The anti-abortion plan ready for Trump on Day One

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘Anti-abortion groups have not yet persuaded Donald Trump to commit to signing a national ban if he returns to the White House.

But, far from being deterred, those groups are designing a far-reaching anti-abortion agenda for the former president to implement as soon as he is in office.

In emerging plans that involve everything from the EPA to the Federal Trade Commission to the Postal Service, nearly 100 anti-abortion and conservative groups are mapping out ways the next president can use the sprawling federal bureaucracy to curb abortion access.

Many of the policies they advocate are ones Trump implemented in his first term and President Joe Biden rescinded — rules that would have a far greater impact in a post-Roe landscape. Other items on the wish list are new, ranging from efforts to undo state and federal programs promoting access to abortion to a de facto national ban. But all have one thing in common: They don’t require congressional approval.

“The conversations we're having with the presidential candidates and their campaigns have been very clear: We expect them to act swiftly,” Kristan Hawkins, the president of Students for Life, told POLITICO. “Due to not having 60 votes in the Senate and not having a firm pro-life majority in the House, I think administrative action is where we're going to see the most action after 2024 if President Trump or another pro-life president is elected.”’

The anti-abortion plan ready for Trump on Day One

The stakes of the election go far beyond whether a GOP president signs a bill banning the procedure.

www.yahoo.com

Where to start…

Further proof that overturning Roe wasn’t about ‘saving babies,’ it was about more government at the expense of individual liberty.

Further proof that overturning Row wasn’t about “states’ rights,” allowing the states to decide the issue.

Further proof of the right’s contempt for democracy and the will of the people, as expressed by their elected representatives in Congress.

And further proof of the authoritarian right’s desire to use the Imperial Presidency to advance the tyranny of Republican minority rule with despotic edicts from the Trump dictatorship.

 

[progressive hunter]

‘Anti-abortion groups have not yet persuaded Donald Trump to commit to signing a national ban if he returns to the White House.

But, far from being deterred, those groups are designing a far-reaching anti-abortion agenda for the former president to implement as soon as he is in office.

In emerging plans that involve everything from the EPA to the Federal Trade Commission to the Postal Service, nearly 100 anti-abortion and conservative groups are mapping out ways the next president can use the sprawling federal bureaucracy to curb abortion access.

Many of the policies they advocate are ones Trump implemented in his first term and President Joe Biden rescinded — rules that would have a far greater impact in a post-Roe landscape. Other items on the wish list are new, ranging from efforts to undo state and federal programs promoting access to abortion to a de facto national ban. But all have one thing in common: They don’t require congressional approval.

“The conversations we're having with the presidential candidates and their campaigns have been very clear: We expect them to act swiftly,” Kristan Hawkins, the president of Students for Life, told POLITICO. “Due to not having 60 votes in the Senate and not having a firm pro-life majority in the House, I think administrative action is where we're going to see the most action after 2024 if President Trump or another pro-life president is elected.”’

The anti-abortion plan ready for Trump on Day One

The stakes of the election go far beyond whether a GOP president signs a bill banning the procedure.

www.yahoo.com

Where to start…

Further proof that overturning Roe wasn’t about ‘saving babies,’ it was about more government at the expense of individual liberty.

Further proof that overturning Row wasn’t about “states’ rights,” allowing the states to decide the issue.

Further proof of the right’s contempt for democracy and the will of the people, as expressed by their elected representatives in Congress.

And further proof of the authoritarian right’s desire to use the Imperial Presidency to advance the tyranny of Republican minority rule with despotic edicts from the Trump dictatorship.

the premise of the OP is a lie,,

as I have said before,,

shoulda been happy with safe legal and rare,,
you opened the door,,

 

[Oddball]

Thread premise is a lie.

The odds of a federal abortion bill passing both houses, in order to make it to the desk of the prez for signature, are lower than that of the OP ceasing being a wearisome, banal dickhead.

 

[Lone Wanderer]

I'm very much pro-life, but I also believe that abortion should be a state issue. Overturning Roe v. Wade accomplished that. A national ban just repeats the mistake of making it a federal issue.

 

[Stann]

‘Anti-abortion groups have not yet persuaded Donald Trump to commit to signing a national ban if he returns to the White House.

But, far from being deterred, those groups are designing a far-reaching anti-abortion agenda for the former president to implement as soon as he is in office.

In emerging plans that involve everything from the EPA to the Federal Trade Commission to the Postal Service, nearly 100 anti-abortion and conservative groups are mapping out ways the next president can use the sprawling federal bureaucracy to curb abortion access.

Many of the policies they advocate are ones Trump implemented in his first term and President Joe Biden rescinded — rules that would have a far greater impact in a post-Roe landscape. Other items on the wish list are new, ranging from efforts to undo state and federal programs promoting access to abortion to a de facto national ban. But all have one thing in common: They don’t require congressional approval.

“The conversations we're having with the presidential candidates and their campaigns have been very clear: We expect them to act swiftly,” Kristan Hawkins, the president of Students for Life, told POLITICO. “Due to not having 60 votes in the Senate and not having a firm pro-life majority in the House, I think administrative action is where we're going to see the most action after 2024 if President Trump or another pro-life president is elected.”’

The anti-abortion plan ready for Trump on Day One

The stakes of the election go far beyond whether a GOP president signs a bill banning the procedure.

www.yahoo.com

Where to start…

Further proof that overturning Roe wasn’t about ‘saving babies,’ it was about more government at the expense of individual liberty.

Further proof that overturning Row wasn’t about “states’ rights,” allowing the states to decide the issue.

Further proof of the right’s contempt for democracy and the will of the people, as expressed by their elected representatives in Congress.

And further proof of the authoritarian right’s desire to use the Imperial Presidency to advance the tyranny of Republican minority rule with despotic edicts from the Trump dictatorship.

Abortion bans are a no win situation. That's one of the main reasons republicans are losing more and more. If some states say it is ok to ride a motorcycle without a helmet. How can they say anything about a woman's right to her own healthcare. That would be insane.

 

[Lone Wanderer]

Abortion bans are a no win situation. That's one of the main reasons republicans are losing more and more. If some states say it is ok to ride a motorcycle without a helmet. How can they say anything about a woman's right to her own healthcare. That would be insane.

Elective abortions up to full term are not "healthcare". That's murder. Yet, that's exactly what recently passed in Ohio.

So, the whole healthcare argument falls flat when abortions without a medical reason are allowed in the last trimester. Virginia and NY are similar in their laws on this as well.

 

[Stann]

I'm very much pro-life, but I also believe that abortion should be a state issue. Overturning Roe v. Wade accomplished that. A national ban just repeats the mistake of making it a federal issue.

I can't agree with any abortion ban. The whole reason Roe vs Wade came into being was states were passing such egregious abortion bills women were dying because of them. So the federal government stepped in and came up with this compromise. 50 years later we're in the same boat but it's even worse, with even more egregious abortion bans. I hope it goes to a national vote of the people to end them all. The people will tell the government to stay out of their personal lives.

 

[Stann]

Elective abortions up to full term are not "healthcare". That's murder. Yet, that's exactly what recently passed in Ohio.

So, the whole healthcare argument falls flat when abortions without a medical reason are allowed in the last trimester. Virginia and NY are similar in their laws on this as well.

Believe whatever you wish. Apply it to you and yours. Don't dictate your opinion.to others. That's all you're entitled to in a free country.

 

[Lone Wanderer]

I can't agree with any abortion ban. The whole reason Roe vs Wade came into being was states were passing such egregious abortion bills women were dying because of them. So the federal government stepped in and came up with this compromise. 50 years later we're in the same boat but it's even worse, with even more egregious abortion bans. I hope it goes to a national vote of the people to end them all. The people will tell the government to stay out of their personal lives.

I would consider killing the unborn to be far more "egregious" than any ban currently in place. The most restrictive states still make exceptions for medical conditions and oftentimes rape.

 

[Lone Wanderer]

Believe whatever you wish. Apply it to you and yours. Don't dictate your opinion.to others. That's all you're entitled to in a free country.

Defending the lives of the unborn isn't simply a matter of choice. It's the right to live.

 

[Stann]

I'm very much pro-life, but I also believe that abortion should be a state issue. Overturning Roe v. Wade accomplished that. A national ban just repeats the mistake of making it a federal issue.

The mistake was to.get rid of Roe vs Wade. We've been through this before and it doesn't end well. State control is a bad joke. It's just another excuse to abuse women. Texas has already forced a woman , a mother who wanted more children, to carry on with a pregnancy until the sick embryo died inside her before she could have a " legal " abortion further endangering her life. This isn't an isolated incident. Both maternal and getal.deaths have gone up in Texas. These laws just aren't good and they don't work.

 

[Stann]

I would consider killing the unborn to be far more "egregious" than any ban currently in place. The most restrictive states still make exceptions for medical conditions and oftentimes rape.

That is your opinion. That shouldn't be adversely affecting people who don't share uour opinion .

 

[Stann]

Defending the lives of the unborn isn't simply a matter of choice. It's the right to live.

I do not share your opinion. People should have more rights than a blob of flesh, especially if it comes down to a choice. It's the citizen's/ person's choice . It has to be. No exceptions.

 

[Lone Wanderer]

The mistake was to.get rid of Roe vs Wade. We've been through this before and it doesn't end well. State control is a bad joke. It's just another excuse to abuse women. Texas has already forced a woman , a mother who wanted more children, to carry on with a pregnancy until the sick embryo died inside her before she could have a " legal " abortion further endangering her life. This isn't an isolated incident. Both maternal and getal.deaths have gone up in Texas. These laws just aren't good and they don't work.

And for every situation you mention here, far more elective abortions happen late in development that kill what would have been perfectly healthy births.

 

[Lone Wanderer]

That is your opinion. That shouldn't be adversely affecting people who don't share uour opinion .

I could make the same argument that your opinion is adversely affecting the unborn.

 

[Lone Wanderer]

I do not share your opinion. People should have more rights than a blob of flesh, especially if it comes down to a choice. It's the citizen's/ person's choice . It has to be. No exceptions.

Define blob of flesh. If you're saying that a zygote is a blob of flesh, then that's an easier argument to make. It's not so easy to make that argument in the last trimester.

 

[Stann]

And for every situation you mention here, far more elective abortions happen late in development that kill what would have been perfectly healthy births.

I am not privy to that information. No one should have access to private medical information other than the patients
There's a lwa governing that HIPPA regulations. I don't believe you anyway. Late abortions are the rare exception less than 1 % . Most are from.women who wanted another child but found out in the 30 week checkup something was terribly wrong. Only too bad they couldn't have found out sooner. So time limits on.abortions are very wrong
Each case is best decided by the woman and her doctor
No one else, especially not courts or government. That only complicates cases as we are witnessing once again.

 

[Stann]

Define blob of flesh. If you're saying that a zygote is a blob of flesh, then that's an easier argument to make. It's not so easy to make that argument in the last trimester.

That's right there's no argument. It's none of our business to begin with.

 

[Lone Wanderer]

I am not privy to that information. No one should have access to private medical information other than the patients
There's a lwa governing that HIPPA regulations. I don't believe you anyway. Late abortions are the rare exception less than 1 % . Most are from.women who wanted another child but found out in the 30 week checkup something was terribly wrong. Only too bad they couldn't have found out sooner. So time limits on.abortions are very wrong
Each case is best decided by the woman and her doctor
No one else, especially not courts or government. That only complicates cases as we are witnessing once again.

I would believe that said abortions are rare if it weren't for the fact that the left continues to push for legislation that allows elective abortions in the last trimester. If what you're assuming is true, then there would be no need to legalize elective abortions during that period. In Ohio, Virginia, and NY, elective abortions were previously only allowed through the second trimester. Meanwhile, they allowed medical ones in the last trimester already. Why then would you open elective ones up for the third one? It should be pretty obvious.

 

[Stann]

Define blob of flesh. If you're saying that a zygote is a blob of flesh, then that's an easier argument to make. It's not so easy to make that argument in the last trimester.

It's not a blob of flesh if it is loved and wanted. Unfortunately some of these women who need abortions wanted / loved that fetus, hoped for a child. Abortion laws make things much more miserable for those women. One woman who had to.leave Texas to.have a late term abortion was greeted by clinic protesters that spit on her. I guess they felt she hadn't suffered enough already
Real nice people .