110833821
When I heard Donald Trump would be appearing with Chris Matthews on MSNBC in a Town Hall setting, I told my wife he’ll be sorry. And then I made sure I was home to watch the event unfold live on TV. Matthews is the toughest in-your-face interviewer since the halcyon days of Mike Wallace. I didn’t anticipate that the undoing of Trump would occur over the question of banning abortion. If he doesn’t win the nomination, he may look back on that moment when the lights were extinguished on his chance to claim the White House.
The moment occurred when Mathews asked Trump how he would ban all abortions. Trump could’ve replied with a softball answer, one that pro-life politicians and their supporters normally use – punish the doctor and not the woman who is seen as a “victim” in abortion cases. Indeed, Trump used this rationale when forced by the ensuing controversy to walk back his answer the next day. By implication, Matthews seems to believe laws don’t stop abortions, but instead force women to seek them in back alleys as they did before Roe v. Wade. But laws never stop ALL crimes. By that rationale, we wouldn’t have laws against murder because laws don’t stop ALL murders from occurring. But I believe it is safe to assume laws against crime do act to have one think twice about committing that crime. One could say the same of laws designed to curb the number of abortions. Note: this column is not intended to address the legality of such laws in light of Roe v. Wade. That is a question for constitutional lawyers to address. Trump obviously had not thought much about either the legal or moral questions surrounding abortion. When Matthews hammered him on whether he believed punishment was necessary and whether it would apply to women, Trump answered “yes” to both questions, and in doing so may have begun the unraveling of his candidacy. He didn’t realize and may still not the level of hypocrisy it takes to justify the pro-life position.
Hypocrisy? Let’s see – the pro-life position as I understand it is that abortion is murder, plain and simple. Yet when faced with the question of punishment for the woman who chooses to abort, pro-lifers cringe at the thought. Trump was criticized as much by the pro-life movement as he was by pro-choice organizations after he advocated punishment for the woman. The one hypocrisy that pro-lifers cling to is that women who choose to abort are “victims” not murderers. Isn’t that just a way for conservatives to patronize women? Women are not capable of making a conscious decision to abort, they are seduced into that decision. By whom, I ask? The doctor performing the abortion, whom conservatives would not hesitate to punish? Really? If one deems all abortions murder (even in the first trimester, which is when the overwhelming number of abortions take place), isn’t the woman like the person who hires a hit man to take out a spouse? In that case, one wouldn’t call the woman a victim (assuming she was not in fear of her life) and only punish the hit man. If Trump had not been so casual in his remarks about abortion when he was a self-styled swinging bachelor (he refuses to answer any questions on whether he counseled any girlfriends to have an abortion back then), one could almost feel sorry for him.
The pro-life movement betrays another hypocrisy when claiming to view women as victims when they choose to abort. If one views the woman as a victim, why is it OK to block the entrance to abortion clinics or verbally abuse them as they enter the locations? Is that the way we treat “victims” or accomplices to murder? Or are we just talking double standard here?
I understand the hypocrisy of pro-life politicians on treating women as “victims.” Politicians need female votes. As we saw with the Trump fiasco, it’s not just feminists who bristle at the thought of punishing women who have abortions. Conservative women get just as angry at the thought. It’s good to see there is at least one aspect of the abortion issue on which both liberals and conservatives seem to agree (and you thought Trump couldn’t bring us together).
The problem is when you call abortion “murder,” it becomes difficult to rationalize exceptions such as rape, incest, and the health of the mother. At least Sen. Ted Cruz and some others are consistent when they eschew all exceptions in the cause of consistency, barbaric as the consequences of such a position may be.
I could also mention other hypocrisies of many pro-life supporters, who usually argue for smaller, less intrusive government, but in the case of abortion would allow government to make that most personal of all decisions.
Yeah, I’m pro-choice. It’s the right choice in a country of divergent beliefs. I don’t have to worry about punishment for women or doctors or funding Planned Parenthood because the procedure is constitutionally protected. I believe in the Church’s right to preach the moral consequences of abortion, but when it comes to Caesar, I render the legal decisions to Caesar.
Donald Trump is not a deep thinker. The only Caesar he knows is a casino. ■
Editor’s Note: The views expressed within this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions or opinions of the South Philly Review or any employee thereof.
