Donald Trump does not care about the issue of abortion. That’s why if he’s elected, he will sign a national ban on the procedure the second he has a chance. If, heaven forbid, he gets back to the White House, it will be because the Christian right carried him. Banning abortion in all 50 states will be a way to pay them back, without having to give up anything he cares about.

This should be obvious, and yet, somehow, many in the press are being fooled by Trump’s latest public posture about abortion, even though it’s transparently dishonest. During his recent NBC News interview with Kristen Welker, Trump tried to strike a “moderate” pose on abortion. Referring to what the press misleadingly calls a “six-week” ban (it’s really a two-week ban) on abortion in Florida, Trump said it was “a terrible mistake” for Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis to sign the draconian legislation.

“You will win on this issue when you come up with the right number of weeks,” Trump asserted about a topic that has dogged the Republican Party at the ballot box since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

Trump then went on to talk about this medical procedure like he was negotiating alimony for his next ex-wife.

“We’re going to agree to a number of weeks or months or however you want to define it,” he said, boldly claiming, “Both sides will come together. And for the first time in 52 years, you’ll have an issue that we can put behind us.”

The pomposity of that statement should have been a reminder that Trump should be assumed to be lying about his abortion position, just as he lies about most things. And yet, much of the press took his statements at face value, even going so far as to report that he had angered anti-choice activists, which of course, only helps bolster Trump’s false claims of moderation.

Never-Trump Republican Matt Lewis swallowed Trump’s bait whole in a Daily Beast response that assumes Trump’s “true” position is pro-choice. “[A]t some point, Trump’s presidency might even be a net-negative for pro-lifers,” Lewis wrote, arguing anti-choice voters “will have no one to blame but themselves” for believing Trump will back their cause. But Lewis is wish-casting here. It’s a fantasy to think that all of these anti-abortion Republicans will wake one day, rueful that they sold out their “family values” to back a guy who wouldn’t even ban abortion for them. However, the evangelical voters who appear ready to hand Trump the GOP nomination soon are making a very safe bet. They know that Trump is just lying to Welker and that he will sign a national abortion ban if he wins — likely within a few weeks of being inaugurated.

Evangelical voters know Trump doesn’t care about abortion and has likely caused a few himself. But that’s why they’re right to believe he’ll sign any ban put in front of him, no matter how draconian. Trump takes a wholly transactional view of politics, and his only concern is amassing power for himself. Certainly, he doesn’t care how many women die or are maimed because of a ban. If he wins the White House, he’ll want to keep the religious right on his side, and giving them a total or near-total ban on abortion is a way to do that that costs him nothing.

In a political environment where very little is predictable, there is one thing we can count on: If Trump is returned to the White House, a national abortion ban is a near-certainty. After all, if Trump wins, that means Republican turnout was high and Republicans are probably taking Congress, as well. Looking at state legislatures should kill any hope that Republicans will show constraint on this issue. Republicans keep banning abortion, despite strong public opposition. And when voters turn out to protect abortion rights in the states, Republican politicians retaliate by passing more laws to curtail voting rights.

For Trump, who opposes democracy, this is a win-win.

Anti-choice fervor in the GOP is driving anti-democracy fervor, which only makes it easier for Trump to sell his “why not end democracy altogether” plan. Giving evangelicals an abortion ban will just ensure their support for Trump’s unsubtle yearning to be dictator-for-life. And if it makes Trump less popular with the larger public, well, that’s why he wants to destroy democracy. The end goal is to put his power out of the reach of voters.

It’s always wiser to look at what a politician does more than what he says, but with Trump, it’s triply important. No other politician lies as much as Trump. No other politician has been less interested in keeping his promises. Trump himself doesn’t even really bother to hide that he’s lying. To one audience, he pretends to be “moderate” on abortion. To others, he brags that “I was able to terminate Roe vs. Wade.” There is simply no relationship between what he says and what he does. What he says is worse than useless.

On the “what he does” front, the track record is clear: Trump gives all the power to fundamentalist Christians.

During his first term, Trump nominated judges from a list compiled by the far-right Federalist Society, which was initially founded for the purpose of banning abortion. Trump also let anti-choice radicals use White House powers to wage war on birth control access, filling health care offices with people who oppose any effort to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Trump’s Department of Health passed rules making it harder for women to use their insurance to pay for birth control, and his administration repeatedly tried to cut funding for contraception services for low-income women. Trump officials spent the entire four years of his administration trying to destroy Planned Parenthood altogether.

This will all be much worse if Trump takes office again, starting with the near-inevitable national abortion ban he’ll sign. He won’t be worried about voter backlash. After all, he won’t legally be able to run for a third term, so his focus will be on trying to find a way to install himself illegally in office on a permanent basis. To get that done, he will need the most fanatical forces in the GOP on his side. One way to do that is give them what they want, which is an abortion ban. From Trump’s personal point of view, there’s no downside and only upside to banning abortion. And the smartest bet of all is that Trump will always do what he thinks benefits him, no matter who gets hurt in the process.

  • zcd@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    How many abortions do you think this motherfucker paid for?

  • lolola@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It will happen suddenly, unilaterally, and in that weird messy way where it gets tied up in court for forever but somehow goes into effect anyway, or it gets blocked but has a “chilling effect” on the population such that the ultimate goal is nonetheless achieved.

    It will be stupid, there will be countless of hours of argument wasted on whether he can “actually” do it even though he just did, and people will be screwed over.

    If you don’t like how that sounds, please do something now.

  • someguy3@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I laughed when I heard him say he’ll take a moderate position and make everyone happy or whatever he tried to pull. Trying to play both sides and it makes no sense.

  • DigitalFrank@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    No he won’t, because he can’t even if he wants to. Overturning Roe sent the issue back to the states, it is no longer a Federal matter. This is fear porn for the Left base.

    • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Lol, “the Supreme Court can’t reverse Roe v. Wade, it’s settled law. The left is always needlessly fear mongering.”

      “Brett Kavanagh swore under oath he would not be a part of overturning Roe v. Wade. The left ruined this poor man’s reputation.”

      “Mitch McConnel won’t force through a justice in an elec…” who am I kidding no one thought that.

    • nbafantest@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      It is absolutely not. The Republican party voters cannot leave this as a states issue.

      If you watched the first Republican National Debate, there is almost widespread agreement that the republican party will start attacking Blue states rights in the courts until they can get a federal ban passed somehow.

      I cannot state how incredibly wrong you are about this.

      Republican voters will not elect people who want to leave it up to the states and think the abortion issue is settled.

    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      Your comment reads like “Don’t threaten me with the supreme court!” in 2016. Overturning Roe was fear porn for the Left too, but the Right was crazy enough to actually do it. It’s incredibly foolish to write this off, only for the next Republican administration to ban it.

      If precedent mattered, then Barrett wouldn’t have been considered by the Senate, since they had just established in 2016 that you can’t confirm a judge in an election year. The hypocrisy clearly isn’t a disqualifier in Barrett’s eyes. Alito thinks the Court is quite literally above the law. And Thomas has a sweet gig where he’s getting loads of free shit and vacations in return for being as conservative as possible.

      Don’t assume that the Court will be consistent, especially since they were already inconsistent by overturning Roe. They’d already blowing up in their face, and I say we should toss barrels of gasoline on that fire. We need a heavily blue Congress to remind Alito that he is a servant, not a king.

      • DigitalFrank@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        since they had just established in 2016 that you can’t confirm a judge in an election year

        In a President’s second term, I believe that was the description.

        • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          McConnell certainly wasn’t that craven when he made up his stupid rule that he would go back on only 4 years later.

      • DigitalFrank@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yes, with the club of Highway funding. What pretense can they use for abortion? Neither party is going to go after medicare/medicaid, or anything health related, they would be destroyed at the polls.

        • phillaholic@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Anything they want. Republicans are already planning way to go after Medicare. Don’t put it past them to figure out how to do it.

    • aseriesoftubes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not necessarily. A second presidential term is a final term, constitutionally.

      The first time around, he was limited in the deeply unpopular things he could advocate for, because he was trying to get re-elected (though he still did a lot of vile and unpopular shit).

      If, heaven forfend, he wins in ‘24, he will go full scorched-earth, because he has nothing to lose.

    • jeffw@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think the point of the article is that a Trump win in 2024 means that the Christian right will put him and other officials in power. Congress, with those people in power, would push through an abortion ban that Trump would then sign into law