Liar’s Poker

Did Trump’s abortion statement change anything?

By
263
Donald Trump speaks at the March For Life rally on the National Mall in 2019 in Washington, D.C.(Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

In a country as polarized as ours, the smart bet on any new and seemingly important political development is always “lol nothing matters.”

That’s especially true during a presidential campaign, when partisan passions run hotter than normal. And it’s especially especially true when the campaign features two universally known candidates about whom practically everyone already has a strong, unshakeable opinion.

If you love or hate Donald Trump, you may love or hate him a bit less than you did before he declared abortion policy a matter for the states. But you almost certainly won’t reconsider your vote because of it. And so, despite the supernova of media coverage, the savvy reaction to his position is … lol nothing matters.

That’s what my colleague Sarah Isgur told Politico when asked about the news. “Trump’s latest statement is peak Trump in that it actually said nothing, left more questions as to his position than it answered, angered everyone—and yet almost certainly will make no difference at all,” she said. “Trump’s pro-life supporters aren’t going to vote for Biden, and Biden’s pro-choice supporters aren’t suddenly going to consider Trump.”

This content is available exclusively to Dispatch members
Try a membership for full access to every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism.
Start Your Free Trial
Already a paid member? Sign In
263
By
Comments (263)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Donald E. L. Johnson, Florida

    I agree with the comment below that the headline makes little sense. Click bait?

    Collapse
    1. Norbertmllr

      Well ....... Trump "playing his cards" (Trump card?? Harr!) by his sort-of maybe-pseudo federalist stance is perhaps a poker-ish strategy? And most likely a lie, too ....

      At least that's what comes to mind for me. I don't see it as click bait but rather and intriguing "what does (Catoggio) mean by that?" You know, it makes me want to find out .... oh wait, I suppose that is indeed click-baity; however to qualify as genuine click bait there can be no substance behind the headline.

      Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Donald E. L. Johnson, Florida

    Donald Trump listened smartly to Nikki Haley, not Mike Pence, Ted Cruz or Ron DeSantis.

    He is positioning the Tump Party to win, while the Big Intrusive Government Republican Party insists on destroying young women's lives with horrible anti-abortion laws. The GOP is the anti-life party, now.

    Running on a "Destroy young women" platform is for losers.

    Collapse
  3. BPhillips

    I suspect a lot of ads are going to educating the masses about the Comstock act this summer.

    Collapse
  4. R. James

    Trump taking the Stephen Douglas position on abortion will only depress social conservative turnout in November and further split the already fractured GOP. I doubt this position wins over many new votes for Trump.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Donald E. L. Johnson, Florida

      Anti-abortion fascists have no place to go . They'll vote for Trump because they hate and fear Biden.

      Collapse
  5. Austin from Atlanta

    I read this article hoping for some connection to Michael Lewis, Wall Street, or the game "Liar's Poker" - or even just the association of poker/gambling and lying in some way. I am baffled by the choice in headline.

    Collapse
    1. Carlos

      I think the inference is that Trump's statement of his "position" on abortion is akin to a bid in Liar's Poker. Also, I'd argue that any article pertaining to Trump is by nature associated with lying/dishonesty.

      Collapse
      1. Austin from Atlanta

        Yeah, I see that the point is that Trump is "gambling" that his "lie" will pay off, but I still think the subject matter is multiple degrees of separation from the concept of Liar's Poker.

        Collapse
  6. Austin from Atlanta

    That Biden ad is among the most bizarre/flawed I have ever seen in the political arena. It's almost overtly a pro-life message. The woman is crying because her baby passed as she looks over the items she planned for the baby to use. And we are supposed to take from these visuals that the woman would not be longing for the baby who would have used these items if she had received an abortion?

    Were they also not able to afford a copy editor? The ad first tells us she had a miscarriage. It then tells us she was denied an abortion after telling us she'd miscarried. How was something with this little coherence published on the President's timeline?

    And the punchline of it all is the error of the doctors is somehow connected to the former president. In the end, the "bad thing" (that the woman "may" not have another baby) is not at all connected to any of the visuals or spoken content (which focuses on the miscarried child).

    Even when you set aside the repulsiveness of bringing in a grieving mother to cry over her deceased child's belongings for a political purpose, the execution is truly baffling.

    Collapse
    1. BPhillips

      She was having a miscarriage, the doctors were afraid to be prosecuted so they wouldn't evacuate the fetus, she had complications from the retained fetus & is now sterile. She's grieving the fact that she will now not ever have a child.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Treadmill

      I think I can help you with the ad explanation - it's pretty coded to people who are pretty online / passionate about the abortion issue, or at least knowledgeable about the pregnancy process.

      First, the definition of "abortion" as used in the ad encompasses both the medical termination of a viable pregnancy as well as the removal of unviable / deceased fetus from the mother's body. The process of removing the dead fetus after a miscarriage can be classified as an "abortion" in this context.

      Second, I believe this ad is referencing real and potential instances of doctors practicing medicine in states with strong abortion restrictions being unwilling to perform surgery in these sorts of cases - where the women is no longer actually gestating a living fetus, but the law is sufficiently ambiguous that the doctor ends up not doing the surgery when it's easy and safe, but instead waiting until it's more clearly life-threatening and thus more dangerous for the mother.

      Yikes, that was a run-on sentence. Sorry.

      Hope that made sense. But I also don't think it's baffling to the target demographic, which is women in red states who wouldn't seek an elective abortion of a healthy baby, but understand that pregnancy is inherently perilous and some of these badly written laws could end up causing them real problems.

      Collapse
      1. Austin from Atlanta

        Thanks for this. I see these points. If we assume for the sake of discussion that this is all correct, I still think the interview/visuals presented should be about how terrified she is that she'll never have a baby. As it stands, it seems to imply that her baby has died because of politics & that could *really* backfire.

        I don't judge the subjects of these ads, but the whole business of bringing in people to cry on camera about a tragedy is pretty gross to me. If you're going to go there, it has to be an overt A equals B connection. The logic of this ad is really complicated. The thing she is discussing is not connected to politics. It's only through on-screen-text that we learn we should be mad she's facing a separate problem than the one she's talking about on camera.

        The execution is just really weird. Maybe, to your point, it is meant for highly online Twitter audiences. But even to that end, I was really suspired to see how negative the replies to the ad were on a platform where you'd imagine most users are receptive to a pro-choice message.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Treadmill

          I think we agree on the general odiousness of using these trauma vignettes in a political ad.

          The more I think about it and muse on your reply, the more I think they were going for the sentiment of "abortion restrictions don't just reign in the stereotypical freewheeling elective abortion-haver, but also hurt nice middle-class baby-loving women like you"

          But the loudest people on Xitter don't really see themselves in that demographic and responded about how you'd expect.

          I think the Biden campaign sees the value in building connective tissue between the slogan "abortion is health care" (not traditionally a winner among nice women in the suburbs) and real instances of life- or reproductive system-threatening medical cases. And the way some of these state laws are written, I suspect there might be some traction to be found, if they can message it effectively.

          Collapse
  7. William Hodes

    Leaving aside the patent unconstitutionality of Senator Graham's 15-week federal ban (because of the lack of congressional power to pass it), it is simply bonkers to think of it as a "pro-life" measure.

    If that federal law passed, it would mean abortion on demand, for any good or frivolous or disgusting reason, up to that 15-week demarcation. That would be pro-abortion 95% of the time and pro-life 5% of the time.

    P.S. The Comstock Act, because it is based on the Interstate Commerce Clause, and only applies in situations where there is--wait for it--interstate transportation of goods, is clearly constitutional. The 15-week ban would apply without regard to any interstate commerce, and could only pretend to be based on the Fourteenth Amendment. But that road to constitutinality is dead-ended by the lack of any State Action. (States don't kill living organisms in the womb; abortionists do.)

    Collapse
    1. R. James

      It would mean about 10% less abortions. 100,000 lives saved. It's pro-life. Certainly, more pro-life than Trump's current position.

      The 5th Amendment and 14th Amendment protects the right to life. Not only in its substantive clauses but also in its equal protection clause. The federal government is empowered to enforce its federal protections on civil rights at the state level. The only way a federal statute gets struck down by SCOTUS is if they find that a pre-born human being is not a person under the 14th or 5th Amendment. The supports of abortion can argue that an entire class of human beings are not people under the law but history has not look fondly upon political groups who have made such argument in the past.

      Collapse
      1. William Hodes

        Sorry, but you are way off-base in your understadning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

        The federal government is not empowered to "enforce federal protections . . . at the state level," as a general proposition. It is empowered to enforce the Equal Protection Clause (for example) only against State Action. (Hence my crazy example of a hypothetical state that required all doctors to perform a certain number of abortions or lose their licenses. That for damn sure would be State Action, because those abortions would be performed at the command of the State.)

        So SCOTUS would strike down a 15-week federal ban whether or not it found that the pre-born qualified as "persons." Not as a general medical or moral or philosophical proposition, but as a constitutional adjudicatin of the meaning of the single word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment. The argument that the pre-born are "persons" for THAT purpose only is not frivolous, but it is weak.

        It has to be significant that of the 17 (I think) justices who sat on the Court between Roe and Dobbs, not a single one found, even in a dissent or a concurring opinion, that the pre-born counted as "persons" under the Fourteenth Amendment, and quite a few went out of their way to say that they were NOT persons for this purpose.

        But the main point remains that even if SCOTUS found that an unborn (of 3 days gestation? 15 weeks? 25 weeks?) is a "person," as that word is used in the Fourteenth Amendment, that would not change the State Action analysis. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the states from denying rights; that is not the same as failing to pass a law protecting rights.

        Collapse
    2. Pohl

      Why isn’t the 14th Amendment able to protect unborn life? Should a state stand idly by while the unborn are deprived of life because the state isn’t the literal abortionist?

      Collapse
      1. William Hodes

        Whether a STATE should "stand idly by" and let abortionists deprive a few or lots or huge numbers of the unborn (at various stages of gestation) of life is a political question that voters will empower their State legislators to decide. (That's Dobbs.) And if the legislators decide the "wrong" way, in the view of a majority of voters over time, they will be replaced. (That's Dobbs.)

        Strictly as a prediction, it seems likely that with 5 or 10 years, virtually every State will have something like abortion on demand, for any reason or no reason, up to 12 or 14 or 15 weeks, and no abortoins thereafter, except for rape, incest, and the life or serious physical harm to the mothee.

        But we have been talking about whether the FEDS shold stand idly by in these circumstnces, and the answer there is that the feds not only should, but MUST stand aside, because of lack of power to do otherwise.

        That a constitutional questional, not a political one, and the reasons for the federal government's lack of power are laid out in my response to R. James, immediately above. (Spolier Alert: No State Action.)

        Collapse
        1. Pohl

          I don’t entirely disagree. I’m not in favor of rushing headlong towards federal legislation or state constitutional amendments even. I was responding to the 14A remark and suggesting the jurisprudence could certainly develop to protect the unborn. I prefer states hash it out until a greater consensus emerges one day. Then, perhaps, an explicitly pro-life amendment could succeed. But the constitutional basis is already more apparent than for other substantive due process rights. “Person.” “Life.” There is no such being, even on other planets, that is rational and not a person. But it is probably more prudent to take it all as slowly as civil peace requires, but not a moment longer. It sounds like we agree the focus should be saving unborn lives. There will always be some political and legal blind alleys. I’m more interested in the pro-life argument than the politics of it, but it’s all important. Cheers.

          Collapse
  8. Betsybowditch

    Ross Douthat, resident NYT's conservative who has written for Dispatch, makes an interesting argument about the Trump conundrum:

    If you set out to champion the rights of the most vulnerable human beings while promising protection and support for women in their most vulnerable state, and your leader is a man famous for his playboy lifestyle who exudes brash sexism and contempt for weakness, people are going to have some legitimate questions about whether they can trust you to make good on your promises of love and care.

    Trump did deliver on his judicial promises to pro-lifers, and in his craft and cynicism he is more attuned to political reality than some anti-abortion activists and leaders. Indeed there are ways in which a pro-Trump but not pro-life conservative could reasonably complain that the pro-life movement can’t be his captive, because he’s the one who’s hostage to unpopular anti-abortion ideas.

    But he is also a cause of their increased unpopularity, an instigator for the country’s pro-choice turn — because the form of conservatism that he embodies is entirely misaligned with the pro-life movement as it wants and needs to be perceived.

    That’s the price of the bargain abortion opponents made. The deal worked on its own terms: Roe is gone. But now they’re trapped in a world where their image is defined more by the dealmaker’s values than by their own....

    This is true, Trump deplores weakness, which former POW John McCain's capture represented, and reputedly did not want to be around disabled veterans. So he is a poor fit to support a movement that represents the most vulnerable, as former Governor Palin described her youngest child, who has Down Syndrome, in 2008.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/10/opinion/trump-abortion-pro-life.html

    Collapse
    1. BPhillips

      Interesting thoughts.

      Collapse
    2. R. James

      I think it underscores how post-Roe abortion policy will split the GOP in the same way that slavery split the Whigs. Trump has taken up the Stephen Douglas "states rights" pro-slavery Whig position on this issue. Social conservatives will gradually follow Lincoln and Reagan out the door of the GOP.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Donald E. L. Johnson, Florida

        People who believe in a Big Intrusive Government that tells people who, when and how to love, live and die have nowhere to go but the Trump Party. They can stay home as I will in this year's presidential election because I can not support any of the candidates.

        Collapse
        1. Norbertmllr

          I suggest that people that feel like you do in your inability/unwillingness to support any of the candidates, which includes me, do go vote and hand in a blank ballot. Saying "nope" to either choice is making our voices heard, no matter how small we think those are.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Donald E. L. Johnson, Florida

            Norbertmllr. That's my plan. I won't vote for president while I'll vote for Rick Scott to protect the SCOTUS and against anyone other than Scott who has endorsed Trump.

            Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Kmregan7

      I definitely agree that Trump doesn’t help…but I think it’s those who are anti-abortion themselves who are causing an uptick in pro-choice sentiment. One, they were in denial about how “pro-life” the country actually is….the majority of people just do not have a problem with abortion, especially early on….2) they’re seeing anti-abortion laws that are draconian, harsh, and cause major problems for women- and that’s all the way through pregnancy. Say what you will about exceptions- they don’t work. No law is flexible enough to work with all the different risks of pregnancy. It’s like whack a mole- we’ll allow it for this…and then this pops up! We’ll allow it for this and then a woman has to travel out of state because she found out the fetus has major deformities or is causing her health/life to be in danger but it’s too late because of the limits of the law didn’t provide for that. Doctors aren’t going to risk the punishment.
      And finally, it’s a trust issue. “We promise, we’ll leave it to the states!” Here’s a federal ban….but it also leaves in place earlier bans in the states. Here’s Alabama with “personhood” and IVF is on the line!
      Here’s Republicans trying to change the threshold for ballot measures and amendments to try to ignore the people’s will regarding abortion. Etc.

      Collapse
      1. BPhillips

        I agree - that is why Democrats are pushing for no restrictions - there are rare cases where an abortion is necessary in the 3rd trimester & you don't need doctors hesitant to provide life saving care because of poorly written laws. No one is for elective 3rd trimester abortions, but the law is to blunt an instrument for this issue.

        Collapse
      2. Betsybowditch

        Well put. Ultimately I think most Americans feel proceeding with a pregnancy is a private issue at the early stage and over 94 percent of abortions occur before the 15th week of gestation.

        I know someone who became pregnant by a citizen of another county while she was visiting a remote part of that nation. They decided on abortion but, in taking a bus to a hospital, where the abortion would be performed, she sat next to a little boy who told her he wanted a friend.

        She decided not to have the abortion. I think she was conflicted and the boy gave her an excuse. She married the man and brought him to the US, where they raised their son, but later divorced.

        She has no regrets about the decision she made, though single motherhood had its challenging moments, but wouldn't want to impose her views on others.

        Collapse
        1. Pohl

          “Impose.” People are voting. Either the ayes have it or they don’t. It’s called democracy. Are all laws illegitimately “imposed”?

          Collapse
          1. BPhillips

            Yes, that would definitely qualify as "imposed". You could also describe it as "tyranny of the majority".

            Collapse
          2. Betsybowditch

            The Supreme Court justices are appointed not voted into their lifetime positions.

            Collapse
  9. Sersinghaus

    Just an observation. Twitter has about 500 million users. The last I heard Trump's social media scam has a little under 700 thousand. I'm sure there statistical accuracy issues with my numbers but ...

    Many news organizations use the clause "Trump on [whatever day] said on Truth Social [insert lie] ..."

    It is quite possible that a phenomenon can be the victim of its own demise. And the man grins at the free advertising.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Addicus

    I'm so sick of this guy. Yet again, am I supposed to take Trump's abortion position Seriously or Literally? All Trump does is jerk us around.

    Collapse
Load More