April 7, 2016
Trump Was Right*
In my last post
I explained why I thought Donald Trump had been treated unfairly a couple of times. Another firestorm erupted last week when he was being interviewed by MSNBC's Chris Matthews and said women who had illegal abortions should face "some form of (criminal) punishment." And once again, I feel he was treated unfairly because, despite being extremely pro-choice myself, there was nothing wrong with his pro-life response. There's a lot to this but let me explain.I assume both Matthews and Trump meant if the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade and this line of questioning had nothing to do with legal abortions, today (neither Trump nor Matthews clarified that which was mystifying).
Before answering about a "penalty" for the woman, Trump hesitated because he obviously wasn't prepared for that part of the question. So what must have run through his mind was that there would logically have to be a penalty for a woman who had an illegal abortion because if not, then what's the point of making it illegal? Also, he reasoned, it would be blatantly hypocritical for someone who is pro-life to oppose penalizing the woman.
So Trump gave what he thought was not only the politically consistent/non-hypocritical answer, but what pro-life Republican voters wanted to hear. And he got pounded for it. But why? Why was it such a shock to hear a pro-life Donald Trump wanting to criminally prosecute a woman for having an illegal abortion? There's two answers to that.
First, some politicians and celebrities are known for one thing or another and get a reputation for it. And since Trump has been accused of being anti-woman, his comments played right into that (it would be like Dan Quayle saying something stupid or Bill Clinton caught oogling a woman). And when they provide material that supports that reputation, it's automatically assumed to be additional validation. And the media's there to highlight and exaggerate every word of it. Trump's anti-woman, so anything he says that could be taken as such is automatically taken that way. But in this case, that's not fair for three reasons. One, because calling for penalizing the women for having an illegal abortion is a legitimate opinion for him to have; two, if he said women shouldn't be penalized for having an illegal abortion, then he'd be a blatant hypocrite; and three, if Ted Cruz, John Kasich or any other pro-life Republican said the same thing, it wouldn't have been the same story, or as big a story, because they're not considered to be anti-woman. In fact, Trump's answer is exactly what you'd expect from staunch pro-lifers like Cruz, Kasich or any pro-life Republican. And it wouldn't have been a surprise at all.
Second, since the media's coverage of Trump has been been soft and uncritical all these months, so much so that the media itself has come under attack for it, they had to make up for it. And for the last couple of weeks, they have been. And this was another chance.
So the media took Trump's comments totally wrong. This wasn't a Trump/anti-woman story at all. It was a pro-life/Republican Party abortion story because the pro-life movement believes women who have legal abortions are "murderers" and "baby killers." So why wouldn't a woman be a "murderer," and treated as such for having an illegal abortion? This is why it shouldn't have been such a media firestorm for a pro-life Trump to say what he did.
But since it was Trump who gave that answer, which, again, was the correct and politically consistent answer, everyone - the media, Republicans and the pro-life movement - blasted him. My God, Ted Cruz almost sounded like a pro-choice Democrat!
But since when did pro-life Republicans oppose prosecuting the woman? How come they never mentioned it before? And since when did they ever claim women with unwanted pregnancies deserved compassion? And where was all this overwhelming compassion from Republicans and the pro-life movement before Trump made his comments? All of a sudden women who seek an abortion - an illegal abortion - are "victims?" Since the hell when? Heck, many in the pro-life movement would force a woman who got pregnant as the result of rape or incest to carry the child to term, including Ted Cruz. So much for compassion, huh?
Hey media! That was the story, not Trump!
Rape and incest aside, unless a pregnant woman is held down and undergoes a forced abortion, how is a woman who decides to have an abortion a "victim" anyway? Or is this more...shall I say...political correctness and these Republicans and pro-lifers don't want to appear to be, hmmm...anti-woman?
And not to miss out on attacking Trump, Hillary Clinton called his remarks "outrageous" and "dangerous," while Bernie Sanders called them "shameful." No, Mrs. Clinton and Senator Sanders. It's the Republican Party's stance on abortion that's "outrageous," "dangerous," and "shameful." And that's being kind.
(But this is just another example of how Democrats couldn't argue themselves out of a wet paper bag. Here was a great opportunity to show what the Republican Party stands for regarding abortion and they let it go. But they've always allowed pro-life Republicans to get away with wanting to criminalize abortion and treat the woman and doctor as "murderers" and "baby killers," even though it's the perfect issue where Democrats could put them on the defensive for a change. But they never do that, on any issue. Not on abortion, guns or anything else. Meanwhile, Republicans put Democrats on the defensive all the time. Heck, Democrats put themselves on the defensive. Don't believe me? Just watch how they walk on egg shells the handful of times they mention abortion and guns. They won't even say "gun control.")
And the response that only the doctor should be prosecuted for performing an illegal abortion, and not the woman, is a total cop-out. Because let's say person A plans a bank robbery and person B carries it out*. Does that mean only person B should be prosecuted? Of course not. So again, why wouldn't a woman be held accountable for having an illegal abortion? She's the one who initiated "the crime." So that's a follow up question I'd like commentators to ask pro-life Republicans who say they oppose "penalizing" the woman.
Also, if a state has capital punishment, would the doctor be subject to the death penalty? If not, why not? And what about the nurses and anesthetist? What about anyone else involved who facilitated the abortion? Would they be charged with accomplice to murder? Hey, that's what the the pro-life movement calls it, and would call it were it illegal.
(How come Democrats never ask pro-life Republicans these questions?)
As the days went on, Donald Trump acted like a typical politician and walked his comments back, despite the fact that there was nothing wrong with what he said originally. He should have stood behind his comments and called out Cruz and Kasich out for being hypocrites and attacking him.
Years ago, Trump was pro-choice. But now running for president as a Republican he suddenly becomes pro-life. Alright, fine. But when he says what Cruz, Kasich and pro-life Republicans all believe, he turns around and there's no one there. They all abandoned him. Wait. What? Prosecute the woman? Huh? What is he talking about? We love women!
Since when?
Yes, there is a lot to unravel here. But Trump gave the right answer and got unfairly attacked for it by Republicans and the media who turned it into anti-Trump story instead of what it was: a pro-life Republican Party story.
Note: Since we are a country of laws and the rule of law, if Roe vs. Wade is overturned and abortion became illegal, even from someone who is radically pro-choice as I am, I suppose criminal laws would have to be legislated and enacted, even for the woman. Because how can something be outlawed not have any penalties attached?
Of course it would be up to the states and even the local district attorneys to prosecute. In pro-choice states and counties, abortions could go unprosecuted. Or have the "penalty" be $1.
I wonder how Republican/red states would react to that because they say
In my last post I explained why I thought Donald Trump had been treated unfairly a couple of times. Another firestorm erupted last week when he was being interviewed by MSNBC's Chris Matthews and said women who had illegal abortions should face "some form of (criminal) punishment." And once again, I feel he was treated unfairly because, despite being extremely pro-choice myself, there was nothing wrong with his pro-life response. There's a lot to this but let me explain.
I assume both Matthews and Trump meant if the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade and this line of questioning had nothing to do with legal abortions, today (neither Trump nor Matthews clarified that which was mystifying).
Before answering about a "penalty" for the woman, Trump hesitated because he obviously wasn't prepared for that part of the question. So what must have run through his mind was that there would logically have to be a penalty for a woman who had an illegal abortion because if not, then what's the point of making it illegal? Also, he reasoned, it would be blatantly hypocritical for someone who is pro-life to oppose penalizing the woman. So Trump gave what he thought was not only the politically consistent/non-hypocritical answer, but what pro-life Republican voters wanted to hear. And he got pounded for it. But why? Why was it such a shock to hear a pro-life Donald Trump wanting to criminally prosecute a woman for having an illegal abortion? There's two answers to that.
First, some politicians and celebrities are known for one thing or another and get a reputation for it. And since Trump has been accused of being anti-woman, his comments played right into that (it would be like Dan Quayle saying something stupid or Bill Clinton caught oogling a woman). And when they provide material that supports that reputation, it's automatically assumed to be additional validation. And the media's there to highlight and exaggerate every word of it. Trump's anti-woman, so anything he says that could be taken as such is automatically taken that way. But in this case, that's not fair for three reasons. One, because calling for penalizing the women for having an illegal abortion is a legitimate opinion for him to have; two, if he said women shouldn't be penalized for having an illegal abortion, then he'd be a blatant hypocrite; and three, if Ted Cruz, John Kasich or any other pro-life Republican said the same thing, it wouldn't have been the same story, or as big a story, because they're not considered to be anti-woman. In fact, Trump's answer is exactly what you'd expect from staunch pro-lifers like Cruz, Kasich or any pro-life Republican. And it wouldn't have been a surprise at all.
Second, since the media's coverage of Trump has been been soft and uncritical all these months, so much so that the media itself has come under attack for it, they had to make up for it. And for the last couple of weeks, they have been. And this was another chance.
So the media took Trump's comments totally wrong. This wasn't a Trump/anti-woman story at all. It was a pro-life/Republican Party abortion story because the pro-life movement believes women who have legal abortions are "murderers" and "baby killers." So why wouldn't a woman be a "murderer," and treated as such for having an illegal abortion? This is why it shouldn't have been such a media firestorm for a pro-life Trump to say what he did.
But since it was Trump who gave that answer, which, again, was the correct and politically consistent answer, everyone - the media, Republicans and the pro-life movement - blasted him. My God, Ted Cruz almost sounded like a pro-choice Democrat!
But since when did pro-life Republicans oppose prosecuting the woman? How come they never mentioned it before? And since when did they ever claim women with unwanted pregnancies deserved compassion? And where was all this overwhelming compassion from Republicans and the pro-life movement before Trump made his comments? All of a sudden women who seek an abortion - an illegal abortion - are "victims?" Since the hell when? Heck, many in the pro-life movement would force a woman who got pregnant as the result of rape or incest to carry the child to term, including Ted Cruz. So much for compassion, huh?
Hey media! That was the story, not Trump!
Rape and incest aside, unless a pregnant woman is held down and undergoes a forced abortion, how is a woman who decides to have an abortion a "victim" anyway? Or is this more...shall I say...political correctness and these Republicans and pro-lifers don't want to appear to be, hmmm...anti-woman?
And not to miss out on attacking Trump, Hillary Clinton called his remarks "outrageous" and "dangerous," while Bernie Sanders called them "shameful." No, Mrs. Clinton and Senator Sanders. It's the Republican Party's stance on abortion that's "outrageous," "dangerous," and "shameful." And that's being kind.
(But this is just another example of how Democrats couldn't argue themselves out of a wet paper bag. Here was a great opportunity to show what the Republican Party stands for regarding abortion and they let it go. But they've always allowed pro-life Republicans to get away with wanting to criminalize abortion and treat the woman and doctor as "murderers" and "baby killers," even though it's the perfect issue where Democrats could put them on the defensive for a change. But they never do that, on any issue. Not on abortion, guns or anything else. Meanwhile, Republicans put Democrats on the defensive all the time. Heck, Democrats put themselves on the defensive. Don't believe me? Just watch how they walk on egg shells the handful of times they mention abortion and guns. They won't even say "gun control.")
And the response that only the doctor should be prosecuted for performing an illegal abortion, and not the woman, is a total cop-out. Because let's say person A plans a bank robbery and person B carries it out*. Does that mean only person B should be prosecuted? Of course not. So again, why wouldn't a woman be held accountable for having an illegal abortion? She's the one who initiated "the crime." So that's a follow up question I'd like commentators to ask pro-life Republicans who say they oppose "penalizing" the woman.
Also, if a state has capital punishment, would the doctor be subject to the death penalty? If not, why not? And what about the nurses and anesthetist? What about anyone else involved who facilitated the abortion? Would they be charged with accomplice to murder? Hey, that's what the the pro-life movement calls it, and would call it were it illegal.
(How come Democrats never ask pro-life Republicans these questions?)
As the days went on, Donald Trump acted like a typical politician and walked his comments back, despite the fact that there was nothing wrong with what he said originally. He should have stood behind his comments and called out Cruz and Kasich out for being hypocrites and attacking him.
Years ago, Trump was pro-choice. But now running for president as a Republican he suddenly becomes pro-life. Alright, fine. But when he says what Cruz, Kasich and pro-life Republicans all believe, he turns around and there's no one there. They all abandoned him. Wait. What? Prosecute the woman? Huh? What is he talking about? We love women!
Since when?
Yes, there is a lot to unravel here. But Trump gave the right answer and got unfairly attacked for it by Republicans and the media who turned it into anti-Trump story instead of what it was: a pro-life Republican Party story.
Note: Since we are a country of laws and the rule of law, if Roe vs. Wade is overturned and abortion became illegal, even from someone who is radically pro-choice as I am, I suppose criminal laws would have to be legislated and enacted, even for the woman. Because how can something be outlawed not have any penalties attached?
Of course it would be up to the states and even the local district attorneys to prosecute. In pro-choice states and counties, abortions could go unprosecuted. Or have the "penalty" be $1.
I wonder how Republican/red states would react to that because they say they won't and wouldn't enforce federal gun laws.
So blue states would have to enforce federal abortions laws, but red states don't have to enforce federal gun laws. See how things work these days?
But this is why we need to elect pro-choice politicians who would appoint judges that will uphold a woman's right to choose anywhere in the country.
But that might not be enough because at the state level, Republicans can just get rid of judges they don't like.
It's always OK if you're a Republican.
* I could have used a different analogy: person A hires person B to kill someone. That would have been even a better example because you could say abortion, legal or illegal, is murder-for-hire. But I wanted to use an example there that wasn't connected to abortion.
+/- show/hide this post
