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.
The abortionist is the criminal, not the woman who is a victim of abortion (along with her murdered unborn child).
This has been the dogma of the pro-lifers for decades, something only an ignoramus panderer like Trump would not know. That is because he is -- as he always was -- an advocate for all abortions, including partial-birth abortion, having praised his own sister for the NJ abortion decision she issued as a federal judge.
The abortionist is the criminal, not the woman who is a victim of abortion (along with her murdered unborn child).
I understand the pro life position politically. However rlk is correct legally and logically.
If I paid you to off someone you would be clearly the murderer and I would be guilty of conspiracy to murder or complicit.
A woman seeks out an abortionist to kill her child. That is the first law violated if Roe overturned. The second law broken by the woman would be obtaining an illegal medical procedure.
Now there are many cases where a battered woman hired another to kill the battering husband. Some of those women are not convicted due to mental and physical trauma.
However logically Trump is accurate. If a woman seeks an illegal abortion then she is involved in premeditated murder.
However logically Trump is accurate. If a woman seeks an illegal abortion then she is involved in premeditated murder.
Then why did he flipflop and decide the woman should not be punished in only a few hours?
So did Trump have it right to begin with and now he's punking out to let these millions of women off the hook or is he correct now about the abortionist is the criminal?
Your reticence surprises me a little. We see a few here who were initially demanding the woman be punished as severely or more severely than the abortionist. Then Trump flipflops and they're thrown into disarray with only two still adhering to Trump's initial punish-the-woman position.
I'm not sure Trump realizes he has crossed the pro-lifers in a way that deeply offends them. Over the years, I've noticed that offending pro-lifers or pro-gunners in a campaign is almost invariably fatal to a candidate. Giuliani in 2008 was a perfect example of this but far from the only one.
But I have noticed how they punish any deviation from their policy positions with many other candidates.
Crossing the pro-lifers is generally fatal to a candidate. Trump hadn't crossed them in this campaign until now.
Generally, the pro-lifers remain friendly and open to the idea of even rabidly former pro-abortion candidates like Trump or Giuliani. But one major deviation and they do turn on that new friend. And they have their own entire communications network outside the usual media, all female-dominated. You don't see it coming until it hits your candidate over the head like a 2x4.
We'll see if Trump did offend them deeply. It won't take long for the polls to show it.
You take the wide gate I will take the narrow one.
Coincidentally, I had a couple of polite JWs on the doorstep yesterday, haranguing me politely with just that passage. I felt kinda sorry for them but it made them happy that I didn't call them heretics and slam the door. The Watchtower makes them kind of desperate.
I had to smile. The JWs have their Kingdom Hall across town but the Mormons are right across the street and never knock on doors here. Those Mormons are good neighbors even if I do disagree with their theology.
Coincidentally, I had a couple of polite JWs on the doorstep yesterday, haranguing me politely with just that passage. I felt kinda sorry for them but it made them happy that I didn't call them heretics and slam the door. The Watchtower makes them kind of desperate.
I had to smile. The JWs have their Kingdom Hall across town but the Mormons are right across the street and never knock on doors here. Those Mormons are good neighbors even if I do disagree with their theology.
I love it when Jehovah's Witnesses knock on my door.
I talk until they flee and don't want to talk anymore.
