Connect with us

Politics

Opinion: The GOP's bait and switch on abortion

Published

on

Opinion: The GOP's bait and switch on abortion

When Republicans affirmed their party’s platform this week, it included a supposedly moderated position on abortion. Don’t believe it.

For decades, the GOP has explicitly pledged its support for a so-called human life amendment, which would extend the protections of the 14th Amendment — its guarantees of due process and equality under the law — to a zygote, from the moment an egg is fertilized, thereby banning abortion as a matter of constitutional law.

Donald Trump’s 2024 platform drops any mention of a human life amendment, emphasizes state control of abortion and explicitly expresses support for both contraception and in vitro fertilization. He seems to have successfully sidelined the most ardent abortion foes and pushed the party a little closer to the center on the issue, where most voters are after the Supreme Court’s overthrow of Roe vs. Wade.

Look more carefully, however, and you see that the Republican platform doesn’t abandon the party’s longstanding commitment to fetal personhood. It simply updates it, and hides it behind less direct language.

“We proudly stand for families and for life,” the GOP 2024 abortion plank begins, before it goes on to assert that the 14th Amendment’s guarantees back up an antiabortion stance. As one party official insisted, the language in no way strays from an adamant “pro-life” position because “there’s protection under the Constitution.”

Advertisement

And while the platform suggests that abortion should be left to the states, the message is there for those in the know: Constitutional fetal personhood would override state laws, even where ballot initiatives protect abortion rights.

The assertion of constitutional fetal personhood, however veiled it might appear to some, reflects an antiabortion strategy that is ascendant in the post-Roe vs. Wade era.

While Roe was the law of the land, fighting directly for a personhood amendment seemed necessary. If the Supreme Court would not reverse its 1973 decision — as long was the case — a constitutional amendment was the only way to undo the right to choose. But it would also require hard-to-achieve supermajorities in Congress and the states in support of a radical and unpopular idea. Rather than trying to overcome that hurdle and amend the Constitution, why not just change its judicial interpretation?

Winning over federal judges was much easier said than done. Even conservative judges and legal scholars weren’t always comfortable with the antiabortion movement, and it seemed their methods of constitutional interpretation, including originalism, some versions of which claim to identify the original public meaning of the text, would not deliver fetal personhood. Over time, however, the antiabortion movement and the conservative legal movement began to unite, finding an originalist angle to endorse: that from the get-go, the nation’s founders believed the unborn child had rights to due process and equality under the law.

In other words, a constitutional human life amendment is unnecessary because the 14th Amendment already guarantees fetal rights. The 2024 GOP abortion plank gestures to just that interpretation.

Advertisement

Of course a party platform is more about theory than practice. As to what a new Trump administration can and would do on the abortion front, there are other sources to look to.

Project 2025, for example, the widely discussed Trump 2.0 blueprint developed by the Heritage Foundation, promotes the revivification of the Comstock Act, a 19th century anti-obscenity law that conservatives — including the vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance — have argued prevents the mailing of abortion-related items. Enforcing it as Project 2025 envisions could create a de facto federal ban because virtually every abortion requires the use of something, from a scalpel to a pill, once put in the mail.

Or perhaps new Trumpian leadership at the FDA would act to reverse the agency’s scientists and take mifepristone, the medication abortion drug used in more than half of all U.S. abortions, off the market.

Or this: Some antiabortion groups have proposed that if Trump wins in November, he could simply use executive power to advance fetal personhood.

Most important for the antiabortion cause, a second presidential term would mean a chance for Trump to move the courts even further to the right. Instead of having to deal with Congress and politicians who worry about the displeasure of voters, abortion foes could rely on like-minded judges to push fetal personhood, judges with lifetime appointments. Trump has already helped the movement with picks such as Matthew Kacsmaryk, the federal judge in Texas who compares the abortion-rights movement to Nazism.

Advertisement

If you read between the lines, the GOP’s platform is not about moderation. It’s about creating the appearance of moderation, all while assuring the far-right’s antiabortion crusaders that a national abortion ban is still coming if a second Trump administration has anything to say about it.

It may just be a matter of time.

Mary Ziegler is a law professor at UC Davis and the author of “Roe: The History of a National Obsession.”

Advertisement

Politics

Contributor: The last shreds of our shared American culture are being politicized

Published

on

Contributor: The last shreds of our shared American culture are being politicized

At a time when so many forces seem to be dividing us as a nation, it is tragic that President Trump seeks to co-opt or destroy whatever remaining threads unite us.

I refer, of course, to the U.S. men’s Olympic hockey team winning gold: the kind of victory that normally causes Americans to forget their differences and instead focus on something wholesome, like chanting “USA” while mispronouncing the names of the European players we defeated before taking on Canada.

This should have been pure civic oxygen. Instead, we got video of Kash Patel pounding beers with the players — which is not illegal, but does make you wonder whether the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation has a desk somewhere with neglected paperwork that might hold the answers to the D.B. Cooper mystery.

Then came the presidential phone call to the men’s team, during which Trump joked about having to invite the women’s team to the State of the Union, too, or risk impeachment — the sort of sexist humor that lands best if you’re a 79-year-old billionaire and not a 23-year-old athlete wondering whether C-SPAN is recording. (The U.S. women’s hockey team also brought home the gold this year, also after beating Canada. The White House invited the women to the State of the Union, and they declined.)

It’s hard to blame the players on the men’s team who were subjected to Trump’s joke. They didn’t invite this. They’re not Muhammad Ali taking a principled stand against Vietnam, or Tommie Smith and John Carlos raising fists for Black power at the Olympics in 1968, or even Colin Kaepernick protesting police brutality by kneeling during the national anthem. They’re just hockey bros who survived a brutal game and were suddenly confronted with two of the most powerful figures in the federal government — and a cooler full of beer.

Advertisement

When the FBI director wants to hang, you don’t say, “Sorry, sir, we have a team curfew.” And when the president calls, you definitely don’t say, “Can you hold? We’re trying to remain serious, bipartisan and chivalrous.” Under those circumstances, most agreeable young men would salute, smile and try to skate past it.

But symbolism matters. If the team becomes perceived as a partisan mascot, then the victory stops belonging to the country and starts belonging to a faction. That would be bad for everyone, including the team, because politics is the fastest way to turn something fun into something divisive.

And Trump’s meddling with the medal winners didn’t end after his call. It continued during Tuesday night’s State of the Union address, when Trump spent six minutes honoring the team, going so far as to announce that he would award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to goalie Connor Hellebuyck.

To be sure, presidents have always tried to bask in reflected glory. The main difference with Trump, as always, is scale. He doesn’t just associate himself with popular institutions; he absorbs them in the popular mind.

We’ve seen this dynamic play out with evangelical Christianity, law enforcement, the nation of Israel and various cultural symbols. Once something gets labeled as “Trump-adjacent,” millions of Americans are drawn to it. However, millions of other Americans recoil from it, which is not healthy for institutions that are supposed to serve everyone. (And what happens to those institutions when Trump is replaced by someone from the opposing party?)

Advertisement

Meanwhile, our culture keeps splitting into niche markets. Heck, this year’s Super Bowl necessitated two separate halftime shows to accommodate our divided political and cultural worldviews. In the past, this would have been deemed both unnecessary and logistically impossible.

But today, absent a common culture, entertainment companies micro-target via demographics. Many shows code either right or left — rural or urban. The success of the western drama “Yellowstone,” which spawned imitators such as “Ransom Canyon” on Netflix, demonstrates the success of appealing to MAGA-leaning viewers. Meanwhile, most “prestige” TV shows skew leftward. The same cultural divides now exist among comedians and musicians and in almost every aspect of American life.

None of this was caused by Trump — technology (cable news, the internet, the iPhone) made narrowcasting possible — but he weaponized it for politics. And whereas most modern politicians tried to build broad majorities the way broadcast TV once chased ratings — by offending as few people as possible — Trump came not to bring peace but division.

Now, unity isn’t automatically virtuous. North Korea is unified. So is a cult. Americans are supposed to disagree — it’s practically written into the Constitution. Disagreement is baked into our national identity like free speech and complaining about taxes.

But a functioning republic needs a few shared experiences that aren’t immediately sorted into red and blue bins. And when Olympic gold medals get drafted into the culture wars, that’s when you know we’re running out of common ground.

Advertisement

You might think conservatives — traditionally worried about social cohesion and anomie — would lament this erosion of a mainstream national identity. Instead, they keep supporting the political equivalent of a lawn mower aimed at the delicate fabric of our nation.

So here we are. The state of the union is divided. But how long can a house divided against itself stand?

We are, as they say, skating on thin ice.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Video: Hillary Clinton Denies Ever Meeting Jeffrey Epstein

Published

on

Video: Hillary Clinton Denies Ever Meeting Jeffrey Epstein

new video loaded: Hillary Clinton Denies Ever Meeting Jeffrey Epstein

transcript

transcript

Hillary Clinton Denies Ever Meeting Jeffrey Epstein

The former first lady, senator and secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, told congressional members in a closed-door deposition that she had no dealings with Jeffrey Epstein.

“I don’t know how many times I had to say I did not know Jeffrey Epstein. I never went to his island. I never went to his homes. I never went to his offices. So it’s on the record numerous times.” “This isn’t a partisan witch hunt. To my knowledge, the Clintons haven’t answered very many questions about everything.” “You’re sitting through an incredibly unserious clown show of a deposition, where members of Congress and the Republican Party are more concerned about getting their photo op of Secretary Clinton than actually getting to the truth and holding anyone accountable.” “What is not acceptable is Oversight Republicans breaking their own committee rules that they established with the secretary and her team.” “As we had agreed upon rules based on the fact that it was going to be a closed hearing at their demand, and one of the members violated that rule, which was very upsetting because it suggested that they might violate other of our agreements.”

Advertisement
The former first lady, senator and secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, told congressional members in a closed-door deposition that she had no dealings with Jeffrey Epstein.

By Jackeline Luna

February 26, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

Vulnerable House Dem lashes out at Trump’s ‘racist’ SOTU challenge: ‘That was uncomfortable’

Published

on

Vulnerable House Dem lashes out at Trump’s ‘racist’ SOTU challenge: ‘That was uncomfortable’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Rep. Janelle Bynum, D-Ore., called a challenge from President Donald Trump at the 2026 State of the Union “racist” when he asked listeners to stand if they agreed the U.S. should prioritize the safety of its own citizens over illegal aliens.

“If you agree with this statement, then stand up and show your support,” Trump said.

“The first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens.”

Democrats remained seated for over a minute and a half as the Republican side of the chamber burst into prolonged applause.

Advertisement

President Donald Trump pictured ahead of his 2026 State of the Union Address on Feb. 24, 2026. (Kenny Holston-Pool/Getty Images)

After the address, Bynum, who is on the National Republican Congressional Committee’s list of vulnerable Dem incumbents, said the moment made her uneasy.

“I think you can agree with the ‘what’ — like standing up for American citizens,” Bynum said. “But I disagree with the ‘how.’”

“There’s thinly veiled racist language, anti-immigrant language in what he was asking, and that was uncomfortable,” Bynum said.

Bynum’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on how Trump’s challenge had asked lawmakers to discriminate on the basis of race. 

Advertisement

TRUMP SHAMES DEMOCRATS IN VIRAL STATE OF THE UNION CHALLENGE ON MIGRANT CRIME: ‘FIRST DUTY’

Trump’s remarks to Democrats on Tuesday came as a partial government shutdown drags on over demands Democrats have made to reform the agency at the heart of Trump’s immigration crackdown.

Rep. Janelle Bynum, D-Ore., left, pictured alongside President Donald Trump, right. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images; Craig Hudson For The Washington Post via Getty Images)

Democrats are demanding a set of 10 enforcement reforms for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and won’t vote to fund the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) until Republicans meet their demands.

DHS, which oversees ICE, went into a shutdown on Feb. 14.

Advertisement

DHS SHUTDOWN DRAGS INTO WEEK TWO AS IRAN THREAT, SOTU CLASH COMPLICATE HILL TALKS

Among other changes, Democrats are looking for a ban on masks, an end to roaming patrols, visible identification and stiffer warrant requirements for arresting illegal aliens in public.

Republicans have dismissed those demands, arguing that Democrats must first pass legislation to restrict “sanctuary cities” — local communities that have instructed their law enforcement not to cooperate with federal agents on immigration apprehensions and deportations.

DHS Agents in Charlotte, North Carolina on a mission. (Ryan Murphy/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

In a press release after the State of the Union, Bynum, who voted against DHS earlier this year, listed Trump’s framing of his immigration crackdown among her many critiques of the address.

“Tonight, I watched President Trump spend the majority of his speech lying about the state of our economy, demonizing immigrants and spewing more of the same divisive BS. I can’t say I’m surprised,” she wrote.

Related Article

How ICE went from post-9/11 counterterror agency to center of the immigration fight
Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending