Per. JD Vance: Trump will veto a federal law prohibiting abortions

[jayem]

Republican vice presidential candidate JD Vance says Donald Trump would not support a national abortion ban if elected president and would veto such legislation if it landed on his desk. "I can absolutely commit that,” Vance said when asked on NBC's “Meet the Press” whether he could commit to Trump not imposing such a ban. “Donald Trump’s view is that we want the individual states and their individual cultures and their unique political sensibilities to make these decisions because we don’t want to have a nonstop federal conflict over this issue.”

Trump would veto legislation establishing a federal abortion ban, Vance says

If this is true, it's a somewhat reasonable position. But more likely, The Donald knows he's not well liked by women. In 2020, women voted over 55% for Joe Biden. This was a big part of his 81 million popular vote total--the largest number of popular votes received by any Presidential candidate in history. And Trump's team also knows that women generally turn out to vote more than men.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Trump reiterates opposition to federal abortion ban​

In an interview with Fox News on Thursday, Trump responded to the claim by Walz in his speech by insisting “there will not be a federal ban”

“They say in the convention, I want a federal ban. I would never, and they know I’ve said it, there will not be a federal ban."

 

[wing2000]

View attachment 353856

The polling data must be very bad....

 

[Matt5]

The federal government doesn't have the authority to ban abortions. The authority on abortions lies with the states.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The federal government doesn't have the authority to ban abortions.

Of course it does.

 

[Desk trauma]

lol, sure he will, wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

 

[jayem]

The federal government doesn't have the authority to ban abortions. The authority on abortions lies with the states.

The federal government could prohibit— or at least regulate—abortion nationwide. It would require both houses of Congress passing a law to that effect, which then must be signed by the President. Just like the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Which prohibited discrimination in voter registration, employment, and public accommodations based solely on race (and several other personal factors.) And the law applied to all the states nationwide.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

How will he veto it...

When he's not even the president?

Kamala would veto it too, though, so, it's kind of moot isn't it?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Well, like with the story of the boy who cried wolf, Trump has flip flopped on a number of issues when comparing election proclamations and actions immediately after being elected.

Furthermore, the extra judge appointed by trump is why a certain legislation was struck down regarding this issue.

So anyone trusting him to act in their own self interest deserves to be betrayed anyway.

 

[Arcangl86]

The federal government doesn't have the authority to ban abortions. The authority on abortions lies with the states.

Not what the Supreme Court held.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The federal government doesn't have the authority to ban abortions. The authority on abortions lies with the states.

The Federal government DOES have the authority to ban abortions and the various States also have the authority to ban abortions . Trump's position is that it is up to the States. The reality is, after it was discovered that there is no right to abortion it can be banned at the Federal, State, or even local levels unless there is prior law at a higher level allowing it. Thus, some states have found it in their constitutions there is a right to abortion, and so no State or local law can oppose that. But the US House and Senate can pass a bill outlawing some or all aboortions and if the President signs it then it becomes the law of the land. Trump said he would not sign. At least he knows the Feds could ban abortion. He would choose not to, and leave it to the States.

 

[Richard T]

The federal government doesn't have the authority to ban abortions. The authority on abortions lies with the states.

If the court labels it as a human then it would have the a right to live. Fetal rights are not to popular for many but viability of the fetus is occurring earlier. Some are predicting lab grown babies, with an artificial womb is in the future. Certainly Federal law is going to have to redefine these rights. If Jesus tarries it could be that future generations will look on abortions in similar ways that we look upon slavery. Of course, if society is turns even more evil we might start offing the elderly too.

 

[chevyontheriver]

If the court labels it as a human then it would have the a right to live. Fetal rights are not to popular for many but viability of the fetus is occurring earlier. Some are predicting lab grown babies, with an artificial womb is in the future. Certainly Federal law is going to have to redefine these rights. If Jesus tarries it could be that future generations will look on abortions in similar ways that we look upon slavery. Of course, if society is turns even more evil we might start offing the elderly too.

Offing the elderly has become a thing in Canada and the Netherlands. Supposedly requested, not always.

 

[JSRG]

Of course it does.

Only if one takes a broad view of the Commerce Clause (I can't think of any other enumerated power of the Constitution one could use to justify it).

To be fair, some do take a broad view of the Commerce Clause. But it's at least a disputed topic.

 

[RileyG]

If the court labels it as a human then it would have the a right to live. Fetal rights are not to popular for many but viability of the fetus is occurring earlier. Some are predicting lab grown babies, with an artificial womb is in the future. Certainly Federal law is going to have to redefine these rights. If Jesus tarries it could be that future generations will look on abortions in similar ways that we look upon slavery. Of course, if society is turns even more evil we might start offing the elderly too.

Ding ding ding!

Well said.

 

[jayem]

If the court labels it as a human then it would have the a right to live. Fetal rights are not to popular for many but viability of the fetus is occurring earlier.

Legally, the issue isn't if the unborn are human. It's whether or not the unborn are persons, as that term is used in the 14th Amendment. But nowhere does the Constitution say, or even imply, that the unborn are persons, with 14th Amendment rights. And SCOTUS did not overrule that. A state might grant legal personhood to a blastocyst, or embryo in utero. But it would only apply within that state's borders. And for the record, half of the states have now passed laws that protect elective abortion up to 20-24 weeks. I live in Missouri--a very conservative state. We are likely to have a referendum on the November ballot that will protect elective abortion up to viability--24 weeks. My wife and I will vote for it, and I think it has a good chance of passing.

The most secure--and really the only way to grant legal personhood to the unborn nationwide is with a Constitutional amendment.

 

[DaisyDay]

Offing the elderly has become a thing in Canada and the Netherlands. Supposedly requested, not always.

Compassion on tap. We give it to our pets but not ourselves.

 

[DaisyDay]

If the court labels it as a human then it would have the a right to live. Fetal rights are not to popular for many but viability of the fetus is occurring earlier. Some are predicting lab grown babies, with an artificial womb is in the future.

That would make for some interesting dilemmas. If a woman wants or needs to expel the preterm fetus from her womb, should it be automatically given to an artificial womb? Whose responsibility, whose ward, would it become if related people can't afford the cost?

Certainly Federal law is going to have to redefine these rights. If Jesus tarries it could be that future generations will look on abortions in similar ways that we look upon slavery.

Or, equally likely, future generation will look on forced pregnancies in similar ways we look upon slavery.

Of course, if society is turns even more evil we might start offing the elderly too.

More evil or more compassionate? Surely to die is not evil and the ending of suffering is not evil. Don't Christians supposedly believe that when a person dies, the blessed ones, at least, get to be with their Savior? How is that evil? Understand, I'm not talking about extermination upon retirement, but a compassionate alleviation of suffering at the end of life.

 

[Hazelelponi]

The federal government could prohibit— or at least regulate—abortion nationwide. It would require both houses of Congress passing a law to that effect, which then must be signed by the President. Just like the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Which prohibited discrimination in voter registration, employment, and public accommodations based solely on race (and several other personal factors.) And the law applied to all the states nationwide.

Actually I believe your wrong here. It would take a constitutional amendment.

The Supreme Court has, in my opinion indicated they they would consider to uphold the federalism argument that abortion is not one of Congress enumerated powers.

Meaning, abortion is likely to be kept in the states without an actual constitutional amendment..

So, the only point of even trying to pass a federal law is to run it through the courts and try and ram it through in some way.

That's definitely been my analysis of the court situation anyway.. and it appears to be the same takeaway others have come away with as well.

Republicans are pretty happy with letting states decide. That is actually the best solution for everyone, in my personal opinion, and I don't seem to be alone anyway.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Actually I believe your wrong here. It would take a constitutional amendment.

No. it wouldn't. A constitutional amendment is a possible solution but not necessary.

The Supreme Court has, in my opinion indicated they they would consider to uphold the federalism argument that abortion is not one of Congress enumerated powers.

They decided that there is no existing constitutional right to abortion. Thus Federal or State law can regulate or ban abortion.

Meaning, abortion is likely to be kept in the states without an actual constitutional amendment..

Likely it will be decided state by state. But a Federal law would also be a possibility. A Federal law is possible to ban abortions, regulate abortions, or allow abortions. Depending on that hypothetical law states might be able to or not able to restrict abortions. Biden, and now Harris, want a Federal law that forbids any state restrictions on abortion. Trump seems to want no Federal laws that would interfere with states deciding for themselves.

So, the only point of even trying to pass a federal law is to run it through the courts and try and ram it through in some way.

Nope. A Federal law, presuming it would likely pass constitutional muster, would be an adequate way of having a consistent nation-wide policy. One way or the other. We had a patchwork policy on slavery, with some states saying some human beings were not persons while others said they were. That compromise did not endure. One that denies personhood to persons based on location can't survive.

That's definitely been my analysis of the court situation anyway.. and it appears to be the same takeaway others have come away with as well.

That's mostly because Trump decided he wanted states to decide and not the Federal government. That's his preference. It's not how it has to be. With a Trump presidency and Republican majority the states decide. With a Harris presidency and Democratic majority there will be a Federal law allowing all abortions and that restricts any states from deciding otherwise.

Republicans are pretty happy with letting states decide. That is actually the best solution for everyone, in my personal opinion, and I don't seem to be alone anyway.

Some Republicans are happy with that. Trump is happy with that so he probably gets his way if he is elected. Democrats will not allow states to decide. They don't want any restrictions on abortion and will push for a Federal law ending all abortion restrictions, packing the Supreme Court with people who will overturn the overturning of Roe, and a constitutional amendment in favor of abortion.