IMHO the usual explanation of
why some US politicians talk
about making abortion illegal
is simple and obvious: Such politicians
want publicity, votes, and then
power in elected office.

Then, one level deeper, the reason
a politician suspects that
talking about making abortion illegal
would lead to votes
is (A) many voters
regard abortion as murder
of a human life, (B) an appeal to the
strong moral objections to murder,
(C) an appeal to the desire for
traditional family values
that cherishes children and, thus,
finds abortion repugnant murder,
(D) etc.

So, with (A)-(D), can hope to
get some voters
up on their hind legs,
get votes, win, take office,
have power.

IMHO, that's the usual explanation.

Again, my point here is not
about pro/con on abortion but
just on the process and
politics: In particular,
with my understanding of the
US legal system, talking about
making abortion illegal
is talking about something
that has slim to no chance
of happening, divisive,
a distraction from issues
where something might be done,
a spit to windward, etc.

A conspiracy explanation would
be that the US Republicans have
a list of favorite issues, heavily
to make the rich richer, don't
want to talk about those issues
in public in political campaigns,
so come up with issues, e.g.,
abortion, that will serve as
misdirections to permit winning
elections without talking about
or addressing in public in campaigns
the real issues
they have in mind. For more,
the explanation goes that
wealthy backers of the Republicans,
e.g., the Koch brothers, with
their money for political campaign
contributions,
are setting the real agenda
of the Republican party and
pulling strings of
the candidates as if they
were all puppets.

For me, I don't know how real that
explanation is: E.g., I know
next to nothing about
the Koch brothers or other
candidate string pullers. And
I don't know the extent to which
politicians have strings to be
pulled.

Money, Koch brothers, strings,
puppets, all aside, again,
just from the process,
I see
slim to no chances of
making abortion illegal
within 100 years so am
irritated that our political
process and the OP
are still talking about abortion
as if there might be some change
in the law. So, I find the OP
not very real and, thus, find
some irony in the OP talking
about Trump as not very real.

Then, is Trump real? Tough for
me to know: His poll numbers
are, for whatever they say that is
real, look real. His main
slogan about "great again"
is not very, say, solid
as in, say, a legal document,
a research paper in physical
science or mathematics, an
engineering document for,
say, a long bridge,
a detailed business plan, etc.,
but, then, for whatever reasons,
US politics doesn't have a lot
of documents nearly that solid.

So, if must evaluate a politician,
and if vote then do have to do that,
then have to go on evidence less
solid than would want.
Or, maybe pay attention to the
least un-solid evidence can get.

It looks like politics is
not very competitive, that is,
doesn't offer very solid products,
so that
in comparison, if the auto
industry were that uncompetitive,
then the average distance
a new car could travel
without falling apart would
be about 10 miles -- on
a good day!

I don't want to evaluate
Trump or any particular politician
here. Instead, again, my point
was to question how real the
OP was; at the place I indicated,
I found the OP to be not real
enough and soon quit reading.
So, I was shooting at the OP.
So, I'm not really discussing
politics or even abortion but
just editorial writing.