[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"America Must Slash Red Tape to Make Nuclear Power Great Again!!"

"Why the DemocRATZ Activist Class Couldn’t Celebrate the Cease-Fire They Demanded"

Antifa Calls for CIVIL WAR!

British Police Make an Arrest...of a White Child Fishing in the Thames

"Sanctuary" Horde ASSAULTS Chicago... ELITE Marines SMASH Illegals Without Mercy

Trump hosts roundtable on ANTIFA

What's happening in Britain. Is happening in Ireland. The whole of Western Europe.

"The One About the Illegal Immigrant School Superintendent"

CouldnÂ’t believe he let me pet him at the end (Rhino)

Cops Go HANDS ON For Speaking At Meeting!

POWERFUL: Charlie Kirk's final speech delivered in South Korea 9/6/25

2026 in Bible Prophecy

2.4 Billion exposed to excessive heat

🔴 LIVE CHICAGO PORTLAND ICE IMMIGRATION DETENTION CENTER 24/7 PROTEST 9/28/2025

Young Conservative Proves Leftist Protesters Wrong

England is on the Brink of Civil War!

Charlie Kirk Shocks Florida State University With The TRUTH

IRL Confronting Protesters Outside UN Trump Meeting

The UK Revolution Has Started... Brit's Want Their Country Back

Inside Paris Dangerous ANTIFA Riots

Rioters STORM Chicago ICE HQ... "Deportation Unit" SCRAPES Invaders Off The Sidewalk

She Decoded A Specific Part In The Bible

Muslim College Student DUMBFOUNDED as Charlie Kirk Lists The Facts About Hamas

Charlie Kirk EVISCERATES Black Students After They OPENLY Support “Anti-White Racism” HEATED DEBATE

"Trump Rips U.N. as Useless During General Assembly Address: ‘Empty Words’"

Charlie Kirk VS the Wokies at University of Tennessee

Charlie Kirk Takes on 3 Professors & a Teacher

British leftist student tells Charlie Kirk facts are unfair

The 2 Billion View Video: Charlie Kirk's Most Viewed Clips of 2024

Antifa is now officially a terrorist organization.

The Greatness of Charlie Kirk: An Eyewitness Account of His Life and Martyrdom

Charlie Kirk Takes on Army of Libs at California's UCR

DR. ALVEDA KING: REST IN PEACE CHARLIE KIRK

Steven Bonnell wants to murder Americans he disagrees with

What the fagots LGBTQ really means

I watched Charlie Kirk get assassinated. This is my experience.

Elon Musk Delivers Stunning Remarks At Historic UK March (Tommy Robinson)

"Transcript: Mrs. Erika Kirk Delivers Public Address: ‘His Movement Will Go On’"

"Victor Davis Hanson to Newsmax: Kirk Slaying Crosses Rubicon"

Rest In Peace Charlie Kirk

Charlotte train murder: Graphic video captures random fatal stabbing of young Ukrainian refugee

Berlin in July 1945 - Probably the best restored film material you'll watch from that time!

Ok this is Funny

Walking Through 1980s Los Angeles: The City That Reinvented Cool

THE ZOMBIES OF AMERICA

THE OLDEST PHOTOS OF NEW YORK YOU'VE NEVER SEEN

John Rich – Calling Out P. Diddy, TVA Scandal, and Joel Osteen | SRS #232

Capablanca Teaches Us The ONLY Chess Opening You'll Ever Need

"How Bruce Springsteen Fooled America"

How ancient Rome was excavated in Italy in the 1920s. Unique rare videos and photos.


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles

Title: Trump: If abortion is banned, there has to be some form of punishment for women who do it
Source: HotAir
URL Source: http://hotair.com/archives/2016/03/ ... unishment-for-women-who-do-it/
Published: Mar 30, 2016
Author: Allahpundit
Post Date: 2016-03-30 17:16:58 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 59422
Comments: 274

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:
#Trump campaign issues brief statement on #abortion: pic.twitter.com/jJFhzmHP5W

— Sarah McCammon NPR (@sarahmccammon) March 30, 2016

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?

Cruz campaign: Cruz focuses on punishing those who perform abortions, not women who get them https://t.co/GRrUbWpzGE https://t.co/7am5Tcd7AG

— The Lead CNN (@TheLeadCNN) March 30, 2016


Poster Comment:

The next Trump scandal.

This will keep Vannity and Coulter and the other Mini-Me's busy Trumpsplaining it away for the next few days.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 240.

#133. To: TooConservative (#0)

Before abortion became legal ,women were not punished as criminals for having an abortion. They were considered victims The abortionist was charged .

tomder55  posted on  2016-03-31   10:58:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#143. To: tomder55 (#133)

"Before abortion became legal ,women were not punished as criminals for having an abortion. They were considered victims The abortionist was charged."

But that's not what Matthews asked. He said IF abortion is illegal and a woman breaks the law, should she be punished?

Should she?

misterwhite  posted on  2016-03-31   12:37:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#145. To: misterwhite (#143)

If Trump had any clue about the pro-life movement and wasn't a recent convert for convenience ,he could've answered the question easily .The pro-life movement is not an anti-woman movement .His answer is exactly what the libs want to hear .It reenforces their stereotypes of conservatives. It's exactly what Chris Matthews wanted to hear . But it doesn't reflect the true opinions of the majority of the prolife folks .

The woman is as much a victim as the baby . Often the woman is desperate and since she lives in this souless nation ,she doesn't know all the alternatives (including lifestyle choices ) . Many women have deep regrets that affect them the rest of their lives . I'm very suprised that the instinct of some pro- lifers is to punish the women. These women are also victims of a social system that encourages them to take that path.

But let me ask you . All the Trump supporters I encounter tell me they like him because he speaks his mind and to hell with p.c. Well yesterday he spoke his mind and appeared to back track apparently due to pc pressure . What is Trump's true position ....the one he initially spoke ;or the pc one he back tracked to for expediency ?

tomder55  posted on  2016-03-31   13:34:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#147. To: tomder55 (#145)

Trump was not asked about abortion in a straightforward way. Had he been he would have responded that he was pro-life. Period. Next question. This is not a burning issue in 2016.

But Chris Matthews was looking for a gotcha moment. He gave Trump a hypothetical scenario, saying that abortion was illegal and asking Trump if he would punish a woman who broke the law.

Trump took that as a law-and-order question and said yes.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-03-31   13:48:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#150. To: misterwhite (#147)

Trump was not asked about abortion in a straightforward way. Had he been he would have responded that he was pro-life. Period. Next question. This is not a burning issue in 2016.

You're as brain-dead as Limbaugh was today.

An open seat on the Supreme Court and it just "is not a burning issue in 2016"?

You're a complete moron.

Tooconservative  posted on  2016-03-31   13:59:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#161. To: TooConservative (#150)

"An open seat on the Supreme Court and it just "is not a burning issue in 2016"?"

Is the court about to hear another abortion case? In the next 50 years?

Does the President appoint Supreme Court justices?

You're ignorant.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-03-31   14:51:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#165. To: misterwhite, TooConservative (#161)

Does the President appoint Supreme Court justices?

Does he nominate them? Does the Senate ever appoint justices the President didn't nominate?

You're ignorant.

You try to deceive - but luckily for decent people, you're not smart enough to do it well.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-03-31   15:11:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#167. To: ConservingFreedom (#165)

"Does he nominate them?"

He sure does. Doesn't mean Congress will approve.

"Does the Senate ever appoint justices the President didn't nominate?"

Nope. But I bet they tell the President, "You nominate this guy and we'll approve".

misterwhite  posted on  2016-03-31   15:18:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#170. To: misterwhite (#167)

He sure does. Doesn't mean Congress will approve.

Does mean the open seat makes it a significant issue in 2016.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-03-31   15:24:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#173. To: ConservingFreedom (#170)

"Does mean the open seat makes it a significant issue in 2016."

Of course. But more than just the President decides who sits there. Ask Obama about that.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-03-31   15:28:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#175. To: misterwhite (#173)

"Does mean the open seat makes it a significant issue in 2016."

Of course.

The we agree with respect to the only issue in contention in post #150.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-03-31   15:32:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#176. To: ConservingFreedom (#175)

"The we agree with respect to the only issue in contention in post #150."

I have no idea what that means.

There is an open Supreme Court seat. The next President will nominate someone. That individual's stance on abortion is important. So is their position on guns. Drugs. Gay rights. Religious freedom. Privacy and NSA. Environmental issues. Healthcare. Tariffs. And 100 other things.

Are you turning this nomination into a single-issue event?

misterwhite  posted on  2016-03-31   15:41:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#179. To: misterwhite (#176)

There is an open Supreme Court seat. The next President will nominate someone. That individual's stance on abortion is important.

That's what it means. Glad you finally caught on.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-03-31   15:53:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#208. To: ConservingFreedom (#179)

"That's what it means. Glad you finally caught on."

If you're going to quote me, quote me in context. Don't pull out one piece and draw some twisted, incorrect conclusion.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-01   8:54:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#231. To: misterwhite (#208)

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?

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-01   11:52:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#232. To: ConservingFreedom (#231)

"and what missing "context" supposedly proves the conclusion incorrect?"

That the justice's stance on abortion isn't the only criteria.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-01   11:56:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#234. To: misterwhite (#232)

That the justice's stance on abortion isn't the only criteria.

That might be as much as half an answer; to repeat, what "twisted, incorrect conclusion" did I supposedly draw?

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-01   12:04:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#235. To: ConservingFreedom (#234)

what "twisted, incorrect conclusion" did I supposedly draw?

That you and I agree the only issue in contention for selecting the next justice is that individual's stance on abortion.

A) We don't agree. And B) I listed many other issues which you failed to post.

Don't do that again.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-01   12:17:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#238. To: misterwhite (#235)

what "twisted, incorrect conclusion" did I supposedly draw?

That you and I agree the only issue in contention for selecting the next justice is that individual's stance on abortion.

No, that's your functional illiteracy at work; I in no way implied "only issue" by quoting your text, "There is an open Supreme Court seat. The next President will nominate someone. That individual's stance on abortion is important."

And if you're suggesting I think "the only issue in contention for selecting the next justice is that individual's stance on abortion" - that's your functional illiteracy at work again.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-01   12:36:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#240. To: ConservingFreedom (#238)

"I in no way implied "only issue" by quoting your text, "There is an open Supreme Court seat. The next President will nominate someone. That individual's stance on abortion is important."

Sure you did. You omitted the other issues I posted.

"And if you're suggesting I think "the only issue in contention for selecting the next justice is that individual's stance on abortion"

That's what you said in post #175: "The(n) we agree with respect to the only issue in contention in post #150."

Post #150 was about abortion only.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-01   12:44:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 240.

#242. To: misterwhite (#240)

I in no way implied "only issue" by quoting your text, "There is an open Supreme Court seat. The next President will nominate someone. That individual's stance on abortion is important."

Sure you did. You omitted the other issues I posted.

By retaining your "That individual's stance on abortion is important" I explicitly showed that you did not see it as the "only issue".

Post #150 was about abortion only.

It was about whether abortion is "a burning issue in 2016" - "burning" is not "only".

Look into a remedial reading course.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-01 13:02:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 240.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com