Republican platform doesn’t include a federal abortion ban

that plank will get whipped out after they are in power.

 

I see what you did there.

 

I wasn't aware this was part of the platform before. Is it a total ban on all abortions no matter the reason, age of fetus, etc? If so, I am surprised it's just now being removed. That's an extreme position. Can anyone clarify?

 

Haven't seen him in a while. Looks like he left the site

 

Quite the contrary, I think.

 

Really? Even though he was.........interesting, he always seemed calm. Maybe I missed something

 

Had a login problem & started a new account under the name "contra."

 

There is a lot of questions I have about this but todays polling isn’t one of them.

 

While evangelicals and Christian nationalists have made the most of the God and country political headlines in recent years, experts say they aren't as numerous or influential as other faith groups in the swing states — such as Wisconsin — where the presidential election will likely be decided.​

For example, about half of voters in Wisconsin identify as mainline Protestants or Catholics, said Craig Gilbert, the former Washington bureau chief of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and a fellow at the Marquette University Law School's Lubar Center for Public Policy Research and Civic Education. The "nones," those who claim no religion, make up another quarter. White evangelicals (16%) and other faiths make up the rest.​

Gilbert said he and a colleague looked at polling from 2020 and compared it with more recent polls. Their study showed that both candidates are seen less favorably than they were — though former President Donald Trump has become more popular with born-again voters while President Joe Biden has become more popular with nones.​

Predicting what will happen this fall is tricky, he said.​

Why the swing state faith voters who really matter in 2024 aren't evangelicals

This is an insightful article that probably explains the movement of Republicans on this. Parties exist to win elections, and it appears to be the case that Republicans think they need to win the mainline Protestant and Catholic votes in swing states to win in November. Hence they are complacently caving on the abortion issue. If that is the case, then many evangelical voters will reevaluate their willingness to vote Republican down the line as I have already begun to do. I have said it for a while now that I am unsure how I will vote in November, and this is a big part of it. You either oppose murdering babies or you don't. There is no middle ground.

 

timeline of events does match up

 

Also softening the stance on same-sex marriage. They took out that marriage is only "between one man and one woman" and replaced it with promoting a "culture that values the Sanctity of Marriage, the blessing of childhood, the foundational role of family, and supports working parents."

Trump pushes new GOP platform softening party’s positions on abortion and same-sex marriage

 

You didn’t see what I did there.

 

It's been in the party platform since 1984. That year, they passed language saying they stood for an "amendment to the Constitution and legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to children before birth."

No mention of total ban, but no mention of exceptions either. The language obviously leaves it open to a total federal ban.

Republicans change platform to reflect Trump's position opposing federal abortion ban

 

It is hard to tell. This seems like it could be a strategic social shift in the Republican party platform. Republicans will shift the platform in whatever way they have to in order to win elections. That is what you are seeing. The question is whether pro-life Christians will get on the train if Republicans leave the pro-life movement. Trump made a statement in the last debate with respect to the abortion issue. He said, "But you have to be able to win elections." I think he was talking about his softer stance on having certain exceptions for early term abortions, abortion in the case of rape, etc. It kind of showed me his POV. He is trying to straddle the fence that separates the voters who might vote Republican if pro-life is not part of the platform and the pro-life Christians who vote Republican because that is the single most important issue.

There are three essential questions pro-life Christians have to ask themselves when they vote for Trump in November IMO:

1. Are Trump and the Republicans committed to protecting the sanctity of life?
2. If the sanctity of life is not protected by either party in a 2 party system, then will they vote for the lesser of two evils based on other issues with moral importance, or will they accept a permanent 3rd party status with no influence whatsoever on which of the two main parties holds office in the capital?
3. Are exceptions to the sanctity of life (i.e. 1st trimester, rape, incest, etc.) something a pro-life Christian is willing to hold their nose and tolerate in the spirit of voting for the lesser of two evils?
​

The first question is difficult to answer. The second question is also difficult to answer as well. The third question is highly related to the prior two questions. Things were simple when one of the two major parties advocated for the overturning of Roe vs. Wade. There was a realistic pathway to win an election that involved advocating for protecting the sanctity of life. The voting question is much more difficult now when that is not the case. Either way it seems inevitable that pro-life Christians might wake up one day and find the two parties are identically neo-pagan in their moral values while only deviating on economic, fiscal, and geopolitical issues. The more that becomes a reality the less likely it is that I would vote Republican.

 

It was not a login issue, but it was a technical issue.

 

I am under no illusions that a significant part of the GOP wants a total ban on abortion. They also want to go after contraception. Softening their message to win votes does not fool me one bit.

 

The Republicans are a house divided at this point. If MTG and Boebert have a Christian faith at all it is about as deep as a rain puddle. I can't imagine either one of them has deeply engrained moral principles they vote on. Trump is not a Christian either, but he is willing to court Christians and their political preferences when it is advantageous to win an election. Pence is one of the few Republicans who truly cares about this, which is why he is speaking up. For most Republican politicians, though, it is not advantageous to do so this election cycle, so they are changing the tune they have been singing the last 8 years.

Read that article I posted above. Republicans are waking up to the fact that pro-life Christians are not the most important constituency for them to win elections. Hence they are writing their platform to court those who will win elections for them. Politicians and by an extension political parties care about the issues that will win them elections.

 

This has never been an issue. Most of us always wanted the feds out of it and let the states decide. No one is staying home over this.

Its the left that actually wants the feds involved in the abortion debate.

 

Well, and the middle. I “want” the feds for the opposite reason you want the barely smaller brother states. In one scenario it is on you to decide as an individual. You have actual liberty. Believe it’s a mortal sin or the only consideration is the pregnancy itself, then exercise your choice. Believe it’s not those things, or you have medical issues or whatever, then exercise your choice.

In one scenario all pregnant wonen make their own decisions, in the other they don’t. So just like I oppose a fed ban, I support a fed guarantee of liberty.

I don’t support some sort of weirdass fed mandate for an abortion either. Just stay away from people except to guarantee liberty. That goes for states too.