first high-profile politician to call ICE by its rightful terrorist name and to call for its abolition. She’s running for Governor of New York against Democratic establishment hope-crusher Andrew Cuomo, who supports ICE. But two days before Nixon spoke out, Cuomo announced his plan for New York to file a multi-agency lawsuit against the Trump administration for “violating the Constitutional rights of thousands of immigrant children and their parents who have been separated at the border.” The treatment of families at the border is only one part of ICE’s assault on human rights, as Cuomo surely knows, as indicated in his apparently ironic comment: “I think ICE should be a bonafide law enforcement organization that prudently and diligently enforces the law.” [emphasis added]

Nixon first spoke out against ICE at the St. Paul and St. Andrew United Methodist Church in New York City. The church has given sanctuary to a 32-year-old Guatemalan mother, Debora Berenice Vasquez, and her two children (both US citizens), after ICE threatened them with deportation. How do these facts square with ICE’s promise: “We vow to continue our mission to protect the United States by promoting homeland security and public safety through the criminal and civil enforcement of federal laws …”? What “homeland security” or “public” is served by taking 13 years to bring a case that robs a mother of her job and freedom while traumatizing her two American children? At the church’s press conference announcing the sanctuary, Nixon said:

Thank you, from the bottom of our hearts, for offering sanctuary to Debora and her children. And thank you for giving us all a place to gather today to stand up with one voice as New Yorkers and say, ‘No,’ and say, ‘No, not in our name. Not in our name.’

This event didn’t happen in a vacuum. On June 26, New Yorkers voted in their Democratic primary and in one race rejected a member of the House leadership, who carefully supports ICE (he voted to create it) and who doesn’t live in his district, in favor of a 28-year-old Latina whose campaign targeted ICE and the party’s aging, out-of-touch leadership. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez grew up in the district that covers much of the Bronx and Queens. She graduated from Boston University and came home and organized. She was the first to challenge the incumbent in more than a decade. She said of her campaign:

It’s time we acknowledge that not all democrats are the same. That a Democrat who takes corporate money, profits off of foreclosure, doesn’t live here, doesn’t send his kids to our schools, doesn’t drink our water or breathe our air cannot possibly represent us.

She was describing the media-cliché “powerful Democrat,” ten-term congressman Joseph Crowley, crony to Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer and presumed easy winner of the seat to which he was surely entitled, along with his predicted rise to Speaker of the House. The race got little attention until the media and professional politicians woke up “surprised” to find that a former organizer for Bernie Sanders had won the nomination with more than 57% of the vote. Trump and the rest of the right-wing dishonest noise machine are already lying about what Ocasio-Cortez and other Democrats stand for, as Trump called Democrats “now officially the party of impeachment, open borders, abolishing ICE, banning the 2nd Amendment and unbridled socialism.” What Ocasio-Cortez actually said about ICE has had nothing to do with open borders:

Abolishing ICE doesn’t mean get rid of our immigration policy, but what it does mean is to get rid of the draconian enforcement that has happened since 2003 that routinely violates our civil rights, because, frankly, it was designed with that structure in mind.

The day before the primary, June 25, a Democratic candidate for New York Attorney General published an editorial in the Guardian titled: “ICE is a tool of illegality. It must be abolished.” Fordham law professor Zephyr Teachout is challenging at least three other candidates in the September 13 primary for the open office, but the filing deadline doesn’t close the race till July 12. The temporary attorney general, Barbara Underwood, is not running. She replaced AG Eric Schneiderman (also a Democrat) who resigned in May amidst sexual misconduct allegations. Teachout appears to be the only candidate calling for the abolition of ICE, writing in The Guardian:

Let’s be clear: Ice is a fairly recent development. When the George W Bush administration successfully pushed to place immigration enforcement within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), it transformed decades of past practice where internal immigration policy was conducted by the justice department. The new policy sent a clear and chilling signal: immigrants should be treated as criminals and a national security threat.

The same day as Teachout’s editorial, four current Congress members – Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) – said they would support legislation to abolish ICE. Representative Pocan said he would introduce a bill this week (it was not available as of June 28). Pocan explained his motivation in a press release:

During my trip to the southern border, it was clear that ICE, and its actions of hunting down and tearing apart families, has wreaked havoc on far too many people. From conducting raids at garden centers and meatpacking plants, to breaking up families at churches and schools, ICE is tearing apart families and ripping at the moral fabric of our nation. Unfortunately, President Trump and his team of white nationalists, including Stephen Miller, have so misused ICE that the agency can no longer accomplish its goals effectively….

I’m introducing legislation that would abolish ICE and crack down on the agency’s blanket directive to target and round up individuals and families. The heartless actions of this abused agency do not represent the values of our nation and the U.S. must develop a more humane immigration system, one that treats every person with dignity and respect.

A weeklong barricade of ICE offices in Southwest Portland, Oregon, has been broken up by police. Representative Blumenauer spoke in favor of the protestors at a rally at City Hall. He voted against the creation of ICE in 2002. In support of Pocan’s legislation, Blumenauer wrote:

We should abolish ICE and start over, focusing on our priorities to protect our families and our borders in a humane and thoughtful fashion. Now is the time for immigration reform that ensures people are treated with compassion and respect. Not only because it is the moral thing to do, but it’s better policy and will cost less.

Rational, moral, and humane as these voices are, they still represent only a small minority of Democrats, most of whom have run for cover on the issue. Media coverage tends to treat “abolish ICE” as a trivial issue or at Fox, an offense against the state. Democrats of note appear intimidated by the issue. Bernie Sanders voted against ICE, now doesn’t want to abolish it. Nancy Pelosi voted against ICE, now supports it. In all, 120 Democrats in Congress opposed ICE in 2002, but today only four are on record to abolish it. In 2002, Democratic senators overwhelmingly supported creating ICE in a 90-9 Senate vote. None of the 9 Democrats opposing ICE in 2002 remain in office.

Maybe this is changing, maybe Ocasio-Cortez’s strong victory will be a shock to the all but dead party of Democrats. On June 28 on CNN, New York Democratic senator Kirsten Gillibrand was caught in a high-pitched defense of her failure to respect Ocasio-Cortez as a candidate. The interviewer read a tweet from Ocasio-Cortez, calling out Gillibrand’s lockstep party orthodoxy. Then, on the defensive, Gillibrand suddenly expressed support for abolishing ICE, almost as if she meant it. Now how hard was that? November is coming and Democrats continue to cling to old notions detached from current reality (the Crowley Democrats). Under pressure, Gillibrand took the right position for the moment. For November to be worth celebrating, the party will have to do much better than that. It will have to find a heart and a soul and a brain and apply them all to the criminal atrocities our government commits daily at home and abroad.