Fox New's Bill O'Reilly used a viewer submitted question to press his personal friend Donald Trump about to name one specific thing Trump would do to protect the sanctity of life
Trump as the the presumptive Republican nominee proffered the so called No Spin Zone some soothing sentiments to pro-life partisans by claiming that he would appoint pro-life judges, but not necessarily commiting to overturn Roe v. Wade (1973). Huh? How does that work?
Of course, the Trump's unequivocal utterance does not square well with Trump's track record, even during this Presidential campaign. Trump made headlines in late March when he mused that women having abortions should be punished. Of course, this was one of only four different abortion utterances in one day, which eventually extended to changing the GOP party platform to allow more exceptions. Moreover, how does Trump's latest claim comport with his repeated assertions that Planned Parenthood does great things for women's health.
Trump spun the sanctity of life question into picking pro-life justices for Supreme Court nomination. It would seem that made Trump's earlier idea of appointing his abortion rights sister who is a judge to the nation's highest court inoperative. If O'Reilly really did not want to be spun, he should have followed up on Trump's vetting process for appointing "conservative, pro-life judges", especially since Trump waffled on overturning Roe v. Wade. To legally drill down, clarification is necessary to discern if there is a right to privacy embedded in the Bill of Rights and applied to the states.
In prior pressers, Trump opined that same-sex marriage is the "Law of the Land". Well, Justice Kennedy's opinion on the same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) is premised on a newly concocted "right to dignity" that reads things into the Bill of Rights via the 14th Amendment. As Trump was squishy about overturning Roe v. Wade which enshrined the judicial activist practice of forcing federal will upon states concerning matters of prior state jurisdiction, the same-sex marriage case law is directly relevant.
From a culture war standpoint, it is easy to see Trump's flip-flop on the Transgendered (well, actually transvestites or those claiming gender fluidity at a given moment) to use the opposite sex bathroom. The Trump Town Hall pronouncement is that North Carolina's bathroom bill hurt business and ought to be rescinded. As Attorney General Loretta Lynch made clear in suing the State of North Carolina for respecting traditional public facility proprieties, Transgendered Bathrooms has been elevated into a civil rights issue, reading gender dysphoria into the 1965 Civil Rights Act. Once again, understanding the judicial philosophy of a hypothetical Trump Administration's judicial vetting would be instructive. Otherwise, voters are just being played and the Deal Maker in Chief could bargain with his cronies.
While it is quixotic to be a one issue voter, especially on anti-abortion issues. But Trump's word seems to be worth little on fundamental issues. Moreover, when Trump was asked what he would do specifically, he relied on labels "I'd appoint conservative, pro life judges" but won't bother with the details of reversing Roe v. Wade.