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?
Nothing will change without Roe v Wade being overturned, and no President has that power.
The next President will have that power.
There is a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Three of the sitting justices, two liberal Democrats and the most liberal Republican, are over 80.
If Trump is elected, he will have the opportunity to appoint a pro-life justice to the Supremes. He can assure that the justice by applying a LITMUS TEST to each nominee. Democrats do. Republicans can.
No appointments to the Supreme Court who are not passionate pro-lifers.
So, if Scalia is replaced with a passionate pro-lifer, what do you have?
You have Thomas, who is pro-life. You have Alito, who is probably pro-life. You have Kennedy, who is not, but who is over 80. And you have Roberts, who is a treasonous crapweasel we can assume is not pro-life. that will make three pro-lifers on the court, one of them certain.
Ginsburg, Breyer or Kennedy will go next, either in death, or retirement. Litmus tedst. Now you have two certain pro-lifers (the new one and the Scalia replacement), and two probably (Thomas and Alito).
We know that Roberts can be bought and turned by pressure, and at that point, he'll be on a Republican court in a Republican-run country. He may decide to move back. There's your five.
But if not, then the next of the aged trio goes, and one more sure pro-life vote comes on. Now you have three certains, two probables and Roberts. That's 6-3.
The last of the aged fogeys goes. Litmus test. Now you have FOUR certains, two probables, and Roberts. 7-2.
That pretty much guarantees Roe is overturned during the next President's two terms, if the President is Trump, and if he applies a litmus test.
The President can control this process because of the ages and states of health of three ancient supremes, plus a vacancy.
I agree with what he said in haste, and I think that's really what he thinks. I hope it is. Now he's just making it look reasonable so people can make themselves comfortable with voting for him.
My guess is that they want to avoid the 800 lb gorilla in the room, many abortions are traditionally paid for by the baby's father, or a relative of the mother.
Then you have to decide if the person who paid the hitman should get the death penalty too?
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.
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)
You know he's a joke. Why do you keep up this silly pretense?
There is no pretense. I do not think Trump is a joke. I think he's the real deal.
Remember, when I said this before you pointed out that you had really lost respect for my intelligence because I said that.
Well, here I am, the same droolin' rube you put down before, thinking the same thing I thought before, and saying it the same way I said it before: I believe Donald Trump is telling the truth about what he is. I think he has laid out an articulate and consistent set of policies. I think that people who don't hear it or see it or understand it do, in fact, hear it and see it, they just don't believe him.
Hopefully Trump delivers. It isn't a sure thing. You know that right?
In this life, nothing is sure but death and taxes, but I think Trump will deliver. I'm sure that none of the other Republicans will deliver anything I want.
I'm sure that Hillary and Bernie will deliver for their side.
The Republicans keep looking for a deus ex machina to save them from the big bad Trump. There will be none, and in retrospect they'll be happy Trump won.
Well, here I am, the same droolin' rube you put down before, thinking the same thing I thought before, and saying it the same way I said it before: I believe Donald Trump is telling the truth about what he is. I think he has laid out an articulate and consistent set of policies. I think that people who don't hear it or see it or understand it do, in fact, hear it and see it, they just don't believe him.
Well Elvis has just re-entered the building again.
"Trump is the only Republican for whom I can vote."
That's because Trump is no REP, in this regard he is just like Ron Paul. Given that you hate the REP Party it comes as no surprise that you still will not vote for one.
Then why did Trump go into full reverse mode in just a couple of hours after he made the comment?
Send me a message of celebration when you learn how to read.
Send me a message when you get some understanding of the language. It is very simple for all but the simple minded. Trump reverse himself on this very legitimate question about a very contentious issue in less than a few hours once he saw how he sh*t hit the fan. What courage of his convictions this con artist has, eh? The man has, and always did have, flexible principles. He changes his position as lest as often as you change your underwear.
"GREEN BAY, Wisconsin — After saying on Wednesday that he believes there should be punishment for women who undergo abortions if the procedure was outlawed, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump walked back the comment hours later.
In an exclusive interview with MSNBC's Chris Matthews, the GOP front-runner described himself multiple times as "pro-life" but struggled to define what the legal ramifications of that position should be. When continually pressed for what the answer is regarding punishing women who would break any theoretical ban, Trump said the "answer is that there has to be some form of punishment, yeah."
Later in the day, his campaign released a statement refocusing who would be punished should abortion become illegal. "If Congress were to pass legislation making abortion illegal and the federal courts upheld this legislation, or any state were permitted to ban abortion under state and federal law, the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman," the statement said. "The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb. My position has not changed — like Ronald Reagan, I am pro-life with exceptions."
HINT: The weak kneed con man screwed the pooch and had to publically eat his words hoping for forgiveness. Hillary has already kicked mud in his face over this (as well as the other REP candidates) and she will continue to sh*t on him and make him bark like a dog.
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?
You are asking me to get inside his head. Not gonna do that.
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)
Send me a message when you get some understanding of the language.
Please study the employment and interpretation of the conditional syllogism: If A, then B. If, and only if A, then B. Etc. You talk like a man with a wooden asshole.
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.
"If Trump is elected, he will have the opportunity to appoint a pro-life justice to the Supremes."
He can submit his choice to the Senate, but that's about it. If Obama had the power to appoint a Supreme Court justice, Garland would be hearing cases.
When did he cross them -- when he was for or against punishing women who murder their babies?
This particular policy item was hotly debated over the years in the pro-life organizations. Overwhelmingly, they reject any punish-the-woman policy.
In the meantime, the Dims constantly accuse us of wanting to punish the woman even though we have denied it for decades. They still use it as part of their War On Women strategy.
Certainly, the Dims will use this against Trump if he is the nominee but they will also use it against all GOP candidates.
This is why you've never heard any credible GOP candidate ever suggest a punish-the-woman policy. And that is why I think the women who quietly dominate the pro-life movement nationally may react very negatively toward Trump. This argument is long over. Until Trump opened this can of worms by running his big blabbermouth yesterday. Trump's gift to the Lefties and their propaganda. Less remarked upon is Trump mentioning that any change in abortion law would inevitably result in the return of back-alley abortions, yet another pernicious myth that will certainly rile the pro-lifers.
The nicest thing you can say of Trump's remark is he was ignorant. That's not a very positive quality.
If you're looking for signs that Trump has truly riled the pro-lifers, I'd watch for any statements about Trump's remarks by Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum, the various state and national Right To Life orgs and the newer Susan B. Anthony List activists (the younger generation of pro-life women).
They cited a position dating back a century that the woman is never to be punished.
“Mattie Brinkerhoff, a leader of the women’s suffrage movement, said that when a woman undergoes an abortion it is evidence she has been ‘greatly wronged.’ The Revolution, the newspaper owned and operated by Susan B. Anthony published an op-ed asserting that, on abortion, “thrice guilty is he who, for selfish gratification, heedless of her prayers, indifferent to her fate, drove her to the desperation which impels her to the crime.’ Alice Paul was known to have called abortion ‘the ultimate exploitation of women.’
“We have never advocated, in any context, for the punishment of women who undergo abortion.
“As a convert to the pro-life movement, Mr. Trump sees the reality of the horror of abortion – the destruction of an innocent human life – which is legal in our country up until the moment of birth. But let us be clear: punishment is solely for the abortionist who profits off of the destruction of one life and the grave wounding of another.”
It sounds mild enough but that is pretty aggressive for SBA activists.
"Overwhelmingly, they reject any punish-the-woman policy."
I didn't know that. I'd like to know what kind of convoluted thinking leads then to conclude that if a woman pays a doctor to murder her unborn child at her request, he should be sent to prison but she walks away scot-free.
Maybe that's how they keep there membership numbers up. Kind of, "We're pro-life ... but not really".
"The nicest thing you can say of Trump's remark is he was ignorant. That's not a very positive quality."
I'd simply say he was caught off-guard by being asked a hypothetical about an issue everyone considers settled law. It didn't help that Matthews was looking for his gotcha moment, so he phrased the question around whether the woman should be punished.
I've been following politics a long time, and I've never heard this "punish the woman" approach before. Certainly if the abortion decision is turned over to the states, won't each state decide that, not the President?
Yes, Trump should have been prepared for that f**ked up hypothetical but, to his credit, he immediately corrected his position.
I've been following politics a long time, and I've never heard this "punish the woman" approach before. Certainly if the abortion decision is turned over to the states, won't each state decide that, not the President?
Yes, Trump should have been prepared for that f**ked up hypothetical but, to his credit, he immediately corrected his position.
I was a vice-president 10 years with the largest state pro-life group in the country. I remember when the issue of who should be punished was hotly debated.
Truth Is Still Truth Even If You Don't Believe It.
