English language and exhibit intelligent, effective analysis is near zero, so there is that whole aspect ---- but what was Roe v. Wade in actual analysis? It was a legal opinion attempting to balance some things including at least some restrictions on abortion after the first trimester -- 13 weeks. That is not a ban -- fully get it -- and different discussion how it played out in reality over time.

I'm just suggesting that right now -- from a political rhetoric standpoint, Trump will be hammered (rightly so) with what several more extreme states have done and this is going to be very effective. It would be a very sensible pivot for him to pretend to care about some form national consistency and with something that is less restrictive than what some of these states have now. And it could be vague enough to make a lot of moderates at least "think" -- meaning hoe some feel in and around the 16 week range and there could be talk of what might theoretically still be possible after 16 weeks. Again, Roe v. Wade attempted to say there were state interests at some level starting in the second trimester. One could spin a federal framework any number of ways. I don't think he could care less about any of this nor could anything reasonable come out of Congress on this issue these days, but that isn't the point. The point is how he could talk on the campaign trail about this issue -- an extremely difficult one right now nationally for Republicans.

And personally, something federal has probably always been the right solution. Roe v. Wade was arguably poor Constitutional law and as ugly as the battles are, this should always likely have been an issue with as reasonable, national consensus as can be crafted. Again, I have zero trust in that process today - especially from Republican leadership, but in theory -- it's likely the best solution on a very difficult issue.