SSN on Facebook SSN on Twitter SSN on YouTube RSS Feed


Is It Trump Who Got Caught in the Abortion Trap?

April 4, 2016 - 12:15pm

Trump foes are cheering Chris Matthews and MSNBC for setting the trap. They think they got what they most need: evidence that Donald Trump is “anti-woman."

If abortion were made illegal, then there would be “some sort of punishment,” Trump said. At first, he said for “the woman,” but said he didn’t know what the penalty might be. Later, he back-tracked: no, only the abortionist would be punished.

A campaign-ending sound bite?

Let’s think about the issues a minute longer than the candidate had to think about his answer. Did abortion supporters really trap themselves? Let’s try some hypotheticals and demands for “yes or no” answers on Matthews and his political friends.

Suppose that something is made illegal. There is always a penalty, isn’t there, Mr. Matthews? Should the government enforce the law, Mr. Matthews? Or is there an exception for abortion? Yes or no?

Who is generally penalized? The person who wants the act done, or the person who carries out the deed? Consider a landowner who wants to fill in a mud puddle without EPA approval, or a businessman who wants to “off” a competitor. Do they go to jail—or does the backhoe operator or hit man do the time? Or do they all get punished?

With abortion, we have a precedent. Before Roe v. Wade, abortion was illegal in most jurisdictions. Enforcers did not target the women who got the abortions. People then, like Trump today, considered “the woman” to be a second victim, and trained their sights on the abortionists. How about it, Mr. Matthews? And have you asked Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards? Are women who have abortions victims, or are they the happy beneficiaries of an essential “reproductive health” service that permits them, for example, to complete divinity school?

Most abortion laws proposed today concern informed consent or requirements that other medical facilities are routinely expected to meet. Abortions can cause life-threatening complications. Are laws designed to protect women “anti-woman,” Mr. Matthews—or unconstitutional? Should there be some penalty for violating them? Or should abortionists like Kermit Gosnell be given free rein?

As Trump pointed out, “a human life” is involved. Matthews said that some people considered abortion to be murder. Well, Mr. Matthews, what do you say it is?

Contrast the mother who dumps her newborn in a trash compactor and the abortionist who puts a crying preemie in the soiled utility room to die? Should anybody be punished, Mr. Matthews?

As Trump noted, Matthews claims to be a Catholic. He says he agrees with his Church’s “moral view” on abortion. But Trump is running for president and has to accept the law.

Don’t candidates advocate change, Mr. Matthews? How about changing laws to protect human life? Is that ok only if the threat is something like choosing to smoke tobacco, and not abortion?

The interview alluded to another potential target of enforcement—someone who benefits from the deed and who facilitates it or at least doesn’t stop it. With abortion, that would be “the man.” Matthews noted that a man is “usually involved.” Trump said he didn’t contemplate penalizing the man. But shouldn’t we think about that too?

Sometimes a baby’s father knows nothing about the pregnancy. But often he pays for the abortion or pressures the woman to have it. Why didn’t you grill Trump about that, Mr. Matthews? Do you think that getting his own son or daughter killed should be a punishable offense for a man, yes or no?

Already there are laws against statutory rape. An underage girl presenting for an abortion is almost always a victim. How often does Planned Parenthood report this? Rape is presumably one of Trump’s exceptions that justify abortion, but he has not suggested immunizing the rapist from punishment. Since you brought up the issue of enforcing laws about abortion, Mr. Matthews, why didn’t you discuss these existing laws instead of hypotheticals?

Neither Trump nor anybody else is calling for jailing women who have suffered abortion. But the accusation that they are diverts attention from the billion-dollar industry that profits from ending about 1 million human lives every year, while causing lasting grief and misery for the “second victims.” That industry—not women—is what Matthews is protecting.

Jane M. Orient, M.D. obtained her undergraduate degrees in chemistry and mathematics from the University of Arizona in Tucson, and her M.D. from Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons in 1974. She completed an internal medicine residency at Parkland Memorial Hospital and University of Arizona Affiliated Hospitals and then became an Instructor at the University of Arizona College of Medicine and a staff physician at the Tucson Veterans Administration Hospital. She has been in solo private practice since 1981 and has served as Executive Director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) since 1989. She is currently president of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness. Since 1988, she has been chairman of the Public Health Committee of the Pima County (Arizona) Medical Society. She is the author of YOUR Doctor Is Not In: Healthy Skepticism about National Healthcare, and the second through fourth editions of Sapira's Art and Science of Bedside Diagnosis, published by Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins. She authored books for schoolchildren, and Professor Klugimkopf’s Spelling Method, published by Robinson Books, and coauthored two novels published as Kindle Professor Klugimkopf’s Old-Fashioned English Grammar books, Neomorts and Moonshine, More than 100 of her papers have been published in the scientific and popular literature on a variety of subjects including risk assessment, natural and technological hazards and nonhazards, and medical economics and ethics. She is the editor of AAPS News, the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness Newsletter, and Civil Defense Perspectives, and is the managing editor of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.


"Planned Parenthood" is going to be VERY, VERY BUSY over the next decade or so, what with the hundreds of thousands of male muslim rapists that the politicians are "funneling into" Europe and America. Wonder what sort of "thrill" Matthews experiences over THAT prospect???

Breeze, you are disgusting as is your norm. It would be a fine thing were your comment(s) to be systematically removed by the moderator as they rarely if ever offer anything of merit.

I KNOW you "Michael" !.... You're one of the "liberal, progressive, Democrats" that our colleges "turn out" nowadays (I described you in another article by Nancy Smith in this SSN issue); [Wipe the rabid froth off your mouth "Michael"]

Here's his answer to the abortion question. Let's assume that Dr. Charles Tolbert is a candidate for United States President, and under the political party Citizens For A Better America (CFA). Here's his answer to the abortion question. First, for a reporter to ask such a question shows their lack of knowledge of the U.S. Constitution. Second, for a candidate to respond without referring to the constitution shows their ignorance. What does the constitution say? First the rights under first, tenth and fourteenth amendment needs to be understood. Simply stated, religious rights, states rights and individual rights. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights. Declaration of Human Rights (1949). Article 19 states that "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers." Understandable many politicians are not aware of the constitution, nor are the members of the three branches. I will not go in detail, but readers need to understand the president does not make laws, Congress does, and the Supreme Court only interprets these laws. Also should the issue of abortion become state law under a state constitutional amendment, the people of a state must vote for it to become an amendment. If the US senate elects to circumvent state rights they would need to make an amendment to the United States Constitution, which again circumvents state rights. So the next senator has to be aware of the rights of each state under a federalization and republic. When does life begin? Neurology...Scott Gilbert "Just as death is usually defined by the cessation of brain activity, so the start of life can be defined as the start of a recognizable Electroencephalography[wp] (EEG) pattern from the foetus. This is usually twenty four to twenty seven weeks after conception.[2] The point of using neurological factors rather than other signs, such as a heartbeat, is that this is a much more useful indicator from the point of view of science. A heart beats using involuntary muscle movements so is really little different from any other spontaneous motion or metabolic process. A heartbeat means relatively little in real terms, although it is more dramatic from an emotive point of view." Conclusion: When discussing the philosophical and/or ethical issues surrounding the start of life, the desire for science to provide a clear cut human/non human boundary is very understandable. We need to be able to define this because it is important in our laws and our understandings. However, even from the brief descriptions given above, it is clear that there is no simple answer that science can give. It may well be that reality doesn't have an answer for us, and that "when does life begin" is, in fact, a meaningless question. Scott Gilbert concludes based on these premises: “The entity created by fertilization is indeed a human embryo, and it has the potential to be a human adult. Whether these facts are enough to accord it personhood is a question influenced by opinion, philosophy and theology, rather than by science. Indeed, the potential for human life can begin very early, but it is personhood that is the sticking point. The question is very much whether the two are equal and therefore happen at the same point. Leaving the answer in the hands of philosophy and opinion however makes the distinction between "life" and "non-life" purely subjective and the answer will be different for everyone. This is the most important fact to bear in mind, particularly when discussing legalities." Exodus 21:22- If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. KJV Here is the question: if a person holds a gun to a child and kills the child, should that individual be charged with a crime of murder? The second question is: if there is a co-conspirator which would be the one who furnished the gun and the ammunition, knowing the intent of an individual was to murder a child, should that individual as an assessor also be prosecuted for murder? Answering these two questions does require a constitutional amendment. To describe an outline... is it murder if one participates in an abortion? The probability of an amendment to define legality of abortion would be the necessity to ensure the safety of the woman giving birth. If a woman's life was in danger during the term of pregnancy, should the consideration of her rights of choice under the 14th amendment override the issue of abortion? In addition should the religious rights of the woman override the state and federal Constitution if in fact it violates her rights? Should either the State or Congress establish a law restricting or preventing or endorsing rights which remove her own free choice? These questions and answers are very controversial and cannot be left to the president of the United States. The president or candidates direct response should be to challenge the question given to them and the ignorance of the multi media for asking. The question that would be asked of the pastor, an educator or candidate would circumvent the constitutional rights of the woman. Should that candidate answer the question without taking into consideration the above comments shows their ignorance. If a woman's life was in danger and two doctors certified that should she carry a child to term the probability of her death is greatly increased, then and only then the decision has to be left to the man and woman who have,. under the constitution the right to make a decision affecting their life, liberty and well-being. Should pro-life or anti-pro-life have a right to speak for an individual cannot be clarified. But they do have a constitutional right under the first, second, tenth and 14th amendment to voice their opinion. However it should be remembered that the individual rights in each and every state come before these individuals and the individual elect or rights cannot be circumvented by the courts unless the state or the federal government or Congress passes a constitutional amendment. So in answering the question; where does Dr. Tolbert stand on the issue of abortion? The woman's and man's rights to life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness overrides any and all constitutional amendments. The right of the child, once it is conceived, and does not endanger the life of the woman to the pursuit of happiness of the mother should and must be allowed, as God wills. The mother and fathers rights have to be reviewed and presented in a constitutional amendment voted on before passage by each and every United States citizen. Anyone that violates the rights of the mother father or child should be subject to prosecution according to the required amendment to the constitution. Any child at time of conception and or brain activity that is aborted without the consent or written confirmation by a medical professional is also subject to violation. In conclusion; the beginning of life is subjective and can only be determined by the voters of each state in a constitutional amendment and not by politicians or the news media or even the medical profession. The reader of this article must conclude that the final determination is between the mother and father and God and should not ever be determined by a constitutional amendment or politician. Charles Frederick Tolbert BS, DivM, EdM, EdD Candidate for United States Senate Florida 2016 Retired MSGT Pastor Copy Editor: Vilet Dye…

Well written and thought out response. This is what America is looking for from the media, not the gottcha traps that most of us, probably all the Trump supporters, recognize. Like someone else said, social topics like this are 50-50. 50% will agree, 50% won't agree. He stands where he originally stood before the response.

Any abortion question for a candidate is a no win situation, period.

Keep believing the Media and you'll be buying ocean front property in Arizona.. Hillary backs abortions.. it justifies the ones she has had.. Trump is Pro Life.. Personally as a Christian.. abortion is murder..

Boy the anti choice are having fits as their policies are taking the hit showing how hypocritical they are.------------------------------- Either abortion is murder or not. If it is certainly the woman should be punished. So make up your mind---------------------------------- Fact is women in various ways has always limited their families or they get worn out and die from having too many as was common.------------------------------------------- Now families don't need 8-10 kids just so some can survive or work as slave labor on the farm. It is much smarter to limit the number so the ones they have get a better life, education, etc.------------------------ Since repubs can't see that, they will keep losing national and as their gerrymandering gets eliminated many local elections will be lost too-------------------------------- Now with Trump or Cruz , 2 of the most hated people out there, you will likely not just lose the presidency but the Senate and likely the House!!! ;^)) Thank you Trump, Cruz and Tea Party for destroying the repub party.

Your are welcomed!!!! No worries, you can go to the Dems. Currently there is no difference.

Comments are now closed.


Opinion Poll

Who did the better job choosing a lieutenant governor?
Older pollsResults


Live streaming of WBOB Talk Radio, a Sunshine State News Radio Partner.