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 it’s the abortionist, not his patient, who should be sanctioned if and when abortion is banned. The March of Life explains why:
“Mr. Trump’s 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 he’s 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 can’t 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 he’s 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, let’s punish women for abortion. This is the message the party’s carrying into the general election against the first woman major-party nominee, huh? By a guy who’s already having major problems polling among women, no less.
It’s 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, that’s back on the table.
Trump’s already trying to walk it back even though the townhall with Matthews from which this was clipped hasn’t aired yet:
Hillary’s already attacking him over it. So is Team Cruz, as you’ll see in the second clip below. Trump can run from it but it’s on tape and every down-ballot Republican will wear it now if he’s 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?
Trump: If abortion is banned, there has to be some form of punishment for women who do it
Trump is absolutely correct. If, and the word is IF, an act is made a serious disregard or affront to the law, the act must be punished or there is no law. That's a secondary consequence that must by considered when passing a law.
"That's a secondary consequence that must by considered when passing a law."
Exactly. Trump should have responded, "Well, what does the law say?"
The law could read that no one is allowed to perform an abortion. Those who do are punished according to the law. Whether or not the woman is also punished is subject to the law.
Exactly. Trump should have responded, "Well, what does the law say?"
But that isn't what he said.
The Dims will promptly launch a campaign against him like the one against Todd Akin. All that Akin said was that women who are "legitimately" raped rarely get pregnant. Trump went much further than that.
And the Dims will tar every Republican with the same brush, the usual War On Women garbage.
Sure it was. All Matthews said was that "abortion is illegal". What does that mean? Does that mean "If a woman has an abortion she is breaking the law"?
If so, doesn't it follow that a woman be punished if she breaks the law?
"And Trump answered YES, women must be punished for abortion."
Within hours he corrected that and said no. Did you read it? Are people not allowed to correct their mistakes?
So you really do want to execute the mother but only give the abortionist a prison sentence.
The proper law is for the mother, the abortion doctor, the attending nurse and the knowing financiers to be treated as first degree murderers, and for those who knowingly drive the victim and his mother to the clinic to be aborted and the billing staff to all be charged with being accessories to murder.
Abortion is the premeditated murder of an innocent child, and the perpetrators, arrangers and other accessories should be treated the same as any other first degree murder case.
Abortion is the premeditated murder of an innocent child, and the perpetrators, arrangers and other accessories should be treated the same as any other first degree murder case.
Don't expect a reasoned response from the Trump-haters.
