http://www.weeklystandard.com/special-editorial-abortion-and-mr.-trump/article/2001825#.VwKA-1qX6OI.twitterSpecial Editorial: Abortion and Mr. Trump10:38 AM, APR 04, 2016 | By JOSEPH BOTTUM
If you are pro-life, you cannot vote for Donald Trump. The point is simple and unavoidable: If the man is not a covert supporter of legalized abortion, he has at least thought about the issue so rarely and so incompletely that he cannot articulate a coherent sentence about it. Forget walking the walk. Donald Trump cannot even talk the talk. A vote for Trump in any of the remaining Republican primaries is a vote to continue the regime of Roe v. Wade that has warped American politics, injured American jurisprudence, and fed the American culture of death for over forty years. A vote for Trump is a vote for abortion.
All this should have been clear from the beginning of this election season. In fact, it was clear, to any who pondered the subtext of the playboy lifestyle he has described in his various memoirs. But with the stumbles and gaffes over the issue of abortion that Trump has made in recent days, the gaps in his claims of conservatism have become obvious.
Back in February's debates, he twice praised Planned Parenthood, which demonstrated at least a little tone-deafness about the current state of the national argument over abortion. But this past week has seen him make a new set of missteps. On March 27, for example, he told MSNBC host Chris Matthews that there "has to be some form of punishment" for women who have abortions, once Roe is overturned—and then he spent the day trying to walk it all back. At 3:40 in the afternoon, his campaign announced, "This issue is unclear," which was a little help, if not enough. At 4:55, he finally got closer, explaining, "the doctor . . . would be held legally responsible, not the woman."
Trump insisted that he has been clear on abortion throughout the campaign: "Like Ronald Reagan, I am pro-life with exceptions, which I have outlined numerous times." The reference to Reagan was a nice touch, if a little hackneyed. The use of the word exceptions, however, seemed rhetorically weak, in the context of modern debate on the issue. Worse, it suggested that even given time to choose an accurate phrasing, Trump's campaign staff contains no one versed in the moral vocabulary of the pro-life position.
On Friday, April 1, he tried again to clarify his position during the taping of an interview with John Dickerson on Face the Nation (which aired Sunday, April 3). Perhaps the most revealing moment came when, recanting his line about arresting women, he stumbled his way into claiming, "I've been told by some people that was an older line answer and that was an answer that was given on a, you know, basis of an older line from years ago on a very conservative basis."
Even allowed days to get it right, knowing the question was coming, Trump could explain only that he had dredged up some old, half-remembered conservative line from decades past—because . . . what? He hadn't thought about it since then? He hadn't followed the pro-life movement? He needed "some people" to tell him, after the fact, that the argument has made some advances on the positions of the "very conservative" in 1980?
Under the pressure of follow-up questions by Dickerson and a sense that his earlier clarifications had been inadequate, Trump went on to talk himself into yet another corner. Abortion law should return to the states, he insisted—which is actually a good, modern talking point. But the states shouldn't try anything, because "At this moment, the laws are set. And I think we have to leave it that way." As National Review's Rich Lowry immediately noticed, that answer leaves him a functional supporter of legalized abortion. And it meshes poorly with the strangely coy admission that he doesn't "disagree with" the claim that abortion is murder.
The life issues have been muted in this year's strange campaign. The bandwidth of American politics has always been narrow, and too much is lost in all the buzzing and signal interference that Donald Trump causes. But this past week has brought the issue back into public notice—enough, anyway, to discern the candidate's inability to get right even the simple talking points of the life issues. Trump's lack of will, his lack of concern, shows in the fact that he has apparently never troubled to find a campaign staffer who can coach him on the arguments that the pro-life movement has spent decades formulating.
Trump says that, over the years, he has evolved into an opponent of abortion—"I am against. I am pro-life. Yes. I am pro-life," was his formulation in the Chris Matthews interview. But those protestations always seem to have a dissembling edge to them, his tone tinged with something smarmy and disingenuous. They always sound as though he thinks opposition to abortion is merely a box he needs to check for his Republican listeners.
Even that, however, may understate Trump's cynicism. His recent comments prove that he cannot be bothered to master the vocabulary of the pro-life fight. He cannot gather the energy to think his way through even his ostensible position. If he will not put in the work to get his words right while a candidate, why would he invest in getting his actions right while president?
It's often said that conservative voters are angry at "establishment Republicans" who have failed to address in office the issues on which they campaigned. That same anger ought to be directed preemptively against Donald Trump. The man has demonstrated that he simply doesn't care about the life issues. It's just words for him—and poor words, poorly delivered, at that.
