In the wake of last Friday’s abortion decision — Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which repealed Roe v. Wade — I’ve read some interesting things about Trump, his relationship to abortion, and whether abortion access could be made available on federal and indigenous land. 

Does Donald Trump want credit for the Rollback of Abortion Rights

It’s pretty well known that Donald Trump has been pro-choice for most of his life. The only reason he switched to a pro-life position is that was the courtesan who brought him to the dance. No romancing of pro-choice evangelicals, no Presidency for #45. 

In reality, Trump is about as pro-life as I am a unicorn.

For the record, I’m still stunned that no woman has come out of the woodwork to claim that Trump got her pregnant and paid for her abortion. What would have happened if Karen McDougal had become pregnant after being tagged by Trump. You don’t think he would have paid for her abortion?

Regardless, immediately after the decision was released on Friday, Donald Trump bloviated that the Dobbs decision was “the biggest WIN for LIFE in a generation” and was only “made possible” by the three Supreme Court appointees that Trump nominated.

For once in his life Trump is actually correct.

He gets both the credit and the blame. 

And yet, even Trump recognizes that this may be a double-edged sword. For one thing, all of the “suburban moms” that Trump lost in 2020 are likely to come out and vote Democratic in both 2022 and 2024. Reportedly, two of Trump’s advisers told the Washington Post that the former president favored limiting abortion rather than banning it.

“He keeps shitting all over his greatest accomplishment. When you speak to him, it’s the response of someone fearing the backlash and fearing the politics of what happens when conservatives actually get what they want [on abortion],” says one source who has talked to Trump about this in the weeks following the SCOTUS draft opinion leak. “I do not think he’s enjoying the moment as much as many of his supporters are, to be honest with you.”

This, according to an article published in the Rolling Stone.

Nearly one in four women in the United States (23.7%) will have an abortion by age 45, according to a an analysis by the Guttmacher Institute. That is a lot of women. That is a lot of voters.

Right now, the pro-life Republicans are a little bit like the dog that catches the car. So far so good for the ebullient pro-lifers, but this might also produce a spectacular backlash.  

Can abortion rights be maintained on Federal and Native Lands.

One of the very interesting questions that has come up in the last few days is whether the federal government could offer abortion services on federal lands, or whether Native Americans could offer abortion services on indigenous lands. Both issues are problematic, but offer some intriguing possibilities.

First of all, when it comes to federal funding, there is still the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortion, with limited exceptions. So, I’m not quite sure how you could provide abortion services on federal land without violating the Hyde amendment. 

Could the Hyde Amendment  be overruled?

Maybe.

But we’re not there yet.

So, what about indigenous land. As may people may remember, indigenous lands are not subject to most state laws and many federal laws. That’s why we had the boom of casinos not subject to state regulation on indigenous land.

But the relationship between tribal nations and the state and federal governments are complicated.

The second question is, are Native Americans generally pro-choice or pro-life. And the answer to that is complicated as well. Tribes also struggle with basic healthcare.

Still — if providing abortion access could bring in financial revenue for tribes just like gaming did — there is the possibility that at least some tribes might be interested in participating in that. And (at first blush) it does not appear that anybody could stop them.