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?
Polls already show Trump with a 74% disapproval rating among all women. Seems he isolated both the pro-life and pro-abortion lot.
What shocks me is how many people here at LF just don't get what it was that Trump said.
People in the pro-life movement have spent decades and tens of millions of dollars trying to counter the Lefty propaganda against us over the decades. And here comes Trump, like a turd floating in a punch bowl, and shoots his big flapping mouth off, handing the enemy a major propaganda victory. You can just imagine how much Chrissy's leg is tingling to have tripped Trump up so easily.
The discussion is in the context IFRoe were to be overturned, and IF abortion were legally defined as the crime of murder (or infanticide), under that circumstance, should abortion be punished?
In other words, if an act is legally defined as murder, should it be punished?
MATTHEWS: If you say abortion is a crime or abortion is murder, you have to deal with it under law. Should abortion be punished?
[...]
MATTHEWS: Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no as a principle?
TRUMP: The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment.
I've known TCs posting history for about 6 years. He is not pro abort. Far from it.
His point has been the pro life movement focuses on laws to protect the child in the womb. They take aim at abortion providers as well. They don't focus on prosecuting women who had an abortion probably because half the women in the pro life movement are repentant of their own abortions.
I stated Trump was logically and legally accurate in his original comments. However it is hard to broad brush all women who have abortions as premeditated murderers. Many end up getting abortions after someone else convinces them it is ok and the human being in the womb is not a human yet or a person. Which is deception.
The reason the pro life movement focuses on abortionists to legislate laws is if the penalty for providing an illegal abortion is iron clad homicide, no doctor in their right mind will perform the abortion. Eliminate the provider and you leave a woman a real difficult decision to abort on her own which already violates standing fetal homicide laws.
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 stated Trump was logically and legally accurate in his original comments. However it is hard to broad brush all women who have abortions as premeditated murderers. Many end up getting abortions after someone else convinces them it is ok and the human being in the womb is not a human yet or a person. Which is deception.
What if someone convinces someone that a black isn't a person. They are a savage. Suppose they are a real dummy.
Suppose that person kills a black person.
That isn't murder is it?
Of course it is. Just like in all abortions. They are all murders. There is no excuse for it.
I think I am being consistent and some others are not.
You said no doctor in their right mind wouldn't provide an abortion if the penalty was high. Well how about this. No woman in their right mind would have an abortion if they were going to face execution or some other harsh penalty.
So if the penalty was death. You wouldn't really have to carry it out because as in the case you made no woman would have one.
What if they just make it illegal for the woman and not the provider. That would have the same affect correct? I don't think so.
The discussion is in the context IFRoe were to be overturned, and IF abortion were legally defined as the crime of murder (or infanticide), under that circumstance, should abortion be punished?
You're just Trumpsplaining with text styles.
Trump said women should be punished for abortion. That's all anyone is going to hear, no matter how you want to twist it. The pro-abortion pols and orgs and media are already playing it exactly that way. They pounced within hours of Trump saying it.
I guess you can always just pretend Trump didn't say it.
Actually, it is Trump who has exposed himself as having a pro-choice worldview, with his Lefty talk of punishing women for abortion and the return of back-alley abortions. That is exactly how liberal New Yorkers talk about it, how all the liberals have talked about it for forty years.
Your problem is your candidate, not me.
And it doesn't matter how many libels about me you make up out of thin air to try to distract the 20 or so posters here at tiny LF. The Donald's problem isn't people at LF (none of which are women, BTW).
Polls already show Trump with a 74% disapproval rating among all women.
That's Trump, unifying the nation. He's similarly unified the votes of the 20-somethings, the Hispanics, most of the indy voters and half the GOP voters.
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.