Daniel Halliday
May 3 · Last update 8 days ago.

What is behind the Trump administration’s apparent attack on abortion?

Following the recent confrontation with the United Nations over a UN resolution to end sexual violence in war, the United States government, and Vice President Mike Pence in particular, seem intent on waging a war of policy against abortion. But why now? What is behind the US government’s recent attack on abortion?
Stats of Viewpoints
A last ditch attempt to push policy before leaving office
1 agrees
0 disagrees
Possible opposition to protect US military’s use of sexual violence
1 agrees
0 disagrees
Trump is right to stop this barbaric practice
1 agrees
0 disagrees
US efforts are international
1 agrees
0 disagrees
Gradual attempts to roll back Roe v. Wade
1 agrees
0 disagrees
Viewpoints
Add New Viewpoint

A last ditch attempt to push policy before leaving office

Could this be a possible strategy to pass any unpopular policy you want for what could become the last year for this administration in office? The White House has pushed for a reconsideration of abortion legislation in the United States and even internationally by opposing a recent UN resolution under Trump, despite Trump claiming to be pro-choice in the past. In a presidency plagued by inaction, grand statements and intentions followed by numerous turnarounds, personnel reshuffles and failure to deliver, could this just be a last ditch attempt to get something through that Trump campaigned on? Could this be the same reason Trump sought to buy Greenland? Putting his legacy over reason, morals and popular opinion.

beta.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/15/how-trump-became-an-abortion-hard-liner

Agree
Disagree
Latest conversation
Daniel Halliday
Sep 12
Created

Possible opposition to protect US military’s use of sexual violence

The push to revise US law aside, international anger was aimed at the country due to the Trump administration’s effort to water down a UN resolution to end sexual violence in war. This “intolerable and incomprehensible” stance (as it was described by the French UN ambassador François Delattre [1]) could however be explained by the Trump administration not wanting the US military or intelligence community to be prosecuted for war crimes. When you consider the long history of the use of sexual violence by the US military and intelligences services, and that this is at odds with the UN resolution to end sexual violence, as it “would have made it easier for international organizations to track perpetrators of sexual violence in war” [1]. It could therefore be argued that the Trump administration are not just opposed to “projects that support or facilitate abortions” [1], but may also be wanting to avoid a possible loss of impunity for some of the darker measures the US military puts to use.

[1] washingtonpost.com/world/2019/04/24/un-wanted-end-sexual-violence-war-then-trump-administration-had-objections thoughtco.com/american-torture-techniques-721718 theguardian.com/media/2004/apr/30/television.internationalnews

Agree
Disagree
Latest conversation
Daniel Halliday
Sep 12
Created

Trump is right to stop this barbaric practice

The legal status of abortion is currently protected in the United States due to a Supreme Court decision in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case, and has been hugely controversial ever since. It is a widely held belief in the U.S. that life begins at conception and to take a human life, even before birth is murder and should be punished not encouraged or protected. However, Roe v. Wade is also thought to lack any constitutional validity and has been criticised by legal experts who have taken the language reads more like hospital regulations than law. Yale Law Professor, John Hart Ely, is often cited in his strong critique of this law, finding it “lacks connection with any value the Constitution marks as special, it is not a constitutional principle and the Court has no business imposing it” [1]. Trump is right to attack this piece of law that seems unconstitutional and he is right to attack this act that remains barbaric.

[1] digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5116&context=fss_papers

Agree
Disagree
Latest conversation
Daniel Halliday
Sep 11
Created

US efforts are international

The United States’ new moves against abortion do not just affect the States exclusively, but have international implications. The “global gag rule” re-enacted by the Trump administration is an expansion of policy that limits organisations that want to work with a US global health assistance program to organisations that don’t provide abortion services or even advocate for abortion. This policy jeopardises schemes put in place by the governments of more progressive countries such as the UK and Canada, and also limits the potential of organisations such as the Bill Gates foundation that has advocated for family planning schemes. The repercussions of this policy may lead to a quick decline in rights of women internationally, and this move by the US underlines the failing of the UN in standing their ground and protecting human rights following US threats.

youtube.com/watch?v=s8kNjClIjjg

Agree
Disagree
Latest conversation
Daniel Halliday
Jun 7
Created

Gradual attempts to roll back Roe v. Wade

Roe v. Wade was a milestone legal judgement made by the United States Supreme Court in 1973, that decided a woman’s right to have an abortion was protected under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. While the Trump administration may have not publicly announced that they are trying to repeal this law, the passing of hundreds of restrictions on abortions since 2010 is making it clear they are trying to undermine landmark legal matter. Legislation such as TRAP laws, designed to drive abortion providers out of business, represents the first few steps toward what Republicans really want, but it’s too delicate a moral and ethnic issue and has such a large amount of public support behind it, that they won’t openly denounce Roe v. Wade.

rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/the-stealth-war-on-abortion-102195

Agree
Disagree
Latest conversation
Daniel Halliday
May 4
Created
Translate