LF: 'The woman is a victim!': Trump WALKS BACK proposal that Americans who have abortions should face 'some form of punishment' – saying it's the DOCTORS he wants to see jailed, not pregnant women

Title: 'The woman is a victim!': Trump WALKS BACK proposal that Americans who have abortions should face 'some form of punishment' – saying it's the DOCTORS he wants to see jailed, not pregnant women
Source: Daily Mail Online
URL Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art ... orm-punishment-women-them.html
Published: Mar 30, 2016
Author: David Martosko, Us Political Editor For
Post Date: 2016-03-30 18:42:38 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 9574
Comments: 87

Donald Trump quickly walked back comments on Wednesday afternoon in which he had said he favored 'some form of punishment' for American women who terminate their pregnancies through abortion.

The billionaire Republican front-runner made that declaration during a noontime town hall TV taping in Wisconsin. Less than four hours later, however, he insisted that he would only hope to see abortion-clinic doctors and other medical personnel prosecuted.

'If Congress were to pass legislation making abortion illegal and the federal courts upheld this legislation, or any state were permitted to ban abortion under state and federal law, the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman,' Trump said in a statement to the press.

'The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb. My position has not changed.'

But hours earlier, when MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews asked him if he would advocate for legal penalties 'for the woman' who chooses an abortion, Trump had answered: 'Yes.'

That comment came during a pre-taped town hall broadcast that wasn't scheduled to air until hours after Trump's about-face nullified it.

GOLD MEDAL IN THE 1,000 METER WALK-BACK: Donald Trump abandoned a position on criminalizing abortion less than four hours after articulating it

JAIL 'EM: Donald Trump, the Republican presidential front-runner, said Wednesday that abortion should be outlawed and legal punishments established for women who terminate their pregnancies

In the intervening hours, while he steered clear of the issue during a campaign appearance in the town of Appleton, Trump's campaign released a statement saying the abortion issue 'is unclear and should be put back into the states for determination.'

Framing abortion as an issue ripe for a return to state-based jurisdiction is political code for overturning Roe v. Wade, the landmark supreme Court decision that forbade states from outlawing the artificial termination of pregnancies.

The move initially signaled that Trump was making a serious bid to undercut Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who has cornered the voting market on much of the nation's social conservative base.

A Marquette University poll released Wednesday afternoon shows Trump trailing Cruz by 10 points in the Badger State, which will hold its primary election next Tuesday.

Cruz hadn't yet issued a statement about Trump's abortion position when he walked it back. he had his chance in the resulting chaos.

'Once again Donald Trump has demonstrated that he hasn't seriously thought through the issues, and he'll say anything just to get attention,' the tea party firebrand said.

'On the important issue of the sanctity of life, what's far too often neglected is that being pro-life is not simply about the unborn child; it's also about the mother – and creating a culture that respects her and embraces life.'

'Of course we shouldn't be talking about punishing women,' Cruz said. '[W]e should affirm their dignity and the incredible gift they have to bring life into the world.'

In the rubble of a quickly abandoned policy position – executing a 180-degree turn on it before it airs on national television – the net effect was rank confusion.

'I can't speculate about what he was thinking,' Trump spokeswoman Tana Goertz told CNN form the Appleton ballroom where Trump had just wrapped up his remarks.

She speculated that her boss may have meant women who choose abortions should undergo some form of 'social punishment' or 'mental anguish,' not a judicial punishment.

But the ground where Trump landed – prosecuting abortionists and comforting women – matches that of the national pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List, whose president had presaged Trump's turnaround an hour earlier.

Abortion, said Marjorie Dannenfelser, is a form of exploitation of women, not something for which they should be held responsible.

'We have never advocated, in any context, for the punishment of women who undergo abortion,' Dannenfelser said.

'Punishment is solely for the abortionist who profits off of the destruction of one life and the grave wounding of another.'

MAKE IT ILLEGAL: The anti-abortion movement may have a new champion to lead its 40-year-old war to reverse the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision – but will they embrace him or run away?

KEEP CLINICS OPEN: Abortion right activists will be motivated anew by the threat of a Trump presidency

Matthews had cornered the billionaire on the third-rail political issue during the noontime taping in Green Bay.

'Should abortion be punished? This is not something you can dodge,' Matthews asked.

'If you say "Abortion is a crime" or "abortion is murder," you have to deal with it under the law. Should abortion be punished?'

Trump replied that 'people in certain parts of the Republican Party, and conservative Republicans, would say, "Yes, they should be punished".'

Asked for his personal view, Trump called abortion 'a very serious problem, and it's a problem we have to decide on. It's very hard.'

Trump engaged him: 'Are you going to say – well wait, are you going to say put them in jail? Is that the punishment you’re talking about?'

'No, I’m asking you because you say you want to ban it. What does that mean?' Matthews pressed.

Trump ultimately said 'there has to be some form of punishment,' for women who have abortions if the practice were to be outlawed.

'Yes,' Trump answered, nodding, saying the penalty would 'have to be determined.'

'I do take positions on everything else but this is a very complicated position,' the candidate said.

CORNERED: Trump turned the abortion questions back on Chris Matthews (right), asking him how his pro-choice beliefs fell in line with those of the Roman Catholic Church, of which he's a member

Trump has broadly proclaimed his pro-life position during the presidential campaign, after years of toeing a pro-choice line.

Matthews asked him how he would go about banning abortions.

'You go back to a position like they had,' he replied, 'where they would perhaps go to illegal places, but we have to ban it.'

Matthews, an NBC News legend and a Roman Catholic, found himself on defense when Trump needled him about his Christian denomination's teachings.

The Catholic Church staunchly opposes abortion, but does not call for civilian penalties for woman who stray.

Matthews responded that he accepts 'the teaching authority of my church on moral issues' and 'I concur with their moral position.'

'But legally I want to get to the question,' he shifted, drawing a chuckle from Trump.

'It’s not funny,' Matthews said, according to an MSNBC transcript.

'It’s really not funny,' Trump countered. 'What do you say about your church? They’re very, very strict.'

'The church make their moral judgments, but you’re running for President of the United States,' the host countered.

OUTRAGE: Trump's Democratic opponents opened up a can of fury online after news of his comments spread

The billionaire real estate guru's political line in the abortion sand could jeopardize his already-tenuous standing with Republican women.

And Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton pounced on the story, tweeting her disgust in a message signed with '–H,' meaning that she wrote it personally.

'Just when you thought it couldn't get worse,' Clinton tweeted. 'Horrific and telling.'

Her rival Bernie Sanders, a democratic socialist Vermont senator, tweeted: 'Your Republican frontrunner, ladies and gentlemen. Shameful.'

Trump framed the decades-long U.S. abortion fight on Wednesday as a crucial matter for voters to decide through the ballot box, since the next president will determine the political balance of the U.S. Supreme Court.

'They've set the law and, frankly, the judges,' he said.

'You're going to have a very big election coming up for that reason – because you have judges where it’s a real tipping point and with the loss of Scalia, who was a very strong conservative, this presidential election is going to be very important,' he said.

'When you say "What's the law?" nobody knows what the law is going to be. It depends on who gets elected.'

Trump announced his conservative transformation on abortion rights last August, saying that Planned Parenthood, the nation's most active abortion clinic organization, should be de-funded at the federal government level.

'The problem that I have with Planned Parenthood is the abortion situation,' he said then. 'It is like an abortion factory, frankly.'

THREATENED: Planned Parenthood – America's largest abortion provider – and its president both lashed out at Trump on Twitter

Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards tweeted in the afternoon that Trump 'is vocalizing the motivations of every politician who votes to restrict access to abortion. It's about controlling women.'

'This is a man who genuinely does not care about the health & safety of women - only about his political ambitions,' she wrote.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich spoke to MSNBC's Chuck Todd after Trump made his remarks.

'Of course, women shouldn't be punished' for having abortions,' Kasich said.

'I think probably Donald Trump will figure out a way to say that he didn’t say it, or he was misquoted or whatever, but I don’t think so,' Kasich added.

'I don’t think that’s an appropriate response and it’s a difficult enough situation then to try to punish somebody.'

Further to the political left, Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz said in a statement that Trump's 'vileness and contempt for women knows no bounds,' and that the GOP leader would deny women 'the right to make their own decisions about their health care.'

On the other side of the political spectrum, Trump lost the support of the March For Life Education and Defense Fund, which organizes an annual march and lobbying events in Washington, D.C.

'Mr. Trump’s comment today is completely out of touch with the pro-life movement and even more with women who have chosen such a sad thing as abortion,' said Jeanne Mancini, the group's president.

'Being pro-life means wanting what is best for the mother and the baby. Women who choose abortion often do so in desperation and then deeply regret such a decision. No pro-lifer would ever want to punish a woman who has chosen abortion.'

'This is against the very nature of what we are about,' she said. 'We invite a woman who has gone down this route to consider paths to healing, not punishment.'

THE MOMENT DONALD TRUMP TOLD MSNBC THAT WOMEN WHO GET ABORTIONS MAY HAVE TO FACE LEGAL PENALTIES

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Should the woman be punished? For having an abortion?

DONALD TRUMP: Well look.

MATTHEWS: This is not something you can dodge.

TRUMP: It’s not –

MATTHEWS: If you say abortion is a crime or abortion is murder, you have to deal with it under the law. Should abortion be punished?

TRUMP: Well people in certain parts of the Republican party and conservatives Republicans would say, yes they should be punished.

MATTHEWS: How about you?

TRUMP: I would say that it’s a very serious problem and it’s a problem that we have to decide on. It’s very hard –

MATTHEWS: But you’re for banning it.

TRUMP: Are you going to say, well wait, are you going to say put them in jail? Is that the punishment you’re talking about?

MATTHEWS: No I’m asking you because you say you want to ban it. What does that mean?

TRUMP: I am against. I am pro-life. Yes. I am pro-life.

MATTHEWS: How do you ban abortion? How do you actually do it?

TRUMP: You know you’ll go back to a position like where they had where people perhaps will go to illegal places.

MATTHEWS: Yeah.

TRUMP: But you have to ban it. I’m against –

MATTHEWS: Yeah you ban it but they go to someone who flunked out of medical school and-

TRUMP: Are you Catholic?

MATTHEWS: Yes, I think I-I-I

TRUMP: And how do you feel about the Catholic church’s position?

MATTHEWS: I accept the teaching authority of my church on moral issues.

TRUMP: I know, but do you know what their position on abortion is?

MATTHEWS: Yes, I do.

TRUMP: And do you concur with that position?

MATTHEWS: I concur with their moral position but legally I want to get to the question—

TRUMP: No but let me ask you. What do you say about –

MATTHEWS: It’s not funny.

TRUMP: It’s really not funny. What do you say about your church? They’re very very strict.

MATTHEWS: The churches make their moral judgments, but you’re running for President of the United States to become Chief Executive of the United States. Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no, as a principle?

TRUMP: The answer is there has to be some form of punishment.

MATTHEWS: For the woman?

TRUMP: Yes.

MATTHEWS: 10 cents, 10 years, what?

TRUMP: I don’t know. That I don’t know.

MATTHEWS: Well why not, you take positions on everything else.

Isn't Trump allowed to "walk-back" a comment he made only hours before? A comment he made in response to a confusing hypothetical?

There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't

Reading the dialog, it shows Trump is being pulled through this issue, and the the headlines are making claims about what Trump said that is not in tune with what he actually said.

Clearly, if anything is going to be illegal, then the same law making it illegal has to stipulate punishment for violating the law. Otherwise, it's not illegal, as any law that prohibits something is meaningless & void if there is no penalty for violating it. That's basic logic. If abortions are to be banned, there HAS to be some penalty for their performance, and that's all Trump is conceding here.

Next question is, what president in the last 45 years has had any influence on the abortion issue?

He likes Rubio. He even once said Rubio was good looking. Kind of like he wanted him in a gay way.

Clinton and Obama appointed a lot of people who like torturing babies. They affected it.

Apparently when Trump sticks his foot in his mouth, it's your job to run around repeating "It was a very very confusing hypothetical question".

Then why didn't he stick to his principles? Why didn't he have the courage of his conviction? Even Cruz showed some balls in standing firm on opposition to the ethanol subsidy, and in Iowa. It only took Trump a couple of hours to turn and run in the other direction.

Trump is nothing but a con man that will change his position on a dime, and often has as part of his art of the deal. Trusting him to stand on his word is as foolish as building castles in the sand.

I believe that Trump is actually right. He probably can shoot someone in Times Square and the Trump dupes will continue to support him.

But then again, there is no hope for a Trump dupe. Trump has handed the election to Hillary.

Sanders also is beating Cruz by 4-13%. But Kasich beats Hillary by 4-11% whereas Cruz only is ahead of Hillary in one of the six polls RCP averaged polls.

Oh, now I get it. Lewandowski and Trump where responding to a confusing and hypothetical question when they said that Lewandowski never touched that woman reporter. Damn the media.

Precise, but incomplete. The whole thing is based on a hypothetical that SCOTUS strikes down Roe v. Wade. Then, as you say, Congress (not the President) needs to write whatever law is desired. It could be returned to the states where the state legislatures could write 50 different laws.

But please clarify, asking Trump a question about who should bear the consequences of an illegal abortion is a manufactured event? And Lewandowski putting his hands on that woman was a manufactured event?

Ask you man Trump. He will probably have a different answer in a few more hours.

As for me, I never changed my position on abortion. And FTR I do not agree with the Conservative orthodoxy that the woman is only a victim of abortion. My answer is the same to question of should the person that hired someone to murder their spouse bear any consequences when the hit man fulfills the contract?

Trying to make something about a response to a question about an event premised on multiple hypotheticals, based on the flawed premise that the President makes the laws, is an attempt to manufacture a story where none exists.

Lewandowski touched Fields. Fields was where she was not supposed to be. The photographic evidence reveals that Fields' version of events was exaggerated/false, except that she was touched as Lewandowski made his way past her sorry, in the way, ass. It is another non-story.

Oh, asking a candidate what he believes about a contentious issue is out of bounds in your world. OK.

"The photographic evidence reveals that Fields' version of events was exaggerated/false, except that she was touched as Lewandowski made his way past her sorry, in the way, ass."

Are you kidding? He pull her backwards. That's a lot more than touching. AND HE FIRST SAID HE NEVER EVEN TOUCHED HER. Who's the ass? There is no hope for a Trump dupe.

He is already heading south. How low will he go? Well in conduct and character we all see that he can be very low indeed. In the polls, he is sinking like a stone. Even Sanders beats him by up to 20+%

But the truth still is that he is a shill for Hillary. He has already guaranteed her the election if she beats Sanders. Otherwise we will get the socialist for at least 4 years, if he survives that long - he would be 75 + plus in Jan. 2017. Reagan was only 70 when he was sworn in.

Because there IS a substantial personal liberty issue at stake in abortion. Compelling a woman to bear a child she does not want, even a child of rape or incest, is a very, very heavy burden on liberty.

If you did not favor individual liberty, and individual sexual liberty in particular, when you were in your teens and early twenties, then you have had the soul of an oppressive thug since you were young. You've ALWAYS wanted to plant that boot on other people's faces.

Normal people favor personal liberty strongly in their youth, and then gradually come to a fuller realization as they mature. Hitler youth start out certain that they have the right to impose their morals on everybody else by force.

I am unsurprised that you have never changed your view on abortion. You were a fascist from the beginning.

Churchill said truly that anybody who is not a liberal at age 20 has no heart. But that whoever is not a conservative by age 40 has no brain.

You're proud to have had no heart at age 20 - you've never changed. You were always "right" and sure of it. You were never concerned about personal liberty at all, and still aren't.

And you've never gotten your way, and won't start. Bad judgment tied to an evil temperament.

That is just stupid. I've always been against abortion. Always have always will.

I know some outstanding young people who are quite conservative at age 20. You libel them by labeling them as heartless just because they're not flaming libs at age 20.

Quoting Churchill doesn't actually bolster your case. Just another instance in which both of you are demonstrably wrong.

Nah. He's one of the National Review's "real conservatives". Meaning he pays lip service to conservative principles.

But it's OK with you that she said, "Trump acknowledged the question, but before he could answer I was jolted backwards. Someone had grabbed me tightly by the arm and yanked me down. I almost fell to the ground, but was able to maintain my balance. Nonetheless, I was shaken."

Look at the overhead video and look at her feet. She never went backwards. She was briefly stopped while everyone else continued forward.

She's a reporter who was somewhere she wasn't supposed to be. She got too close to Trump and was wedged away after being warned twice by the Secret Service. This can't be the first time this has happened to a reporter.

Well, assuming the reporter isn't an attention whore who is willing to smear a good man in order to get her 15 minutes.

Obviously, you miss NRO. I haven't read it in months but I'll go scrape up their recent comments for you and post them here as an article. It'll take me 5 minutes or so.

Ron Paul always insisted that if you inserted a clause in a law that the law itself was beyond the scope of Supreme Court review, that the Court would have no basis to try to alter or overrule it as that alone would provoke a constitutional crisis greater than Marbury vs. Madison. He didn't believe any modern Court would take that risk.

Well then, I never changed my faith in God either. That must make me a double secret Nazi at heart. You are now officially a moron.

No. You're just an unthinking person who hates people because he thinks he's smarter than everybody else. And yet, for all of that superior intelligence, your position in life has turned out to be surprisingly mediocre.

I can live with both, thank you, especially since my mediocre life includes a solid marriage of almost 50 years now, a great kid, great grandchildren and a mediocre amount of creature comforts.

But unlike you I constantly challenge my positions and beliefs and when the evidence requires I change. Surprisingly many of my moral beliefs haven't changed since I was a teenager as the evidence over the decades only acted to confirm them.

I am sorry that it took you so long in life to find out what you really believe in. Perhaps that is why you like Trump, he has no fixed moral center either.

No doubt. But that doesn't give Lewandowski and Trump a pass to claim that Lewandowski never touched her. The evidence is quite clear, HE DID.

I am not a lawyer but the video appears to be quite flimsy evidence of battery. However if Lewandowski does in fact face a jury of his peers he just may be convicted if for nothing more than being associated with Trump.

I think the FL battery case is unlikely to go anywhere. The prosecutor may just drop it.

And what's the most that would happen? Corey might get six months probation at worst.

If she lied and Lewandowski said he didn't do what she said he did, isn't Lewandowski telling the truth?

He may get off with the Slickster treatment but he is not the Slickster and his life would be negatively impacted by a conviction. I don't think that even a con man like Trump would hire someone in a visibly high capacity that was convicted of battery.

As for it going to trial, it all depends on who the prosecutor is, and his/her boss. We all know that Hillary will never get to trial for the same reason that Lewandowski might.

The question is, can Lewandowski, using reasonable force, keep reporters away from the candidate? Not "should". "Can".

If Lewandowski's attorney can get a written statement from the Secret Service saying they warned her twice to back up, I can't see any prosecutor thinking he can get a jury to vote unanimously for a conviction.

I don't understand your question. She lied about nearly being pulled to the ground. She probably lied about the source of the bruise on her arm. But she hasn't been legally charged with anything and never will be. She quit her job. I don't know if that makes her a hot commodity in the liberal world of the MSM. Perhaps she'll do a shoot for GQ.

why did Lewandowski and Trump lie about Lewandowski never touching her, especially if they believed that it was justified for security reasons?

Lewandowski is a former state trooper turned campaign manager. So you can see why he feels entitled to manhandle whoever he pleases.

I took special care with my wording. I asked "can". You answered the question, "Should Lewandowski, using reasonable force, keep reporters away from the candidate?"

She lied when she said she was pulled down. When Lewandowski was asked about it (pulling her down) he responded "I never touched her" -- meaning "I never pulled anyone down". So in that sense he wasn't lying.

Now, had she told the truth and said, "Lewandowski pulled my arm away from Trump and cut me off", then Lewandowski would have lied if he said he never touched her.

I just wanted to know if Lewandowski was out of line to intervene. I don't think he was, and it has nothing to do with mouse turds.

My God, your rationalization makes the Slickster and Obama green with envy. FYI he also said he never met her, as in encountered. That also was a lie.

But you might be able to reddem yourself if you post the exact question put to Lewandowksi to which he amswered "I never touched her."

He'll vacuously repeat phrases with the words "confusing" and "hypothetical" until his ADD kicks in.

There was nothing "confusing" or "hypothetical" about it. And Chrissy Matthews is even dumber than Trump.

I've never read it. Because it has been a shit publication for decades. Telling that you used to read them.

I see the national review people on TV all the time. They are always idiots who support globalism and love NAFTA GATT etc.

Chris Matthews' premise was, "Abortion is against the law." Did Matthews mean, "It is illegal to perform an abortion" or "It is illegal to have an abortion"? Or both?

If that is your premise, then Trump clearly answered it as being illegal to have an abortion. But there was no reason for anyone to think that. No one has ever proposed such laws.

For instance, after the partial-birth abortion ban, it was not illegal to have a partial-birth abortion. It was illegal for a doctor to perform a partial-birth abortion.

Of course, back then, Trump was a full-blown abortion advocate, including praising his very pro-abortion sister (a federal judge he thinks should be on the Court) and writing publicly that he favored partial-birth abortion. In case you don't know, that's where they deliver the baby's body halfway so they can stab it in the back of the brain with surgical scissors. But Trump was a big fan of this procedure at the time and went on record on the issue.

The Donald was so "confused" by the "context" that he couldn't answer a simple question? Doesn't say much for his qualifications as leader of the free world.

But you're not confused because you're smart. So answer my post #57. Second request.

I am not confused about my answer to "Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no, as a principle, for the woman?" being "No" regardless of any premises that may have been aired earlier in the conversation.

If the law stated that it was illegal for a woman to have an abortion, and the woman had an abortion, didn't she violate the law? Shouldn't she be punished for violating the law?

If you keep avoiding the question, you give me a very good reason not to post to you.

It's the first time you've asked that question. My answers are yes and yes. And I'm still not confused, unlike you and your Fearless Leader.

Maybe it's time for more feticide laws and convictions of women who kill their unborn babies.

#65: 'If the law stated that it was illegal for a woman to have an abortion, and the woman had an abortion, didn't she violate the law? Shouldn't she be punished for violating the law?'

#57: 'Chris Matthews' premise was, "Abortion is against the law." Did Matthews mean, "It is illegal to perform an abortion" or "It is illegal to have an abortion"? Or both?'

Trump wasn't asked any of the questions you've asked. He was asked, "Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no, as a principle, for the woman?" His answer was "Yes"; as I've already posted (#64) my answer is "No".

That's my point. If there is "punishment for abortion" that means abortion is against the law, right? And if Matthews is asking Trump if the woman should be punished, why would he ask that unless it was against the law for the woman to have an abortion?

So Trump assumed Matthews was asking if Trump would enforce the law. Trump said he would. So did you.

"[DECEPTIVELY OMITTED BY ROSCOE: If the law stated that it was illegal for a woman to have an abortion, and the woman had an abortion, didn't she violate the law?] Shouldn't she be punished for violating the law? Yes."

The question without the clauses is, "Do you believe in punishment for abortion for the woman?"

So, yes. The question does assume there is punishment. Trump was asked if the punishment should be applied (to the woman). If she broke the law, what's he supposed to say? No?

If Matthews was interested in learning Trump's position (rather than trying to play gotcha games) he would have asked, "If abortion is made illegal, do you believe the law should target the women?"

The discussion is in the context IF Roe were to be overturned, and IF abortion were legally defined as the crime of murder (or infanticide), under that circumstance, should abortion be punished?

Not to mention that his final question you quote didn't depend on any premise - it makes no sense to ask "Do you believe ... as a principle" if the premises are already given.

One cannot disregard the long, long, long windup. As a principle, if something is declared to be a crime, there is some penalty attached.

As such, the question of whether abortion defined as a crime or murder should carry a punishment is a stupid question, but as gotcha tv, it must have sent that old tingle up Tweety's leg.

If it defines abortion as murder, the only example offered by Matthews for what the crime might be, then the woman would be an accessory to murder.

A statute could be crafted making the performance of an abortion a criminal act, and a woman could be exempted from being an accessory.

As a principle, based on Chris Matthews' expressed belief in the general principles and teachings of the Catholic church, all abortions would be considered infanticide, and the woman would be as guilty as the abortion provider.

As for .OR., you set down the law for your puppy. It is illegal to pee OR crap on the carpet. Is the puppy prohibited from peeing on the carpet, crapping on the carpet, or both? Or neither? Or is it just so confusing that the puppy pees and craps where he wants?

Not on Roe v. Wade. When SCOTUS issues an interpretation of the Constitution, their interpretation can only be overruled by themselves or by an amendment to the Constitution. The Legislature can overrule SCOTUS when it interprets a statute.

No, your statement was about "crime" as a general category, not about any specific law. If a law is passed that punishes only the abortionist, then a crime has indeed been defined.

That murder was his only SPECIFIC example in no way obviates the fact that he explicitly admitted other (unspecified) possibilities.

False analogy. Here's the correct one: If one premises that the puppy has either peed OR crapped on the carpet, one has NOT premised that the puppy has crapped on the carpet.