At a taping of an MSNBC town hall to be aired Wednesday evening, host Chris Matthews pressed Trump on his anti-abortion position, repeatedly asking him whether abortion should be punished if it is outlawed....Subsequently, someone clearly explained to Trump that that was the wrong answer:
Matthews ... pressed Trump on whether he believes there should be punishment for abortion if it were illegal.
“There has to be some form of punishment,” Trump said. “For the woman?” Matthews asked. “Yeah,” Trump said, nodding.
Trump said the punishment would “have to be determined.”
Shortly after a preview of those comments aired, Trump’s campaign issued a brief statement calling the abortion issue “unclear” and saying it “should be put back into the states for determination.” Trump later issued the formal statement saying abortion providers should be held responsible for the procedure, not women.So what's the correct way for an anti-choice Republican to answer this question? As it turns out, Ted Cruz was asked about abortion penalties at the Iowa Freedom Summit in January 2015. Here's that exchange:
QUESTIONER: ... If that view prevails and abortion is criminalized again, what do you think the penalty should be for a doctor who performs an abortion or a woman who obtains one? Should it be an administrative action, a fine, or should it be incarceration or something else? And would this be an example of when a conservative could really stand up and believe by taking a stand on that question?See, Donald? That's how you do it. When someone asks you about abortion penalties after the overturn of Roe, here's what you do:
TED CRUZ: You know, one of the things that I'm always amazed by in the media world is questions when it comes to the right to life -- a majority of Americans support the right to life -- questions that assume that that's somehow an unusual position to hold. It's interesting: Very few folks in the media, for example, ask President Obama about his vote in the Illinois state legislature against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. That was legislation that said, in the course of an abortion, if a child is born alive, is outside the mother's womb, is breathing and crying, the physician cannot then murder that infant. Barack Obama voted against that. That is a radical, extreme position. Fewer that ten percent of Americans believe with that position. And yet, when the media is gathered around the president, I don't recall ever seeing anyone ask that question. At the end of the day, I think we need to move to a culture that values and protects and cherishes human life.
QUESTIONER: So you don't support criminalization, then?
CRUZ: I am pro-life, and I think we need to protect every human life from the moment of conception until natural death.
You attack the questioner.
You attack the media.
You attack Barack Obama.
You tell them what a swell pro-life person you are.
You do everything except answer the question.
****
Incidentally, reporters in 2008 did ask Barack Obama about not voting for that bill in the Illinois legislature. He was asked by CBN's David Brody, in an interview that also aired on CNN. He was asked in an interview with the Christian magazine Relevant. He sent out a fact check, published online by the Chicago Tribune, in response to a post by a high-profile anti-abortion activist named Jill Stanek. The controversy was covered on CNN and in John Fund's Wall Street Journal column. (Obama said he feared the Illinois bill was worded in such a way that it could be used as a legal wedge to challenge Roe in court.) Oh, and he was attacked again for this during the 2012 campaign by Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. So, yes, he faced plenty of questions about it. And he didn't whine about the fact that he was asked to defend his record while running for office.
10 comments:
So, Steve - from that last bit, I suppose we can add in that a True Con must also lie and lie and lie with a shameless that by it's sheer magnitude disproves of the conjecture of an all-powerful all-knowing creator who takes the least interest in what our Johnny-come-lately ape species does during its brief hegemony over this obscure planet.
I'd also like to observe that in my entire life I've never pundit with the peculiar range of gifts that Chris Matthwews, say-er of some of the stupidest sooth imaginable, yet somehow also just witness and indeed very often direct participant in the cringe-worthiest of moments like this that expose presumably professional pols and sincere candidates for elective office.
Trump's taken every side on every issue over the decades, so he gets easily confused by what his latest take should be.
He speaketh with a forked tongue out of both sides of his ass!
JESUS CHRIST!!! Why the fuck won't all of you just shut the fuck up! I'm pro-LIFE, gawddammit!!!
Sincerely,
The Federalist
Trump only posited an inconvenient truth: criminalizing abortion will inevitably lead to criminal charges being brought forward to a woman who seeks illegal services and obtains them.
This notion that women are innocent victims is a form of misogyny indicating that women are incapable of understanding that their actions are contrary to the law.
What Trump said was a Kinsley Gaffe: he revealed the eventual outcome of criminalizing abortion.
Just a follow-up. I think it is high time we have a debate about the penalties for those who obtain services now criminalized.
The problem for pro-life groups, which was illustrated yesterday when Trump suggested women should be punished for breaking the law, is that women would indeed be complicit in a crime if she acquiesces to an illegal act. At the very least, she becomes an accessory.
Pro-life groups believe life begins at conception, and that terminating that life is murder. Yet they are politically savvy enough to understand that applying existing murder statutes to young girls obtaining an abortion is politically preposterous. So they seek to have it both ways: criminalize the procedure as murder, then suggest women who seek and obtain an illegal abortion are "victims". It is morally and intellectually disingenuous.
Roe was balderdash.
Trump paid the price for lack of preparation in conventional mendacity and the impulsive blurting in which he and his supporters take pride.
The problem for pro-life groups, which was illustrated yesterday when Trump suggested women should be punished for breaking the law, is that women would indeed be complicit in a crime if she acquiesces to an illegal act. At the very least, she becomes an accessory.
Pro-life groups don't see this as a problem. They just say, "Oh, in an abortion the woman is a victim, too." And that just washes over people and they don't even think, Hey, wait, are you saying women don't have any agency when they seek an abortion? Because most people, even people who may think of themselves as moderately liberal, are far too willing to see women as helpless victims of others, rather than as people making choices.
A woman from an anti-abortion group was on NPR this morning and used this line that the guilty party is the one who "drove her to this deed." And the interviewer didn't ask, So you're saying that women who seek abortions are just brainwashed and aren't in their right minds? And that's typical. That's why this line works.
All I can say is the women in my family are outraged at Trump and Cruz. Pro-choice does NOT mean women are obligated to have abortions. And the line that the right is taking about pro-life being from birth to natural death is a bald faced lie. After a baby is born (from one of those people) they could care less about life.
"A woman from an anti-abortion group was on NPR this morning and used this line that the guilty party is the one who "drove her to this deed." And the interviewer didn't ask, So you're saying that women who seek abortions are just brainwashed and aren't in their right minds? And that's typical. That's why this line works."
In fairness to "Right to Life" groups, they may indeed buy into their own propaganda. They have written sample legislation that codifies the victim hood of women who obtain illegal abortions, but there is absolutely no guarantee politicians will follow their lead. For example, what becomes of a woman who has obtained her SECOND illegal abortion? Is she still a victim?
Then there are real life examples of how law enforcement treats examples of self-induced abortions. In GA, a woman was charged with murder for inducing labor resulting in the death of the fetus since she had broken up with her boyfriend and no longer wanted the baby. The charges were ultimately dropped, but you can just imagine that in a post Roe world, women will be charged for the crime of an illegal abortion regardless of what the "Right to Life" movement would have you believe.
So sad. Take a look at : http://www.awomanshaven.com/unplanned-pregnancy-and-abortion
Post a Comment