���ϳԹ���

Some months ago we wrote that Republicans who nominate Donald Trump for President would be diving off a cliff without knowing what’s at the bottom, and Wednesday was the latest illustration. The first-time candidate showed how little he understands about the politics of abortion by suggesting that “there has to be some kind of punishment” if abortion were made illegal. (3/30)

Within minutes of MSNBC broadcasting a clip of Donald Trump, Republican Party presidential front-runner, declaring that not only should abortion be illegal, but women who sought one illegally should be punished, a firestorm of criticism rained down on him. Not just from abortion-rights supporters and the Democratic candidates for president but from Republican candidate John Kasich and the antiabortion group March for Life, which put out a statement on its website saying, “No pro-lifer would ever want to punish a woman who has chosen abortion.” (Carla Hall, 3/31)

Just when you thought Donald Trump couldn’t say anything more shocking, he suggested that women who get abortions should be punished. On MSNBC, he said abortion must be banned and then “there has to be some form of punishment” for women who manage to get abortions. He declined to say what the punishment should be, dodging a question about whether it should be “10 years” in prison or something milder. But his comment raised the possibility of following the lead of countries like El Salvador, where women can be dragged off from a hospital to prison for getting an abortion. Indeed, rights groups say that women were wrongly imprisoned in El Salvador simply for having miscarriages. (Nicholas Kristof, 3/30)

Of all the Republican candidates this election season, Donald Trump has been the most equivocal about reproductive rights. He says he’s “staunchly pro-life,” but also acknowledges that “millions of women are helped by Planned Parenthood” — even as he pledges to take away the organization’s federal funding. At an MSNBC town hall taping on Wednesday, though, Mr. Trump passed from equivocation into incoherence. Chris Matthews, the host, asked Mr. Trump, “How do you ban abortion? How do you actually do it?” The candidate’s response: “Well, you go back to a position like they had where people will perhaps go to illegal places, but you have to ban it.” (Anna North, 3/30)

It’s happening: The Supreme Court is getting desperate. With a 4-4 tie looming over whether religious organizations have to file a form with the government requesting an exemption from the mandatory contraceptive care provisions of the Affordable Care Act, the justices took an extreme step. They issued an order that basically told the federal government and the religious entities to reach a compromise -- and described what the compromise would look like. (Noah Feldman, 3/30)

There was lots of talk about hijacking the other day at the Supreme Court — not in a criminal case, but in the argument on how far the government must go to shield nonprofit religious organizations from the Affordable Care Act’s requirement to include birth control in employer health care plans. If the government has its way, it will “hijack our health plans and provide the coverage against our will,” Paul D. Clement, arguing for one group of religious nonprofits, warned the eight justices. His co-counsel, Noel Francisco, representing a second group of religious plaintiffs, added: “They’re seizing control of our plans, the plans that we are required to provide under threat of penalty.” (Linda Greenhouse, 3/30)