Donald Trump has provoked yet another campaign outrage, telling MSNBC's Chris Matthews that if a woman has an abortion, "There has to be some form of punishment." Outraged were not only pro-choice activists. Outraged too were pro-lifers—for the pro-life movement has never sought punishment for women having abortions, only for the doctors who provide the abortions.
Although Trump backtracked later in the day, saying he would not seek to punish women, the damage had been done—not just to Trump's candidacy for the presidency but also to the credibility of his conversion to the pro-life movement. Brian Philips from Ted Cruz's team hit hard and fast: "Don't overthink it: Trump doesn't understand the pro-life position because he's not pro-life."
But since Trump has claimed repeatedly to have converted to pro-life views, his record needs to be set straight. The Supreme Court legalized abortion on January 22, 1973 in the case of Roe v Wade. Trump confesses to have supported legalized abortion consistently for nearly forty years after Roe. But Trump also claims to have converted to pro-life convictions in 2011. He asserts that he now thinks abortion should be banned except in cases of rape, incest, or where the mother's life was in danger.
Now if Trump were sincere in that claim he would support what every pro-lifer supports: the immediate reversal of Roe v Wade, which mandated legalized abortion. But in December 2015, he refused to endorse reversing Roe v Wade. He would go no further than saying, "But we're gonna be looking at that also very, very carefully." So five years after his alleged conversion to the pro-life movement, Trump would go no further to reverse Roe v Wade than to say he's "looking at that".
This was not an aberration: In January 2016, he wrote an op-ed saying that abortion should be limited to cases of rape, incest or danger to the mother's life—but again refusing to call for the reversal of Roe v Wade.
Now these two positions are simply contradictory: You cannot claim to be pro-life, and refuse to call for the reversal of the Supreme Court decision that prohibits nearly every meaningful attempt to defend the right to life. The only logical conclusion is that Trump's "conversion" to pro-life principles is a politically calculated circus: he thinks he can position himself as "pro-life" simply by using the words "pro-life" without any commitment to the substance of what those words mean.
Trump's later interview in February 2016 simply compounded the problem. He still refused to call for reversing Roe v Wade, he simply wanted to "change" it. So, of course, does Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who wants Roe v Wade strengthened.
Trump's strategy of using the pro-life label while still supporting Roe v Wade appears to be connected with his first campaign manager and long-time friend Roger Stone. Stone founded Republicans for Choice and declared in 1990: 'I think you can be pro-choice and respect life." While Stone's words are not exactly what Trump has said, one can reasonably connect the dots. Trump says he's pro-life, but refuses to overturn Roe.
The battle lines for 2016 in the GOP then are strikingly clear: Trump hopes to use pro-life rhetoric to win the GOP nomination. His victory would mean the certain destruction of everything for which pro-lifers have fought and prayed and sacrificed for two score years. Pro-lifers can rally to Senator Cruz, whose pro-life convictions have never been in question. Or they can watch a pro-choice candidate seize control of the only party pro-lifers have ever had.
Bruce W. Griffin is the Chair of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Keiser University's Latin American campus.