Melania Trump passionately defends abortion rights in upcoming memoir

[ThatRobGuy]

Without seeing the exact words she wrote, I'd be interested to know if she's modern-day pro-choice, or 1990's pro-choice, because there definitely is a difference between those two ideological positions.

People who would've been labelled "pro-choice" by 1992 standards (and may still consider themselves that today) would get labelled "anti-choice/anti-woman" in today's political ecosystem. She's in the age group that would apply to. She would've been in her 20's back in the era where pro-choice meant "safe, legal, and rare"


"safe, legal, and rare" and "in favor of exemptions for health/rape/incest, but wanting a gestational cap on abortions being done outside of those reasons" would get (and has gotten) people "radical right" labelling these days.

...so something to consider before people jump to a "hypocrisy" conclusion.

Even Trump himself, in very Trump-like sounding repetitive lingo, said (when saying he would veto a federal abortion ban):
“Like Ronald Reagan before me, I fully support the three exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother, very important, you gotta have the exceptions, I believe in the exceptions very strongly, I think is it's important to believe in the exceptions”

By 1992 standards, that would've been a "pro-choice" position, or at the very least, a "moderate" position on the subject. Today, not so much

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

I wonder if some Republicans will start calling for her to be denied the Eucharist.

I'm believe 90 percent or more people shouldn't take the Eucharist. Or the Christian version, I won't. Because it should be taken seriously.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Melania Trump is being honest, when most people won't be.

 

[Tom8907]

You're surprised? Trump probably secretly agrees with her, he's just playing to his fan Base.

 

[Pommer]

Some bishops and priests would certainly disagree.

If anything, he should refrain from Holy Communion.

I’m fairly certain that JRB hasn’t obtained an abortion.

 

[RileyG]

I’m fairly certain that JRB hasn’t obtained an abortion.

So? He still supports it, nonetheless.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Without seeing the exact words she wrote, I'd be interested to know if she's modern-day pro-choice, or 1990's pro-choice, because there definitely is a difference between those two ideological positions.

People who would've been labelled "pro-choice" by 1992 standards (and may still consider themselves that today) would get labelled "anti-choice/anti-woman" in today's political ecosystem. She's in the age group that would apply to. She would've been in her 20's back in the era where pro-choice meant "safe, legal, and rare"

"safe, legal, and rare" was then and is not [now] part of the range of positions labeled "pro-choice".

"safe, legal, and rare" and "in favor of exemptions for health/rape/incest, but wanting a gestational cap on abortions being done outside of those reasons" would get (and has gotten) people "radical right" labelling these days.

No they wouldn't. This is basically Pres. Biden's position.

[edit to correct typo that altered meaning]

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I’m fairly certain that JRB hasn’t obtained an abortion.

How DARE you assume his gender. Joking, a little.

He's promoting Abortion as policy. Can one do that under the RCC teaching? Well, let's see.

Canon 1398 proscribes abortion as an act which attracts automatic excommunication. Also in 1983, the Holy See issued the "Charter of the Rights of the Family" which confirmed that "Human life must be absolutely respected and protected from the moment of conception."

U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: "It is the special responsibility of the diocesan bishop to work to remedy situations that involve public actions at variance with the visible communion of the Church and the moral law."

Catholic bishops approve new guidance on Communion for pro-abortion rights politicians

The U.S Conference of Catholic Bishops on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved new guidance vote on Communion for pro-abortion rights politicians, like President Joe Biden.

abcnews.go.com

 

[ThatRobGuy]

No they wouldn't. This is basically Pres. Biden's position.

Then why would it be that when certain states passed laws (that are basically the same as the Scandinavian countries -- exceptions for the outlier scenarios, but capping elective ones at 12-16 weeks) it was met which such rabid backlash?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Then why would it be that when certain states passed laws (that are basically the same as the Scandinavian countries -- exceptions for the outlier scenarios, but capping elective ones at 12-16 weeks) it was met which such rabid backlash?

That is vastly different than the 50-year standard of Roe (24 weeks), so no it doesn't match the standard "safe, legal, and rare" notion pushed by many politicians that supported access to abortion.

 

[RileyG]

How DARE you assume his gender. Joking, a little.

He's promoting Abortion as policy. Can one do that under the RCC teaching? Well, let's see.

Canon 1398 proscribes abortion as an act which attracts automatic excommunication. Also in 1983, the Holy See issued the "Charter of the Rights of the Family" which confirmed that "Human life must be absolutely respected and protected from the moment of conception."

U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: "It is the special responsibility of the diocesan bishop to work to remedy situations that involve public actions at variance with the visible communion of the Church and the moral law."

Catholic bishops approve new guidance on Communion for pro-abortion rights politicians

The U.S Conference of Catholic Bishops on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved new guidance vote on Communion for pro-abortion rights politicians, like President Joe Biden.

abcnews.go.com

Well said.

Biden can still identify as a woman….even though he’s well on in years I’m kidding

 

[RileyG]

"safe, legal, and rare" was then and is not part of the range of positions labeled "pro-choice".


No they wouldn't. This is basically Pres. Biden's position.

Safe, legal, and rare is no longer used? Or am I missing something?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

You're surprised? Trump probably secretly agrees with her, he's just playing to his fan Base.

Trump doesn't "secretly" agree with her. He openly stated his position which is completely an agreement with her. Trump specifically said that he supports abortion in cases of incest or the life of the mother and has been criticized by GOP law makers because of it. But regardless of his opinion, he supports the rights of the states to make that decision knowing that the decision is made by ELECTED officials of that state. Therefore, as a result or the repeal of Roe v. Wade, the people have more of a voice than ever. This was Trump's position, and the exact same position of his wife. So I do not know what the issue is.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

I'm believe 90 percent or more people shouldn't take the Eucharist. Or the Christian version, I won't. Because it should be taken seriously.

Why?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

No they wouldn't. This is basically Pres. Biden's position.

Who cares what Biden thinks? He was back-stabbed like Ceaser by the DNC and is now serving as a living corpse for a president. So Kamala is the new marionette face of the those actually in control of the DNC. So, what is your point?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That is vastly different than the 50-year standard of Roe (24 weeks), so no it doesn't match the standard "safe, legal, and rare" notion pushed by many politicians that supported access to abortion.

If we discuss it in pragmatic terms...

Most people don't see a reason (outside of the 3 exception scenarios) for waiting until 22-24 weeks instead of taking care of things in the first 12-16 weeks.

I understand what the legal precedent was, but it's important to understand how public discourse around certain topics impacts attitudes towards policy.

I think the changing "tone" around elective abortions (elective meaning "not for the reasons of rape/incest/health") is what started shifting public attitudes on the matter.

When the tone went from "yeah, we know it's going on, and it's a bad thing and certainly not the preferred approach to preventing parenthood, but it's a lesser of two evils situation" to...well...this:

She Started a Movement with One Brave Facebook Post

#ShoutYourAbortion founder Amelia Bonow on finding her voice and founding a platform to inspire and support other women.

www.oprahdaily.com

When getting an elective abortion went from something almost universally acknowledged as an unfortunate thing that did carry a certain element of justified sigma in most cases (again: "elective" meaning not for reasons of rape/incest/health) to something that was applauded as if it was some beacon of women's empowerment and equality, the tone of the opposing side changed too.


To put it another way, people will often make concessions and "tolerate" a thing they don't like, when they start to get the vibe that "the other side" is needling them or "rubbing it in their face", that's when they take a more hostile stance.


To use an inverse example, when some of the 2A guys opt for having a "open carry freedom rally" where they march down the street with AR15s wearing shirts like this:

Does that make their opposition more or less galvanized in their position? (the answer is more, because they feel like "okay, now they're just rubbing our face in it")

Same is applicable here... for the segment of people who didn't like elective abortions but were willing to tolerate it to a degree, a lot of that went out the window when people started organizing marches with people wearing vagina hats and shirts that said "#ShoutYourAbortion".

 

[Hans Blaster]

If we discuss it in pragmatic terms...

Most people don't see a reason (outside of the 3 exception scenarios) for waiting until 22-24 weeks instead of taking care of things in the first 12-16 weeks.

There really is. First, 12-16 weeks is not even close to "viability" (if that is a criteria being used, and it was by the Warren court). 22-24 weeks is "viable" in that births that take place at that stage have some chance of survival with about a million dollars in neo-natal ICU care. Second, it is my understanding that the recognition of pregnancy when none is expected (ie not taking frequent pregnancy tests because it is anticipated or hoped for) is 3-6 weeks "gestational age". Subtract that time and the difference between 1-2 months to decide and arrange it and 3 months is quite different.

I understand what the legal precedent was, but it's important to understand how public discourse around certain topics impacts attitudes towards policy.

I think the changing "tone" around elective abortions (elective meaning "not for the reasons of rape/incest/health") is what started shifting public attitudes on the matter.

When the tone went from "yeah, we know it's going on, and it's a bad thing and certainly not the preferred approach to preventing parenthood, but it's a lesser of two evils situation" to...well...this:

She Started a Movement with One Brave Facebook Post

#ShoutYourAbortion founder Amelia Bonow on finding her voice and founding a platform to inspire and support other women.

www.oprahdaily.com

When getting an elective abortion went from something almost universally acknowledged as an unfortunate thing that did carry a certain element of justified sigma in most cases (again: "elective" meaning not for reasons of rape/incest/health) to something that was applauded as if it was some beacon of women's empowerment and equality, the tone of the opposing side changed too.


To put it another way, people will often make concessions and "tolerate" a thing they don't like, when they start to get the vibe that "the other side" is needling them or "rubbing it in their face", that's when they take a more hostile stance.


To use an inverse example, when some of the 2A guys opt for having a "open carry freedom rally" where they march down the street with AR15s wearing shirts like this:

View attachment 355733

Does that make their opposition more or less galvanized in their position? (the answer is more, because they feel like "okay, now they're just rubbing our face in it")

Same is applicable here... for the segment of people who didn't like elective abortions but were willing to tolerate it to a degree, a lot of that went out the window when people started organizing marches with people wearing vagina hats and shirts that said "#ShoutYourAbortion".

Which has nothing to do with your claim:

"safe, legal, and rare" and "in favor of exemptions for health/rape/incest, but wanting a gestational cap on abortions being done outside of those reasons" would get (and has gotten) people "radical right" labelling these days.

and my reply:

"safe, legal, and rare" was then and is now part of the range of positions labeled "pro-choice".

or even related at all to Pres. Biden's position (the part of my post you originally replied to).

 

[Nithavela]

If she's gonna make windfall with a book and profit off her marriage to that guy, this book should do that.

She could have written a book with a pro-life stance with the same result.

 

[Whyayeman]

She could have written a book with a pro-life stance with the same result.

I agree. I think we should assume that the views she expresses in this little book are her own. We should know more after it is published.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Which has nothing to do with your claim:

"safe, legal, and rare" and "in favor of exemptions for health/rape/incest, but wanting a gestational cap on abortions being done outside of those reasons" would get (and has gotten) people "radical right" labelling these days.

and my reply:

"safe, legal, and rare" was then and is now part of the range of positions labeled "pro-choice".

or even related at all to Pres. Biden's position (the part of my post you originally replied to).

It actually does. "safe, legal, and rare" was basically the "slogan" of Bill Clinton on the subject in the 90's... A time where support for maintaining the precedent of Roe v. Wade was north of 60%.

"safe legal and rare" isn't part of the "pro-choice overton window" anymore.

Washington Post (certainly not a right-wing publication) even did a piece about how "Democrats purged safe legal and rare from the party, and that was out of step with where many voters were at"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/how-democrats-purged-safe-legal-rare-from-the-party/2019/11/15/369af73c-01a4-11ea-8bab-0fc209e065a8_story.html

Today, Democrats use the phrase at their peril. The party’s base appears unwilling to tolerate a slogan that suggests abortion ought to be “rare,” hearing in it too much of a concession to abortion opponents. As a result, most Democratic candidates have erased from their rhetoric any hint that abortion might be a subject on which reasonable people can disagree, and they’ve altered their policy proposals to match — endorsing the repeal of all restrictions on paying for abortions with federal money, for example. These moves might excite the party’s progressive base, but they put candidates out of step with the average American and even with many of their own voters.
Evidence of just how taboo it has become to use the phrase “safe, legal and rare” came in the most recent presidential primary debate, when Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii) uttered the fateful words, giving a nod to Hillary Clinton as she did so: “When she said abortion should be safe, legal and rare,” Gabbard said, “I think she’s correct.” The candidate favors abortion rights early in pregnancy and would codify the Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, but she’d prohibit abortion during the last three months of pregnancy “unless the life or severe health consequences of a woman are at risk.”


Left-leaning critics quickly descended. The Ohio affiliate of NARAL Pro-Choice America tweeted: “This is a position — making abortion ‘rare’ — not supported by pro-choice advocates.” A headline in Vice said Gabbard was “stuck in the ‘90s,” and the article’s author, Marie Solis, argued that the candidate had revived a “decades-old talking point that pro-choice supporters say only further stigmatizes abortion at a critical moment.”

Fair to say that NARAL is one of the prominent voices for pro-choice advocacy, correct?

When a candidate said they support the "Clinton-era Safe legal and rare", and NARAL's response was accusing them of being "stuck in the 90's", that was pretty telling.

It goes on to further state:
She quoted Amelia Bonow, a co-founder of the pro-abortion-rights group Shout Your Abortion, who said, “I cannot think of a less compelling way to advocate for something than saying that it should be rare. And anyone who uses that phrase is operating from the assumption that abortion is a bad thing.”
In 2012, the Democratic Party excised the word “rare” from its official platform, writing instead that it favored “safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay.”

So even the officially DNC platform removed the "rare" part, and replaced it with "regardless of ability to pay"


To summarize, no... "safe, legal, and rare" is no longer a position that's accepted as a "pro-choice" position anymore by many on the left.

And it's no coincidence that around that time, is when the pro-life crowd became more galvanized in their position and "let sleeping dogs lie" morphed into "okay, you know what...no, we're not going to concede on this anymore"