"Support for federalism as a general principle is usually phony, and no issue illustrates this better than abortion rights. Almost nobody supports the idea of abortion rights being decided on a state by state basis, because that’s an idea that makes absolutely no sense from either any utilitarian or deontological perspective on the issue.
"Trump, it should be unnecessary to point out, has no moral principles of any kind, unless “what’s good for me is more important than any other consideration in the universe at all times and places” counts as a moral principle. So what’s he’s doing here is trying to pick the position that will help him the most, or hurt him the least, electorally speaking. How this is supposed to do so is unclear to me. The position beloved of reactionary centrists — a 15ish week national ban, with exceptions — would I imagine win some of the Ariana Grande vote, but this? Who is in favor of this besides Associate Justice I Like Beer?
"The real salient point here is that Trump will of course sign any legislation a Republican Congress puts in front of him, and such a Congress will certainly pass a draconian national ban at the first opportunity. But I can’t see how this statement does anything but hurt him on the margin in regard to the issue, and the margin is where the election will be decided." (our emphasis) -- Paul Campos, LGM, on the Malignant Loser's cynical gamesmanship on abortion rights. The dimbulb forced birthers are already expressing deep disappointment, but they'll fall in line once it's explained to them that he's admitted his position is all about winning the election (see Tweets, below) as he continues to brag about ending Roe v Wade. So if anyone has even the slightest doubt about this grifter's position or what would happen should he ever get into the Oval Office again, shame on you.
