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.
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.
"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.
"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?
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.
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.
