Trump Accuses Pro-Life Movement of Being ‘Some Kind of Business’: ‘Everybody’s Raising Money All the Time’
Isaac SchorrSep 27th, 2023, 3:28 pm
168 comments
Former President Donald Trump wondered aloud if the pro-life movement was “some kind of business” during a recent interview with the National File’s Raheem Kassam.

During a conversation about abortion, Kassam asserted that “the country is sick of having this argument all the time” and “actually want a solution to it.”

“But if the Democrats come back to you and say ‘No, we’re not interested in a deal with you,’ are you willing to then say ‘Well, look, we tried. Now these Republicans are going to do what they should do?”


Trump replied by telling Kassam that elected Democrats “are the radicals” because of their support for abortion “in the seventh, eighth, ninth month” and asserting that rank-and-file Democratic voters don’t support such permissive policies.

He went on to tout his own accomplishment of appointing three Supreme Court justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade and make an implicit critique of the broader pro-life movement, which he characterized as a kind of business:

This is an issue that’s been going on for 52 years. I was able to end it. That gave tremendous negotiating power to the pro-life movement, tremendous negotiating power because they can’t do the things that they used to be able to do. The pro-life was fighting it. We have these groups fighting this thing for so many decades, but it’s exactly 52 years, as of a date in the not too distant future. And that’s a long time. Everybody’s raising money all the time. Everybody. I don’t know, maybe it’s some kind of a business. I don’t know what’s going on.

“It is a lot of money,” concurred Kassam.

“Everybody was amazed that I was able to do this and I put them in a great negotiating position and we don’t want to blow it,” continued Trump. “This is an incredible thing that happened, and we also bring it back to the states, which everybody, all legal scholars, both sides wanted it brought back to the states. We did a lot of things. We’re in a tremendous position to negotiate something very good right now. And we’ll see what that is.”


Trump has found himself at odds with pro-life activists this year as he’s refused to commit to supporting a national ban on abortion and recently said that six-week abortion bans signed by Republican governors such as Florida’s Ron DeSantis and Iowa’s Kim Reynolds are “terrible.”

In April, the president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, Marjorie Dannenfelser, said in a statement that “President Trump’s assertion that the Supreme Court returned the issue of abortion solely to the states is a completely inaccurate reading of the Dobbs decision and is a morally indefensible position for a self-proclaimed pro-life presidential candidate to hold.”

Dannenfelser also defended DeSantis and Reynolds after Trump attacked them, arguing that he was “criticizing a law and lawmaker that acted, following the will of the people, on what he made possible through the Dobbs decision.”



https://www.mediaite.com/trump/trum...siness-everybodys-raising-money-all-the-time/

 

Reminder;
If you're a woman so concerned about abortions, you can get a hysterectomy.

Stupid liberal dogma fired back at liberals.
It bunches their shit right up.

 

And none of it happens without male sperm.

 

Because they can smell disease when they smell it.
Infanticide is a disease on society.

 

Of all abortions performed in 2015, only one percent took place at 21 weeks of gestation or later, according to the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The vast majority of abortions, 91 percent, took place at 13 weeks or sooner.

 

Shooter considers it infanticide if the baby can reasonably be expected to survive birth.
That is generally accepted to be at around 27 weeks.
Of course, in this case, we hope the baby didn't survive the "medication abortion".
Burgess illegal abortion case: Nebraska woman charged with disposing of fetus sentenced to jail | CNN

 

But BigSuzyB makes a valid point.
Given about 600,000 abortions in the US annually, why that means only about 6,000 cases are infanticide.
Why, hardly worth a tear for the baby.
More important that the mother can once again fit into her favorite jeans, eh?

 

Honduras, El Salvador and Poland have also further restricted access to abortions.

 

It's not really surprising that the states with most restrictive abortion laws offer the least material care.

 

And yet you can't show a single case. Your insistence that infanticide is a problem is exposed with your lack of evidence of it even happening. Your lies are transparent.

 

Nate Silver over at FiveThirtyEight got suspicious about a trend he was seeing of Democrats winning elections since the 2022 midterm election. So he ran the data on all elections at the national, state, and local elections level instead of just the congressional and high profile state elections.

And he said the number of elections Democrats were winning was phenomenal. He had never seen anything like it. And the primary driving force behind all those wins was abortion rights. Which was turning out new voters who in many cases had never voted before.


Women and in many cases even men are refusing to be drug back to the days when abortion was illegal.

He knows that. I have posted the actual data. But he sticks with infanticide because its a great buzzword and creates the lie women are aborting perfectly healthy babies right up to the moment of birth.

When in reality it exposes his phony hypocrisy and direct contradiction. He defines "infanticide" as a fetus being able to live outside the womb when late term abortions are performed because the fetus cannot survive outside the womb.

 

Troll dismissed.
Either a troll or a genius.
Either way, proof has been shown multiple times now.

 

That woman was working outside the system. There have been zero doctors that have committed infanticide. The woman would have been prosecuted no matter if RvW were still law.

But I'm sure you already know that.

 

.

 

It was never about "state's rights." It is and always has been a mostly White minority of treasonous conservative/America Hating/Republicans trying to ram their own personal religious belief's down everyone else's throats. It is about inflicting Sharia Law For Christians enforced by the American Taliban on the nation.



Editorial: Abortion opponents' latest tactic: Try to keep people trapped in states where abortion is illegal
The Times Editorial Board
Wed, October 11, 2023 at 4:00 AM MDT·3 min read
130



Abortion opponents aren’t satisfied just getting abortion banned or nearly banned in various states. They want to make it as difficult as possible for people to get help leaving their state to go to another where the procedure is legal.

So opponents have been turning their sights on private abortion funds that have been set up in states that prohibit or severely restrict abortion. The funds, which are nonprofits that depend on donations and philanthropic grants, have been a lifeline to pregnant people who cannot afford to travel to a state that allows abortion and to pay for the procedure.

Read more: Editorial: Mexico decriminalizes abortion while U.S. states want to criminalize it


Some of these funds, in states with abortion restrictions and bans, have to deal with local officials and state legislators scheming to find ways to shut them down or intimidate them into shutting down. Once threatened, the funds may have little choice but to stop providing funds until they can figure out legally how to proceed. The Yellowhammer Fund, which does advocacy work and provides financial assistance to people in Alabama, Mississippi and the Florida Panhandle seeking abortions or advice, filed a lawsuit in July against Alabama Atty. Gen. Steve Marshall after he threatened to sue abortion funds or other organizations providing help. The lawsuit argues he has interfered with the Yellowhammer Fund’s constitutional rights as well as those of pregnant Alabama residents who want to exercise their right to travel out of state.

Funds in Texas have been particularly imperiled. In the wake of the Supreme Court's June 2022 decision overturning Roe vs. Wade, a group of Texas-based funds brought a lawsuit against the state's Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton and local prosecutors. The funds allege that state officials had threatened to pursue criminal charges against them for providing resources to people to get an abortion outside the state. (None of the funds subsidize abortions in Texas, where the procedure is nearly completely outlawed.)

Read more: Editorial: A federal judge outlaws an abortion pill that's safer than Tylenol. This is ridiculous

The funds argued the officials’ threats had chilled professionals “from providing counseling, financial, logistical, and even informational assistance to pregnant Texans” and violated their 1st Amendment rights.

Only when U.S District Judge Robert Pitman issued a preliminary injunction in February that stops prosecutors in eight counties from criminally charging abortion funds in Texas did most of them resume providing financial assistance. Still, the abortion opponents managed to slow the funds' work and that is clearly part of what they wanted.

But that injunction didn’t stop the intimidation. One of the defendants in the funds' lawsuit — Shannon Thomason, the former mayor of Big Spring, one of several Texas cities that declared themselves a “sanctuary for the unborn” — requested, as part of legal discovery, information about the funds’ donors, staff, volunteers and the names of doctors who have provided abortion care to Texans out of state. Thomason also asked each fund to identify the date of every abortion they have facilitated since Sept. 1, 2021.

Read more: Editorial: A federal judge outlaws an abortion pill that's safer than Tylenol. This is ridiculous

This is another outrageous attempt to rattle reproductive rights advocates. It would provide information to people who may try to target donors or staff under the notorious Senate Bill 8, which allows private citizens to sue people for helping Texans get an abortion.

The funds’ lawyers have filed for a protective order against having to answer any of these invasive questions, arguing that this information is constitutionally protected.

The Supreme Court decision overturning Roe vs. Wade said states could decide whether abortion was legal in their states. It did not make pregnant people captives of their state legislators and state prosecutors. It did not give state officials license to concoct ways to block funders and advocates from working to protect reproductive rights — even in states such as Texas. Last we looked, funding and advocacy remain activities permitted in the United States. Courts should make sure they vigorously protect those activities from intimidation wherever it crops up.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/editorial-abortion-opponents-latest-tactic-100044231.html