By
In March 2016, as Donald Trump positioned himself as the frontrunner for his party’s presidential nomination, the then-candidate appeared on MSNBC and talked about his perspective on abortion policy. Chris Matthews specifically asked the Republican whether those who terminate pregnancies should be punished.
“The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment,” Trump replied. When the host clarified, “For the woman?” the future president added, “Yes, there has to be some form.”
Not surprisingly, the candidate and his political operation tried to walk that back soon after, and Trump has generally avoided repeating the line in the eight years that followed. It’s not unusual for Democrats to continue to exploit the on-air comments he made on MSNBC more than eight years ago, but that’s largely because (a) the rhetoric was so extreme; and (b) he hasn’t given his opponents similar material to work with since.
That is, until now.
Time magazine sat down with Trump twice recently and has now published a new report that shed light on the presumptive GOP nominee’s vision for a second term.
What emerged in two interviews with Trump, and conversations with more than a dozen of his closest advisers and confidants, were the outlines of an imperial presidency that would reshape America and its role in the world. ... He would let red states monitor women’s pregnancies and prosecute those who violate abortion bans.
This might sound like an exaggeration. It’s not.
Keep in mind, as of a few weeks ago, Trump acted as if he’d solved his abortion problem once and for all: The former president effectively said he’d let every state do whatever they pleased. It was his way of trying to avoid responsibility for the mess he helped create.
But the interview with Time magazine forced the Republican to consider some of the practical consequences of his latest position on reproductive rights. From the article:
More than 20 states now have full or partial abortion bans, and Trump says those policies should be left to the states to do what they want, including monitoring women’s pregnancies. “I think they might do that,” he says. When I ask whether he would be comfortable with states prosecuting women for having abortions beyond the point the laws permit, he says, “It’s irrelevant whether I’m comfortable or not. It’s totally irrelevant, because the states are going to make those decisions.”
In other words, if Republican officials in red states start monitoring women’s pregnancies and prosecuting women, Trump has no interest in intervening. He’d simply allow those GOP officials to do as they pleased, regardless of the real-world consequences for the women affected by the far-right agenda.
In the same interview, Time asked Trump whether women should be able to get the abortion pill mifepristone. The former president he has “pretty strong views on that,” but he refused to share them.
Time added, “Well, this is a big question, Mr. President, because your allies have called for enforcement of the Comstock Act, which prohibits the mailing of drugs used for abortions by mail. The Biden Department of Justice has not enforced it. Would your Department of Justice enforce it?”
Trump replied that he’d issue “a big statement” on the matter “over the next 14 days.” Two weeks later, the magazine followed up. He again refused to elaborate.
“Donald Trump’s latest comments leave little doubt: if elected he’ll sign a national abortion ban, allow women who have an abortion to be prosecuted and punished, allow the government to invade women’s privacy to monitor their pregnancies, and put IVF and contraception in jeopardy nationwide,” Biden campaign manager Julie Chavez Rodriguez said in a statement. “Simply put: November’s election will determine whether women in the United States have reproductive freedom, or whether Trump’s new government will continue its assault to control women’s health care decisions.”