'The announcement highlights Trump’s recognition that abortion has dogged Republicans on the campaign trail since the fall of Roe v. Wade nearly two years ago — and his primary goal of winning the 2024 election. He has chided other Republicans for speaking “inaccurately” on abortion, intimating that severe restrictions have cost the GOP winnable elections. On Sunday night and again Monday morning he urged people to “follow their heart” or their religion but encouraged voters to remember the stakes.

“You must also win elections to restore our culture and, in fact, to save our country, which is currently and very sadly a nation in decline,” Trump said.

His comments drew a swift rebuke from one of the nation’s leading anti-abortion rights groups, which has urged Trump to endorse a 15-week federal law.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, in a statement to POLITICO reiterated the group’s commitment to “defeat President Biden” and congressional Democrats, but condemned Trump’s decision.

“We are deeply disappointed in President Trump’s position,” said Dannenfelser, who last week said she believed he would call for a 15-week national limit. “Saying the issue is ‘back to the states,’” Dannenfesler continued, “cedes the national debate to the Democrats who are working relentlessly to enact legislation mandating abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy.”

The former president began his message by stressing support for in vitro fertilization in the wake of the Alabama Supreme Court decision earlier this year ruling that frozen embryos are children. That ruling caused a political backlash that had many Republicans scrambling for a politically palatable fix. Trump praised the GOP-controlled legislature for approving a bill protecting IVF — another position that puts the former president at odds with the anti-abortion movement.';

'Trump’s video comes after months of speculation over what position the former president would take and amid a Democratic campaign that is intensely focused on abortion-rights.

A Fox News poll last month found that support for abortion being legal in all or most cases has risen sharply among voters since the fall of Roe, including among key demographics Trump needs to win in November, such as older Americans, self-identified conservatives, registered Republicans and white evangelical Christians. Republican support, for instance, increased from 24 percent to 36 percent in less than two years.

The position reflects Trump’s long-stated desire to find a compromise on the issue that would appeal to a broad swath of voters. Trump had promised that he would “come together with all groups” to negotiate a deal on abortion that would “make both sides happy” and establish peace on the issue for the first time in more than five decades. But he offered varying ideas, both publicly and privately, about what such a policy position on abortion might look like.

Throughout the Republican presidential primary, Trump maintained that the issue was one for the states to decide, and even criticized states, like his own residence of Florida, that had approved six-week abortion bans. Iowa is also among the states that have passed narrow six-week abortion laws, yet Trump easily defeated his Republican primary challengers there who had endorsed more restrictive laws.

Trump on Monday did not say how he intended to vote on an upcoming ballot initiative in Florida, which would guarantee the right to an abortion up to roughly 24 weeks. The state’s six-week law is set to take effect May 1.';

'Trump during a radio interview in March floated support for a 15-week limit, saying the number seemed to be one “people are agreeing” on, despite his campaign vociferously denying reports the former president had privately expressed support for a 16-week law a month earlier.

President Joe Biden didn’t immediately comment on Trump’s announcement, though a spokesperson for his reelection campaign said Trump was “endorsing every single abortion ban in the states,” including states without exceptions, and “bragging about his role in creating this hellscape.”';

'>>1285433
So?';

'>>1285433
I'M OUTRAGED!1 HE OUGHT TO APOLOGIZE!11';

'>>1285439
If one believes life begins at conception and abortion is murder, as many in the pro life evangelical movement claim to believe, it seems like the man who has been the face of the party which claims to represent them for the last decade coming out and saying
"Whether or not it's legal to murder a baby should be left to the states to decide" would be seen as a betrayal.';

'>>1285441
Huh? Who cares? Trump said it, so it's right. Nobody cares about the shit you're saying, they just follow their cult leader.';

'>>1285433
You will never be a woman trannyOP';

'>>1285441
So they should what? Vote for Joe Biden who personally eats babies?
I don't think think is a winning angle, reddit.';

'>>1285444
Checked
>>1285461
Weak';

'>>1285463
Nice false dichotomy.
The idea that there are people who genuinely believe life begins at conception and abortion is murder, but are content with abortion's legality being left to state governments to decide, is insane.
Either it's murder or it's not. Murder is illegal in all 50 states. There's no one out there saying "I think the legality of shooting someone to death in the street in cold blood should be left up to the states", because that would be insane.
The "states rights" stance is a tepid acknowledgement that either the legality of murder is negotiable, or abortion isn't really murder and the entire pro life movement is just another political larp.';

'>>1285441
>"Whether or not it's legal to murder a baby should be left to the states to decide" would be seen as a betrayal.
You don't understand the abortion debate.
Roe v. Wade forced states to accept abortion regardless of what they believed. Appealing the decision allowed states to freely decide once again, and allowed states the freedom to keep abortion if they wanted it.
Forcing states to accept top-down dictatorial mandates isn't an abortion issue, it's a democrat issue. Republicans don't want to force democrats to do what they say, they want to get the fuck away from them and leave them to their own devices.';

'>>1285470
Fine ban abortion in all 50 states then. I'm fine with that.
And while shooting someone to death is illegal in all 50 states, the punishment varies by state because different states have different laws.

What a shit-tier Internet dyke argument. No one want to cum inside you, retard.';

'The real abortion question is why do women on 70 different types of birth control with easy access to the morning after pill need abortion. access up to the moment of birth?
>Muh grape
>Muh wincest
>Muh tard baby
Those aren't a major reason for abortions.';

'>>1285472
So abortion is the murder of a child, but whether or not child murder should be legal should be left to the states.
And it didn't even take one comment for another right winger to disagree with that.
>>1285474
>Fine ban abortion in all 50 states then. I'm fine with that.
If you believe life begins at conception at least this is a morally consistent stance. Unlike the other right winger above you.
>What a shit-tier Internet dyke argument. No one want to cum inside you, retard.
Stay seething';

'>>1285480
You're fucking drunk as shit, bot.
Tell Durgesh you need less booze in your source code.';

'>>1285478
>Unlike the other right winger above you.
But I'm not even right wing.';

'>>1285483
You're right. Ideological consistency, for better or worse, precludes you from being right wing, my apologies.
You are seething, though.
Lol but you might get a kick out of this
>CAPTCHA: SSJW';

'>>1285478
>So abortion is the murder of a child, but whether or not child murder should be legal should be left to the states.
Yes.
You seem to be under a misconception. It is not that Republicans willingly tolerate child murder. It is that we have no other choice, because half of the country has been conditioned to believe that anti-natalism is not only acceptable, but that it should also be encouraged.
The US is a lost cause on that front.';

'>>1285485
I hate to break it to you, but if you truly believe life begins at conception, see abortion is still legal in the majority of the country, and your response is
>Welp, whatcha gonna do people might not vote for us if we did something about it on the national level
Then yes, you are willingly tolerating child murder.';

'>>1285485
>It is not that Republicans willingly tolerate child murder
except they do, when it comes to IVF and washing away viable embryos.';

'>>1285486
If someone held a gun to your head and said "give me your wallet or you die", are you tolerating robbery?

The implicit threat of government force and the explicit exertion of soft power preclude any possibility of banning abortion completely. This is the work that the United States government, the most powerful nation in human history, has wrought.';

'>>1285441
Yeah evangelicals are regards who need to get the fuck out of my right wing politics. Do you have a point?';

'>>1285464
If you believe even an iota of shit mentioned in the article, ywnbaw.
>The absolute state of /retardedonpurpose/';

'>>1285496
Still weak';

'>>1285441
>as many in the pro life evangelical movement claim to believe
Those are gatekeepers, anon. They don't represent the real right.';

'>>1285472
>Forcing states to accept top-down dictatorial mandates isn't an abortion issue, it's a democrat issue. Republicans don't want to force democrats to do what they say, they want to get the fuck away from them and leave them to their own devices.
You have no clue how government works. States are forced to follow federal law all of the time. Its literally apart of our constitution. It has nothing to do with Republicans vs. Democrats.';

'>>1285507
thanks andrew jackson';

'>>1285508
The irony of telling someone else they don't understand the abortion debate then claiming that states being forced to follow federal law per the constitution is "dictatorial" is beyond palpable.';

'>>1285509
most takes on /news/ are superlatively absurd at this point, it's not exactly a great place for debate';

'>>1285510
I feel like /news/ is the perfect combination of confidence and ignorance. Its horrific to watch in real time.';

'>>1285507
>I am literally too retarded to understand the difference between party policy and the supremacy clause';

'>>1285512
I do appreciate your attempts at damage control but there's no universe in which "the federal government using federal power to override states is dictatorial" isn't a pants on head retarded statement. Not sure why you would even bother bringing up the supremacy clause when all it does it bolster my argument.';

'>>1285472
>Republicans don't want to force democrats to do what they say, they want to get the fuck away from them and leave them to their own devices.
Child motherfucker, Roe v. Wade didn't force Republicans to get abortions and Dems live in red states.';

'>>1285501
>I am a npc retard faggot with no original thoughts and can't respond to anything directly even things that directly go against me and can only seethe frantically
Ftfy';

'>>1285522
guess they found out';

'>>1285511
That's just standard libshit fuckery';

'>>1285510
It never was';

'>>1285528
Imagine becoming this indoctrinated';

'>>1285510
>>1285530
If you're here for debate then you have no idea what this board is for';

'>>1285517
I was speaking about the Supreme Court, you fucking idiot. Judicial activism.
Stop posting immediately if you don't understand how Roe v. Wade legislated abortion rights.';

'>>1285522
>Roe v. Wade didn't force Republicans to get abortions
It prohibited states from deciding the issue of abortion on the basis that abortion was a part of the natural right to privacy. So anti-abortion states were forced to accept abortion, regardless of what they actually thought or wanted.';

'>>1285535
I can't help but notice you can't engage with anything I'm saying. I am criticizing the statement "The federal government enforcing federal law on states is dictatorial". The U.S. legislative branch is constitutionally enabled to draft and pass federal law not specifically reserved for states in the 10th amendment. Describing this relationship as "dictatorial" is moronic. Its actually the exact antithesis to a dictatorship . Explain why what I just said is incorrect.';

'>>1285531
I'm not a libshit, tranny, or a woman or whatever retard flavor of the month sells the most so I wouldn't know';

'>>1285510
Leftys are absurd at their core so it makes sense.';

'>>1285545
>Explain why what I just said is incorrect.
Roe v. Wade was contentious because it invented a right out of thin air and used the 14th amendment as a justification why states couldn't limit abortion. The issue didn't go through state or federal legislature, but instead went through the Supreme Court, which argued that the right to privacy was so important that no state could prohibit abortion.

This is what is commonly referred to as 'legislating from the bench', and why the Supreme Court's decision was dictatorial. The Supreme Court can use the principle of Judicial Review to unilaterally reinvent constitutional law on the fly, which is where all other branches of the US government derive their power and authority.

"Well it's not ackshually dictatorial". What a meaningless statement.';

'>>1285561
>"Well it's not ackshually dictatorial". What a meaningless statement.
Well, its not dictatorial in the slightest. Its childish hyperbole devoid of any kind of substance. Its perfectly fine to disagree with the Supreme Court's legal justifications for certain rulings but calling the decisions of a supreme court appointed by a democratically elected government "dictatorial" because you have some interpretive differences of the 14th amendment just seems like an attempt to infuse discourse with hysteria. Its an emotional appeal rather than a substantive one because the legal mechanics in question defy every single definition of the word dictatorship. Its a non-sequitur. It has nothing to do with the conversation. Additionally, judicial review is the cornerstone of court authority. Without it, the supreme court would be useless. I suppose I'm just not understanding how your argument isn't simply a rejection of the entire concept of a supreme court.';

'>>1285564
>Its a non-sequitur
That's what your mom said, but I sequit-her anyways.';

'>>1285567
Zing';

'what a shit thread ull of shit posts';

'>>1285564
>Well, its not dictatorial in the slightest.
You literally just admitted that an unelected body of judges determined abortion law at a national level.
>because you have some interpretive differences of the 14th amendment just seems like an attempt to infuse discourse with hysteria
Yeah god forbid I criticize the highest court in the land.
You're the worst kind of bootlicker.';

'>>1285570
>You literally just admitted that an unelected body of judges determined abortion law at a national level.
Judges are appointed by an elected government. These judges are bound by the guidelines of a constitution. The same elected government that appointed these judges also have the power to impeach and remove them. Everything I've just described is the opposite of a dictatorship.

>Yeah god forbid I criticize the highest court in the land.
Can you point to me in my post where I said or implied that you're not allowed to criticize the supreme court? I'm pretty sure what I specifically said was that your criticism is so broad and ill-defined that it seems to reject the entire concept of the supreme court existing, not the extent of their judicial power.

>You're the worst kind of bootlicker.
I can see that you've now completely given up on having an intelligent, good faith conversation. That's a bit disappointing, if I'm being honest.';

'>>1285569
>T. Unironic ESL retard';