[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: 59457
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 # 256.

#2. To: TooConservative (#0)

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.

rlk  posted on  2016-03-30   17:47:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: rlk (#2)

Indeed.

redleghunter  posted on  2016-03-30   18:02:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: redleghunter (#6)

Indeed.

It is committing the abortion that is punishable.

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.

Tooconservative  posted on  2016-03-30   18:19:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#88. To: TooConservative, rlk (#9)

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.

redleghunter  posted on  2016-03-30   22:29:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#97. To: redleghunter (#88)

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?

Tooconservative  posted on  2016-03-31   2:07:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#98. To: TooConservative (#97)

You are asking me to get inside his head. Not gonna do that.

redleghunter  posted on  2016-03-31   2:48:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#100. To: redleghunter (#98)

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.

Tooconservative  posted on  2016-03-31   7:01:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#101. To: TooConservative (#100)

I'm not sure Trump realizes he has crossed the pro-lifers in a way that deeply offends them.

You don't speak for pro life people. You're not.

A K A Stone  posted on  2016-03-31   7:10:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#102. To: A K A Stone (#101)

You don't speak for pro life people.

I don't claim to speak for them.

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.

Tooconservative  posted on  2016-03-31   8:07:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#177. To: TooConservative (#102)

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.

redleghunter  posted on  2016-03-31   15:43:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#183. To: redleghunter (#177)

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.

Tooconservative  posted on  2016-03-31   17:41:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#209. To: TooConservative (#183) (Edited)

"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!"

misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-01   9:07:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#211. To: misterwhite (#209)

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.

Tooconservative  posted on  2016-04-01   9:50:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#237. To: TooConservative, misterwhite (#211)

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".

This claim appears overly broad. In today's world, where the woman can take a pill to induce a miscarriage/abortion, women can and have been prosecuted and sent to prison.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/02/it-isnt-justice-for-purvi-patel-to-serve-20-years-in-prison-for-an-abortion?CMP=fb_gu

It isn't justice for Purvi Patel to serve 20 years in prison for an abortion

When women are desperate to end their pregnancies, they will. The answer to this shouldn’t be punitive, but supportive

Jessica Valenti
April 2, 2015
The Guardian

Abortion is illegal in the United States. So is having a stillbirth – not officially, perhaps, but thanks to a case in Indiana, we’re halfway there. On Monday, Purvi Patel, a 33 year old woman who says that she had a miscarriage, was sentenced to 20 years in prison for neglect of a dependent and feticide. She is the first woman in the United States to ever be sentenced for such a crime.

In July 2013, Patel went to the emergency room with heavy bleeding. She eventually admitted to miscarrying a stillborn fetus and placing it in a bag in a dumpster. (Patel lived with her religiously conservative parents who did not believe in premarital sex.) After police searched Patel’s cellphone, they found text messages that suggested she bought abortion-inducing drugs online.

Despite the fact that no traces of any abortifacent were found in Patel’s blood work taken at the hospital, the prosecution argued that she had taken the drugs mentioned in her text messages and caused her miscarriage at 23-24 weeks of pregnancy. And, in legal maneuvering that defies imagination, Patel was charged not just with fetal homicide, but with neglecting a child. As the Guardian reported last year, these charges are completely contradictory: neglecting a child means that you neglected a live child, and feticide means that the baby was born dead.

But logic has never been at the center of the draconian laws and arrest policies that target pregnant women: control is. As Lynn Paltrow, the executive director of the National Advocates for Pregnant Women, told me last year about laws aimed at drug-using pregnant women, this kind of prosecution “is about making pregnant women – from the time an egg is fertilized – subject to state surveillance, control and extreme punishment.”

And, as with other laws that hurt pregnant women, Indiana’s feticide law was not intended (explicitly, anyway) to be a policy that affected women: it was supposedly designed to target illegal abortion providers. But despite the anti-choice insistence that women are “victims” of abortion providers, the history of how similar laws are used show just how much it’s women – and women of color in particular – who are directly impacted by “fetal protection” policies.

After a feticide law was passed in Texas in 2003, for example, a local district attorney used the opportunity to send a letter to all doctors in her county that they were now legally required to report any pregnant women using drugs. Doctors complied, and and more than 50 women were reported and charged with crimes.

We may never know what really happened in Patel’s case. She has repeatedly said that she had a miscarriage which, if true, means that the state is sending a woman to jail for not having a healthy pregnancy outcome. But even if Patel did procure and take drugs to end her pregnancy, are we really prepared to send women to jail for decades if they have abortions? Even illegal ones?

When women are desperate to end their pregnancies, they will. The answer to this shouldn’t be punitive, but supportive: women need better access to education, affordable contraception and abortion without harassment or delay.

Patel’s case opens the door for any woman who expresses doubt about her pregnancy to be charged if she miscarries or has a stillbirth. It’s a terrifying thought, but one that is already impacting real women: the anti-choice movement is now sending women to jail for what happens during their pregnancies. So tell me again how abortion is totally legal. Or tell Purvi Patel.

nolu chan  posted on  2016-04-01   12:34:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#244. To: nolu chan, TooConservative, misterwhite (#237)

the anti-choice movement is now sending women to jail for what happens during their pregnancies.

First it's the Pro-Life movement that you Pro-Death supporters oppose.

Second, I guess it's OK with you Pro-Deathers for a women to knowingly abuse the fetus and bring it term, oh say like a crack addict.

This is an incredibly complex issue, especially if science someday conclusively proves that an unborn fetus is a human being and the courts are compelled by honesty and integrity to recognize that an unborn fetus is a person subject to the protections of the Constitution.

What we have now is a hodge-podge of different determinations varying from state to state. It's not only stupid but immoral. For example, what makes an unborn fetus killed in a car accident or commission of a crime against the mother (to you Pro-Deathers she technically is not a mother yet) have due consideration and/or standing in a court in some states and in not others?

Geez, fair and balance you are not. I am not even sure that you are capable of rational thinking on this subject.

SOSO  posted on  2016-04-01   13:52:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#251. To: SOSO (#244)

"This is an incredibly complex issue, especially if science someday conclusively proves that an unborn fetus is a human being and the courts are compelled by honesty and integrity to recognize that an unborn fetus is a person subject to the protections of the Constitution."

How can any scientist say that a fetus is a person at 270 days, but not at 269 days? Or 268 days? And so forth.

I think society and/or the courts will make that determination.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-02   8:45:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#256. To: misterwhite (#251)

How can any scientist say that a fetus is a person at 270 days, but not at 269 days? Or 268 days? And so forth.

I think society and/or the courts will make that determination.

Yes, I have said as much. As for now SCOTUS decided that a fetus is not a person as applies to the 14th Amendment.

SOSO  posted on  2016-04-02   11:24:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 256.

        There are no replies to Comment # 256.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 256.

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