Charles Cooke calls this an ideological Turing test, i.e. a question whose answer reveals how plausible it is that Trump really is who he claims to be. The standard answer from nearly all serious pro-lifers is that its the abortionist, not his patient, who should be sanctioned if and when abortion is banned. The March of Life explains why:
Mr. Trumps comment today is completely out of touch with the pro-life movement and even more with women who have chosen such a sad thing as abortion, said Jeanne Mancini, President of the March for Life Education and Defense Fund. Being pro-life means wanting what is best for the mother and the baby. Women who choose abortion often do so in desperation and then deeply regret such a decision. No pro-lifer would ever want to punish a woman who has chosen abortion. This is against the very nature of what we are about. We invite a woman who has gone down this route to consider paths to healing, not punishment.
Ted Cruz, when hes inevitably asked about this now, will give some variation of that same response. Trump, whom his conservative critics suspect of being an opportunist on abortion rather than committed to the cause, went a different route. You can almost see the wheels turning in his head here: He knows, as a political matter, that he cant let Cruz get to his right on abortion. Republicans will let him slide on a lot a lot but if he gives them reason to think hes BSing them on an issue at the very core of social conservatism, it could give Cruz the break he needs to take off. And so, when he gets the question from Matthews about what to do with women who insist on having abortions in a hypothetical future where the practice is banned, he goes with his gut and his gut is stay to the right. So sure, lets punish women for abortion. This is the message the partys carrying into the general election against the first woman major-party nominee, huh? By a guy whos already having major problems polling among women, no less.
Its easy to understand how an amateur would stumble into this answer, writes Matt Lewis, but why would you want to nominate an amateur?
In truth, like the notion that there should be exceptions for rape and incest, the notion that only the abortion doctor (not the woman having the abortion) should face penalties, is inconsistent with the notion that abortion is murder.
Yet these political compromises are necessary in order to cobble together a palatable and defensible (if admittedly inconsistent) public policy position that might someday actually be able to win the argument in mainstream America.
Part of the goal is to remove the ability for pro-choicers to demagogue the issue by scaring vulnerable women. Now, thanks to Trump, thats back on the table.
Trumps already trying to walk it back even though the townhall with Matthews from which this was clipped hasnt aired yet:
Hillarys already attacking him over it. So is Team Cruz, as youll see in the second clip below. Trump can run from it but its on tape and every down-ballot Republican will wear it now if hes the nominee. And the best part, as one Twitter pal said, is that Trump will eventually (eventually as in probably within the next few hours) deny that he ever said it to begin with. Still think this is all part of a master strategy or could it be that he really is winging it?
MATTHEWS: If you say abortion is a crime or abortion is murder, you have to deal with it under law. Should abortion be punished?
It is not a trick question, no matter how many times you bold or italicize or underline various portions.
If abortion is a crime or if abortion is murder, the law does have to mete out consequences for breaking those laws. If you listen closely, Matthews says, "Ten years or ten cents or what?" by which he meant would it be fines or jail time. Then Trump fell into his trap as Matthews said "For the woman?". And the trap snapped shut.
You really should consider why you're supporting a candidate that can be so easily tricked by Tingly Chris because he isn't that smart. Chrissy led him like a lamb to slaughter while deflecting Trump's jabs that Chrissy was a bad Catholic.
"What shocks me is how many people here at LF just don't get what what it was that Trump said."
What shocks me is how many people here at LF refuse to recognize what Trump said.
Trump wasn't asked a question. He was given a ridiculous hypothetical. He was asked: If abortion was illegal, and the mother broke the law, should she be punished?
Well, hell. If that's the way the law is written, of course.
Answer me this, smartass. If posting on LP is illegal, should all of us be rounded up and punished? (In my Chris Matthews voice) Yes or no? Yes or no? Don't wiggle around. C'mon. Yes or no?
Tomorrow's Headline: "Too Conservative Trashes First Amendment!"
Trump wasn't asked a question. He was given a ridiculous hypothetical. He was asked: If abortion was illegal, and the mother broke the law, should she be punished?
I don't see how it was ridiculous.
Women were never punished for abortion. Only abortionists were ever prosecuted.
The proper answer for Trump, the only answer, is "women have never been prosecuted for abortion and they will not be, no matter what Congress or the Court does with Roe v. Wade".
No anti-abortion law has ever punished a woman (unless she was the abortionist). That was Matthews' gotcha question. And Trump fell for it, hook, line and sinker. Because he actually does have the liberal pro-abortion view of the entire issue, just like Matthews does: back-alley abortions, women being prosecuted, etc.
You can whine about it all you want here at dusty little LF but you aren't going to change Trump's offense to all the pro-life orgs.
Recall what happened to Giuliani, cruising along at 65% approval nationally, in 2008 after he said he would pay for his daughter's abortion? It was like a balloon popping. This would be comparable to that in the damage it does. Giuliani only hurt himself as a candidate whereas Trump hurt the entire pro-life cause by giving the abortion mills a major propaganda victory.
Where the pro-abort fed.gov and her Whore of Babylon SCOTUS shoot down repeal of Roe v. Wade, state governments have taken to what amounts to an operational envelopment to abortion providers.
Abortion clinics are closing in the U.S. at a record pace. In five states Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming just one remains. American women were having fewer abortions before clinic closings accelerated in the last couple of years. So no one can be sure how much the push to restrict clinics is connected to falling abortion rates. But the new strategy adopted by abortion opponents, and the court battles it has set off, have tested how far abortion rights can be limited without being overturned.
For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
So no one can be sure how much the push to restrict clinics is connected to falling abortion rates.
It's the effect of Plan 9 and morning-after massive doses of birth control.
The trend will only accelerate as it becomes standard practice for the younger generation. At present, abortion is mostly for women too dumb or complacent to use the emergency contraceptives.
"Women were never punished for abortion. Only abortionists were ever prosecuted."
Then why did Matthews propose a situation where women might be punished? Why would Matthews even ask the question? Why? Because in his hypothetical, it was illegal for the woman to have an abortion.
"You can whine about it all you want here at dusty little LF but you aren't going to change Trump's offense to all the pro-life orgs."
If they're offended, then they were just waiting for any stupid excuse to be offended.
If posting on LP is illegal, should all of us be rounded up and punished? (In my Chris Matthews voice) Yes or no? Yes or no? Don't wiggle around. C'mon. Yes or no?
Shutting down the clinics is shutting down the providers.
For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
Then why did Matthews propose a situation where women might be punished?
Because it is a favorite shibboleth of the Left and always has been.
That was the trap and Trump fell right into it, thinking he was clever by trying to counter that Chrissy was a bad Catholic. Which is beside the point. No matter how much Trump might demonstrate factually that Chrissy is a bad Catholic, it doesn't change the major propaganda victory that Chrissy scored against Trump.
And Trump's answer does indicate that he shares that same exact worldview of the results of outlawing abortion. You might not see that but, believe me, the established pro-lifers noticed it.
Again, how are higher facility standards "prosecuting men"?
Currently you cannot by law prosecute an abortion provider.
By shutting down their clinics you shut down the provider.
For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
If posting on LP is illegal, should all of us be rounded up and punished? (In my Chris Matthews voice) Yes or no? Yes or no? Don't wiggle around. C'mon. Yes or no?
"No."
The proper answer is that the feds would close it down entirely and go after Stone. Which is actually more likely to happen in the real world than you realize.
In the same way, when outlawing abortion, you'd go after the abortionists and their clinics (also the ob/gyn's who quietly perform abortions in their regular medical offices for their own clients which is not uncommon). We never went after women before Roe either, only the abortionist.
There is well over a century of history of this policy. Try reading a little so you won't be as ignorant as your man-crush.
It's a true statement. Those providing the illegal service before Roe were prosecuted and the woman was not.
Even under English common law, old English common law, women were turned over to ecclesiastical authority for penance.
Groups like the pro-life SBA see women who have abortions as a victim.
For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
I asked if posters to LP should be punished if posting on LP was illegal.
You answered "no", making you an anti-law-and-order anarchist.
It doesn't at all, no matter how desperate you are to defend your ridiculous and ignorant candidate putting his foot in his mouth and giving the Left a yuuge propaganda victory, one comparable to Todd Akin and his "legimately raped" comment.
More than that, I am aware of how the government does go about shutting down forums and websites. And they always go after the owner/operator of the site, almost never go after the individual posters as long as they are not pursuing illegal activities on that forum. You can see this will Silk Road and other Dark Web sites and other sites dealing in black market goods.
You can't erase Trump's blunder to an easily avoided question. You can't excuse his complete ignorance about the history of abortion policy because every other candidate we have does know the correct answer.
At some point, they'll have some trick questions for Trump on guns as well. And those will likely work too. That is because Trump is ignorant and lazy and won't hire proper professionals to brief and drill him on these inevitable gotcha traps the libmedia will set for him.
I find it interesting that Trump has no problem at all with Chrissy Matthews tripping him up this way. He hasn't called Chrissy any names, talked about blood spurting out of him, etc. Yet he still has an ongoing blood feud vendetta with Megyn Kelly.
#227. To: TooConservative, misterwhite, All (#226)
I find it interesting that Trump has no problem at all with Chrissy Matthews tripping him up this way.
All Donald Dollar had to do to fluster Tingles, in the way Jon Stewart did, was to ask him the since he posed a hypothetical question about the illegality of abortion he, Tingles, needs to be more specific and define exactly what crime by the new law would then be committed if an abortion was performed. Would it be a civil or criminal offense? Would it be a misdemeanor or homicide? Would it be a Federal or a State crime or both?
Can Dollar Donald be a more apparent shill for Hillary?
Even under English common law, old English common law, women were turned over to ecclesiastical authority for penance.
Groups like the pro-life SBA see women who have abortions as a victim.
This flies in the face of all logic and reason behind the foundation of our laws.
If I hire someone to kill my spouse because she became ill or was an physical or emotional inconvenience/hardship to me or it was a shotgun wedding would I be the victim when the hit man fulfilled the contract? Would I be free of any legal consequences?
The SBA's position is absurd. Yes, in some case a woman might be a victim as well as a willful initiator and participant of an illegal act. Consequences should attach.
The SBA's position is absurd. Yes, in some case a woman might be a victim as well as a willful initiator and participant of an illegal act. Consequences should attach.
You fail to think it through.
If you prosecute women who try to have abortions (or have had abortions), you then open the door to prosecuting for murder all the women who had abortions when it was still legal.
There is no statute of limitations on murder.
So you'd have 40-50 million women liable for murder charges.
As a practical matter of politics, you can't make women the murderers. You have to go after the person who performed the abortion.
Can Dollar Donald be a more apparent shill for Hillary?
Actually, he's just a run-of-the-mill liberal NYC Democrat and has all the attitudes on public policy that you would expect. That is what the Chrissy interview showed us.
Don't pull out one piece and draw some twisted, incorrect conclusion.
That's whiny bullshit - what "twisted, incorrect conclusion" did I supposedly draw, and what missing "context" supposedly proves the conclusion incorrect?
If you prosecute women who try to have abortions (or have had abortions), you then open the door to prosecuting for murder all the women who had abortions when it was still legal.
Women were never punished for abortion. Only abortionists were ever prosecuted.
The proper answer for Trump, the only answer, is "women have never been prosecuted for abortion and they will not be, no matter what Congress or the Court does with Roe v. Wade".
This claim appears overly broad. In today's world, where the woman can take a pill to induce a miscarriage/abortion, women can and have been prosecuted and sent to prison.
It isn't justice for Purvi Patel to serve 20 years in prison for an abortion
When women are desperate to end their pregnancies, they will. The answer to this shouldnt be punitive, but supportive
Jessica Valenti April 2, 2015 The Guardian
Abortion is illegal in the United States. So is having a stillbirth not officially, perhaps, but thanks to a case in Indiana, were halfway there. On Monday, Purvi Patel, a 33 year old woman who says that she had a miscarriage, was sentenced to 20 years in prison for neglect of a dependent and feticide. She is the first woman in the United States to ever be sentenced for such a crime.
In July 2013, Patel went to the emergency room with heavy bleeding. She eventually admitted to miscarrying a stillborn fetus and placing it in a bag in a dumpster. (Patel lived with her religiously conservative parents who did not believe in premarital sex.) After police searched Patels cellphone, they found text messages that suggested she bought abortion-inducing drugs online.
Despite the fact that no traces of any abortifacent were found in Patels blood work taken at the hospital, the prosecution argued that she had taken the drugs mentioned in her text messages and caused her miscarriage at 23-24 weeks of pregnancy. And, in legal maneuvering that defies imagination, Patel was charged not just with fetal homicide, but with neglecting a child. As the Guardian reported last year, these charges are completely contradictory: neglecting a child means that you neglected a live child, and feticide means that the baby was born dead.
But logic has never been at the center of the draconian laws and arrest policies that target pregnant women: control is. As Lynn Paltrow, the executive director of the National Advocates for Pregnant Women, told me last year about laws aimed at drug-using pregnant women, this kind of prosecution is about making pregnant women from the time an egg is fertilized subject to state surveillance, control and extreme punishment.
And, as with other laws that hurt pregnant women, Indianas feticide law was not intended (explicitly, anyway) to be a policy that affected women: it was supposedly designed to target illegal abortion providers. But despite the anti-choice insistence that women are victims of abortion providers, the history of how similar laws are used show just how much its women and women of color in particular who are directly impacted by fetal protection policies.
After a feticide law was passed in Texas in 2003, for example, a local district attorney used the opportunity to send a letter to all doctors in her county that they were now legally required to report any pregnant women using drugs. Doctors complied, and and more than 50 women were reported and charged with crimes.
We may never know what really happened in Patels case. She has repeatedly said that she had a miscarriage which, if true, means that the state is sending a woman to jail for not having a healthy pregnancy outcome. But even if Patel did procure and take drugs to end her pregnancy, are we really prepared to send women to jail for decades if they have abortions? Even illegal ones?
When women are desperate to end their pregnancies, they will. The answer to this shouldnt be punitive, but supportive: women need better access to education, affordable contraception and abortion without harassment or delay.
Patels case opens the door for any woman who expresses doubt about her pregnancy to be charged if she miscarries or has a stillbirth. Its a terrifying thought, but one that is already impacting real women: the anti-choice movement is now sending women to jail for what happens during their pregnancies. So tell me again how abortion is totally legal. Or tell Purvi Patel.