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).

100 percent of people who are truly pro life and think abortion is murder would expect to see punishment for the crime of murder.

Even here, there are only 3 of you. That should give you pause.

I'd be surprised if there are even 100 thousand such voters in the entire country.

Murderers for murdering. Accessories to murder for accessories for murder. Hitmen for murder.

So you really do want to execute the mother but only give the abortionist a prison sentence.

They cited a position dating back a century that the woman is never to be punished.

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".

Ted Cruz does not exhibit the Spirit with his lies.

I have a few grudges against Cruz (that meeting with the persecuted Mideast Christians where he showboated for the Adelson pro-Israel crowd).

Are you saying Cruz is lying on abortion policy?

"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.

"If you're looking for signs that Trump has truly riled the pro-lifers"

Why would they be riled? He retracted his statement.

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.

So you really do want to execute the mother but only give the abortionist a prison sentence.

The proper law is for the mother, the abortion doctor, the attending nurse and the knowing financiers to be treated as first degree murderers, and for those who knowingly drive the victim and his mother to the clinic to be aborted and the billing staff to all be charged with being accessories to murder.

Abortion is the premeditated murder of an innocent child, and the perpetrators, arrangers and other accessories should be treated the same as any other first degree murder case.

That would be justice.

Cruz has outright lied regarding his previously supporting amnesty

He was playing Senate procedural games but I didn't see any outright lying or any betrayal of his own campaign promises to the Texas voters.

The proper law is for the mother, the abortion doctor, the attending nurse and the knowing financiers to be treated as first degree murderers, and for those who knowingly drive the victim and his mother to the clinic to be aborted and the billing staff to all be charged with being accessories to murder.

You are an extremist, far outside the Catholic pro-life movement.

Legally, it's similar to someone hiring a hitman to commit a murder.

Legally and ethically.

Abortion is the premeditated murder of an innocent child, and the perpetrators, arrangers and other accessories should be treated the same as any other first degree murder case.

Don't expect a reasoned response from the Trump-haters.

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.

No, there's more to it than that.

If the Senate refuses to hear the cases, then the President can put the Justice on the Supreme Court, or in the Cabinet Secretary position ANYWAY, as a recess appointment.

The recess appointment has full authority and all powers, s/he's just not permanent. The Senate can then remove the recess appointment by rejecting him/her - which requires the hearings and the votes - but if they don't reject the recess appointment, s/he sits and executes the job until the role is filled by a permanent appointment, or the recess appointment is rejected.

Note that the recess appointment does not cease to sit when the President leaves. S/he sits there until the end of the next Senate calendar year, unless earlier rejected by the Senate or replaced by an approved appointment.

Tradition dictates that cabinet secretaries and recess appointments resign when their President leaves office, but they don't have to. They can force the new President to fire them (if they're cabinet Secretaries), or sit in the job until the Senate rejects them or the new President appoints and get approved by the Senate a new permanent appointment.

So, the Senate can DELAY the appointment of a justice until it is in recess, but the President has the absolute power to fill any vacancies for a year during the Senate recess.

So, if our politics remain in World War I gridlock, and nobody can get approved, the President can enforce his policies through the courts quite effectively by appointing judges who will serve for one year only, and whom he can reappoint each year until the Senate moves.

Likewise, if the Congress is so divided that it can't pass laws, the President can simply rule the country by Executive Order, which only the courts could block - and if s/he controls the court through recess appointments (a recess appointee is much more tightly controlled by the President, because s/he has no lifetime appointment and no guarantee of being renominated, or not being withdrawn, if s/he does not do the President's billing.

The Supreme Court could resist this for awhile, by delaying its calendar. But over time, a President facing an elderly Supreme Court - say, now, could end up having three or four recess appointments sitting on the court, with full power, but serving at the pleasure of the President, who can always withdraw their appointments right up until they are approved.

The Senate can play hardball with delay, but the President can trump the hardball, and if it becomes trench warfare, over time the President will gain effective executive control of the Supreme Court through recess appointments that he can remove from the court himself.

Once the Senate adjourns for the election, Obama will appoint the recess appointment and the Court will have a five-justice Democrat majority for a year, or until the Senate ratifies a new Justice.

The only way the Republicans can win this war is by electing Trump. If they won't. then the Democrats will run the table this time, control the Supreme Court and the Presidency, and enact their entire agenda. Without the judiciary, a divided Congress cannot control the President - and if they try, the Supreme Court can strike down their acts as unconstitutional.

This election is for all the marbles. With Trump, the Republicans can win. If they take him out, the Democrats will be ruling for the rest of our lives.

"I remember when the issue of who should be punished was hotly debated."

Argued, yes. Debated?

I don't see the debate points for excusing the mother. Everything from the beginning to the bloody end is her decision. Not even the biological father has any say-so. Women aren't "victims". Not when they're the ones making all the choices.

Women should at least be honest and say that they're pro-life ... unless they want an abortion.

He was playing Senate procedural games but I didn't see any outright lying or any betrayal of his own campaign promises to the Texas voters.

Bogus! He lied, and he. Has been very loose with the truth when attacking Trump.

Bogus! He lied, and he. Has been very loose with the truth when attacking Trump.

You're not citing any compelling examples.

I think you just prefer Trump so everyone else is a villain.

Cruz lies

Recess appointments are exceptions to the rule.

They will no longer be exceptions if the Congress remains gridlocked.

And he will never be President, so who cares.

The question is whether it will be Trump or a Democrat. That is the choice.

You prefer to see the Democrat.

The question is whether it will be Trump or a Democrat. That is the choice.

I think Trump is a Democrat. Just as Bloomberg was elected NYC mayor as a Republican a few times despite being a lifelong Dem.

Trump is pretty clumsy in pandering to boobs like you. But this is why he prefers uneducated voters.

It did with immigration. It did with the Syrian refugees.

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

Of course. But Trump and LF's Trumpkins can't be bothered to read anything.

The booboisie, following a witless ape riding a gold-plated escalator.

It's the willful ignorance that is so striking. It takes so little time to discover the facts. It isn't like you have to read long dense books to know the history of pro-life reasonably well. But that is too much effort for Trump and the Trumpkins.

I think Trump is a Democrat.

To be a "Democrat" means to be registered with that party.

He's not.

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.

You talk like a man with a wooden head. The if conditions are totally immaterial to the issue. The ifs were present in both of his statements, the first one and then the 180 he did a few hours later. WTF don't you understand about this? He waffled big time and it is costing him big time. He also is dragging down the REP Party and virtually handing all three branches of the Fed government to the DRats. Perhaps you think we will live long and prosper when this happens?

To be a "Democrat" means to be registered with that party.

He's not.

Not since 2009 apparently. However, he has continued his donations to the hard Left Dim pols unabated.

It's obvious to me Cruz is a serial liar. Chris Wallace called him out about his lying.

Wow, an egomaniacal politician a serial liar? Whodathunkit?

I have always believed that anyone that so desperately wants to be elected to high public office should never be given the job. But in practice We The People give it to them anyway.

Matthews never said what the law was. His question was essentially, "If abortion is illegal and a woman breaks the law should she be punished?"
-- misterwhite

I'm listening to Rush and he's saying the exact same thing I posted.

Trump heard the question as a law-and-order one, not abortion. And that's the way he answered it.

"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?

Saudi government ‘wants to EXECUTE gay people who show their sexuality in public & online'

What's interesting about the above is Disney took $1.2 Billion from the House of Saud and they are the largest promoters of the gay agenda.

They took blood money from Muslim oil barons and yet threaten GA with economic sanctions over a religious liberty law.

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 ?

What is Trump's true position ....the one he initially spoke ;or the pc one he back tracked to for expediency ?

He screwed up answering a hypothetical question.

His screw ups make headlines too, so maybe he did it on purpose.

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.

Wow, an egomaniacal politician a serial liar? Whodathunkit?

I know I'm shocked. No, seriously.

His screw ups make headlines too, so maybe he did it on purpose.

He screwed 3 or times yesterday. I don't think any of them were on purpose. But CNN is having a field day at his expenses and the with the REP Party today and it will likley continue until he makes his next gaffe.

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.

People lie about crap online all the time. Military service and Mensa are two faves of serial liars.

You're a complete moron.

You give him too much credit.

There is no hope for a Trump dupe.

The woman is as much a victim as the baby .

That is a lie. That is a lie. That is a lie.

So you really do want to execute the mother but only give the abortionist a prison sentence.

I think the abortionist who does the procedure should be executed. Limb by limb.

I'd be surprised if there are even 100 thousand such voters in the entire country.

So you think morality is a vote. That is stupid.

You take the wide gate I will take the narrow one.