“The woman is a victim in this case, as is the life in her womb,” he continued. 
 
 Mr. Trump’s Republican rivals moved quickly to distance themselves from his initial comments as well. Gov. John Kasich of Ohio said, “Of course women shouldn’t be punished.” 
 
 “I don’t think that’s an appropriate response,” he told MSNBC. “It’s a difficult enough situation.” 
 
 The campaign of Senator Ted Cruz of Texas said attention should be focused on providers of abortion, not the women who receive them. 
 
 “Once again, Donald Trump has demonstrated that he hasn’t seriously thought through the issues, and he’ll say anything just to get attention,” Mr. Cruz said in a statement, adding, “Of course we shouldn’t be talking about punishing women; we should affirm their dignity and the incredible gift they have to bring life into the world.” 
 
 For Republicans, the chaos felt something like a recurring nightmare. After the defeat of Mitt Romney in 2012, party leaders had hoped to move beyond a reputation for offensive comments on women’s issues, emblematized by Todd Akin, a Senate candidate in Missouri who posited that victims of “legitimate rape” were somehow able to prevent pregnancy. 
 
 Mr. Trump’s comments came as many Republicans are confronting, with escalating despair, the specter of a Trump nomination — and the electoral difficulties he would face. 
 
 Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
 
 Last week, Mr. Trump threatened to “spill the beans” on Mr. Cruz’s wife, Heidi, and posted an unflattering image of her on Twitter. On Tuesday, he forcefully defended his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, who was charged with battery over allegations that he grabbed a female reporter who had tried to question Mr. Trump earlier this month. 
 
 A New York Times/CBS News poll this month had already demonstrated Mr. Trump’s weakness with female voters, who favored the Democratic front-runner, Hillary Clinton, 55 percent to 35 percent. 
 
 Photo 
 
 On Wednesday, Mrs. Clinton called Mr. Trump’s comments “horrific and telling.” 
 
 Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, sought to tie Mr. Trump to the rest of his party, noting that Mr. Cruz opposed exceptions for abortion in cases of rape or incest. Mr. Kasich, she added, has moved to defund Planned Parenthood in Ohio. 
 
 “All three Republicans would drag the country back to the days when women were forced to seek illegal procedures from unlicensed providers out of sheer desperation,” she said. 
 
 Yet with his statement on Wednesday, and the scramble to clarify it, Mr. Trump also exacerbated concerns among Republicans who have questioned the authenticity of his late-in-life conversions to conservative social positions. 
 
 Mr. Trump is already facing a difficult test in Wisconsin, where the Republican primary will take place Tuesday, and where those looking to stop his march to the nomination see a critical opportunity. A Marquette University Law School poll released just before the MSNBC interview showed Mr. Cruz in first place in the state, leading Mr. Trump by 10 points. 
 
 Wisconsin’s governor, Scott Walker, who is deeply popular with Republicans, has taken a hard line against abortions. Last year, he signed a bill banning abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, just as he was gearing up to run for president. He bowed out of the race last September after failing to gain traction, and this week endorsed Mr. Cruz. 
 
 First Draft Newsletter Subscribe for updates on the 2016 presidential race, the White House and Congress, delivered to your inbox Monday - Friday. 
 
 Mr. Cruz has long attacked Mr. Trump for supporting abortion rights in the past, highlighting clips from a 1999 interview in which Mr. Trump called himself “very pro-choice” and condemning his positive comments about Planned Parenthood at a debate last month. 
 
 Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
 
 Mr. Trump said the group did “wonderful things” for women’s health, even as he criticized its abortion services. 
 
 There does not appear to be any record of Mr. Trump’s shift on abortion rights before February 2011, the month he spoke at a conservative conclave and made clear he was considering running for president the next year. 
 
 Bruce Haynes, a Republican strategist, said he could not recall “any credible corner of the movement” calling for criminal sanctions against women who sought abortions. 
 
 Jeanne Mancini, the president of the March for Life Education and Defense Fund, said efforts to punish individual women were “completely out of touch with the pro-life movement.” 
 
 “No pro-lifer would ever want to punish a woman who has chosen abortion,” she said. “We invite a woman who has gone down this route to consider paths to healing, not punishment.” 
 
 Others worried that Mr. Trump had helped fulfill a stereotype of the anti-abortion movement. 
 
 “He doesn’t understand pro-life people or the life issue,” said Penny Nance, the head of the conservative group Concerned Women for America and a supporter of Mr. Cruz. “He instead became the caricature that the left tries to paint us to be.” 
 
 In Mr. Trump’s struggles, his Republican opponents seem to have sensed an opportunity. Even before the latest controversy, Mr. Cruz and Mr. Kasich had invoked their daughters while discussing Mr. Trump’s treatment of women. 
 
 Earlier on Wednesday, Mr. Cruz appeared in Madison, Wis., to introduce a “Women for Cruz” coalition. He was joined by his wife, Heidi; his mother, Eleanor Darragh, who is seldom seen on the campaign trail; and Carly Fiorina, a high-profile supporter. 
 
 Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
 
 For much of the event, Mr. Cruz sat quietly behind a modest floral arrangement, allowing the women to speak on his behalf during a forum that seemed aimed at a rival whose name was scarcely mentioned. 
 
 “I just wanted to say one thing about Ted,” Heidi Cruz said near the end. “I want all of the women here in Wisconsin and across this country to know how supportive Ted has always been of all the women in his life.” ||||| Donald Trump yanked the Republican Party toward a contested convention over the past 24 hours as he let rip an extraordinary series of statements on abortion, the Geneva Conventions, violence against women and his own commitment to supporting the GOP presidential nominee that seemed to obliterate the notion that the party will unite behind him anytime soon. 
 
 The fallout for Trump has been swift, as Republican rivals denounced the real estate mogul’s escalating attacks on a reporter who accused Trump’s campaign manager of battery and his suggestion that women should be punished for seeking abortions if the procedure is outlawed — a statement Trump quickly tried to walk back. 
 
 Story Continued Below 
 
 He also freshly rankled leading Republicans around the country for tearing up his previous pledge to support the eventual nominee, saying Tuesday night that “we’ll see who it is.” 
 
 The series of events gave mainstream Republicans new hope that they could prevent him from winning the nomination outright through pledged delegates. But they're also more worried than ever about a fractured party heading into the fall. 
 
 “Trump is an embarrassment for the party. He’s not a conservative, he’s not a Republican, he’s someone who’s simply for himself,” said Ryan Williams, a GOP consultant and veteran of Mitt Romney’s campaigns. “He’s set a new standard and is going to give a number of Republicans pause about supporting him if he’s the nominee. That’s Donald Trump’s fault and Donald Trump’s fault alone.” 
 
 Trump created yet another firestorm on Wednesday afternoon, when he lamented the existence of the Geneva Conventions. “The problem is we have the Geneva Conventions, all sorts of rules and regulations, so the soldiers are afraid to fight,” Trump said at an afternoon town hall. 
 
 But it was his comments regarding women — both his suggestion about criminalizing abortion and his escalating attacks on Breitbart journalist Michelle Fields — that set off the loudest alarm bells. 
 
 In a sign of how damaging his comments on abortion were, Trump swiftly reversed himself. The controversy started when MSNBC’s Chris Matthews pressed Trump on his statement that abortion “is a very serious problem, and it’s a problem we have to decide on. Are you going to send them to jail?” 
 
 After Matthews tried to draw him out on what should happen if abortions are outlawed, Trump responded, “There has to be some form of punishment.” 
 
 Bipartisan criticism was immediate, with Hillary Clinton calling the comment “horrific and telling” and Republican rival John Kasich strongly disputing Trump's assertion: “Absolutely not.” 
 
 The Trump campaign went into damage control mode, emailing out a clarifying statement. “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 the statement. “The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb. My position has not changed — like Ronald Reagan, I am pro-life with exceptions.” 
 
 The statement on abortion compounded his inflammatory comments about Fields, the former reporter who accused Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, of roughly yanking her arm as she tried to ask Trump a question earlier this month. Lewandowski was charged with misdemeanor battery on Tuesday. 
 
 On Wednesday, Trump stoked the controversy by accusing Fields of provoking Lewandowski in the incident and brandishing a pen as she tried to talk to him. 
 
 “Fox & Friends” co-host Brian Kilmeade challenged Trump on his account of the incident Wednesday morning, saying that campaign managers like Lewandowski "should not be putting their hands on reporters." He added, "Karl Rove didn’t do it. David Plouffe didn’t do it, David Axelrod didn’t do it. That’s why you have Secret Service, and that’s why you have your own security.” 
 
 Trump shot back, speculating that perhaps the three campaign managers had. “OK, and you don’t know that they didn’t do it, because I guarantee you they did, probably did stuff that was more physical than this," he said. "More physical, because this is not even physical. And frankly, she shouldn’t have her hands on me. Nobody says that. But she shouldn’t have her hands on me.” 
 
 While Trump has become a master at firing off controversial comments and earning kudos from his core supporters for his disregard for political correctness, the real estate mogul is making little headway in his recently stated goal of convincing the Republican Party to unify behind him as the front-runner. 
 
 Trump has a large lead over rival Ted Cruz in the delegate race, 736 to the Texas senator’s 463, but it’s not clear whether he’ll be able to secure the 1,237 delegates needed to clinch the nomination before the July convention. 
 
 Poll numbers out Wednesday for Wisconsin’s primary next week were not encouraging for the real estate mogul. The survey from Marquette Law School, the state’s most reliable pollster, showed Cruz with a 10-point lead over Trump. 
 
 And the front-runner is winning few converts among centrist Republicans. At one point earlier this year, some on Capitol Hill and among the lobbyist crowd on K Street entertained the idea that Trump would be preferable to Cruz. 
 
 They had considered Trump someone with whom they could cut deals, and questioned whether he really believed the fiery rhetoric he employed on the stump. But his repudiation on Tuesday night of his promise to support the eventual GOP nominee — on top of a string of other controversial statements he's made over the past few weeks — made many Republicans deeply uncomfortable, making unity an even more unlikely prospect. 
 
 “As head of the party, it is disturbing for anybody — not necessarily Trump — saying that they may or may not support our nominee,” said Diana Waterman, chairwoman of the Maryland GOP. “At the end of it, we’re supposed to all come together. That includes the people who were not successful in getting there.” 
 
 Another party chairman from a state with an upcoming primary, who requested anonymity to share reservations about Trump, said his theatrics take the party’s focus off members' shared rejection of Clinton and Bernie Sanders. 
 
 “Unfortunately it seems that whenever Mr. Trump is worried he may not become the Republican nominee, he makes these sorts of comments,” the chairman said. “My concern about his latest comments is that it will only make it harder for him to convince longtime loyal grass-roots Republicans of his sincerity and to persuade them to rally behind his candidacy. All of the Republican candidates must always first consider the best interest of this country and not hurt feelings.” 
 
 But there is also risk to Republican leaders in being openly hostile to Trump. In a contested convention scenario, there is no guarantee that Trump supporters would get in line behind another candidate should the real estate mogul fall short, particularly if they feel that he has been treated unfairly by the party — and Trump has already claimed mistreatment. 
 
 “How things are conducted going forward matters, and I’m really personally counting on our party leadership to set an example and come together,” said Steve Munisteri, former chairman of the Republican Party of Texas. 
 
 Munisteri said that if Trump ultimately wins the nomination, he would expect supporters of Cruz and Kasich to put aside their differences and back him, regardless of what the candidates themselves do. But, he acknowledged, Trump backers are less predictable and could set the stage for a deeply damaging moment for the Republican Party. 
 
 There is also always the threat of a third-party bid, either from Trump himself if he doesn’t clinch the GOP nomination, or from another candidate brought in as an alternative to Trump, though Republicans well-versed in party rules note that there is limited time, and ballot access constraints could keep that headache in check. 
 
 But as the convention nears with Trump still leading the pack, despite his fiery statements, the Republican Party’s soul-searching will become even more dire. 
 
 “I don’t envy my friends at the [Republican National Committee] right now,” said Williams, the Romney veteran. “It’s going to be a difficult task for the RNC to try to bring the party together.” 
 
 Nolan D. McCaskill, Ben Schreckinger and Eliza Collins contributed to this report. ||||| Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump stirred up controversy when he said there should be "some sort of punishment" for women who have abortions. Here's a look back at how he "evolved" into his pro-life views. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post) 
 
 “I’m pro-life, and I was originally pro-choice. I will say this, that as a developer and as a businessman I’m not sure I was ever even asked the question, ‘Are you pro-life, pro-choice?’ … I have evolved. I talk about evolving all the time. And by the way, you know who else evolved? Ronald Reagan evolved. Because Ronald Reagan signed one of the toughest abortion laws in favor of abortion in California that had been signed in many, many years. … He wasn’t very conservative [passing the law as governor], but he was a pretty conservative president.” 
 
 — Donald Trump, CNN town hall, March 29, 2016 
 
 There is growing attention on Donald Trump’s rhetoric on gender and women, which his critics view as misogynistic or often reduced to superficial comments about appearances (recent example: Trump’s comments about Ted Cruz’s wife). Ahead of the April 5 Wisconsin primary, Trump is facing more questions about his policy views on gender and women’s issues — particularly, his views on abortion. 
 
 Trump often compares his self-described evolution from being a Democrat to Republican to Ronald Reagan, who was once a Democrat before becoming the Republican icon. And now, he suggests that his evolution from supporting abortion rights to vocally opposing it is like Reagan’s, who once passed a law in favor of women’s access to abortion. 
 
 Reagan did sign a law in 1967 that liberalized abortions — six years before the Supreme Court’s decision on Roe v. Wade. But this was long before abortion was a national social policy matter, before there were such terms like “pro-choice” and “pro-life.” The circumstances were a lot different then. Reagan did evolve on his abortion views, but it was less stark of a transition than Trump’s. It’s time for a history lesson for the Republican front-runner. 
 
 The Facts 
 
 In 1999, Trump publicly said he was a supporter of abortion rights as a matter of women’s choice. In an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Trump was asked whether he would ban abortions, or at least “partial-birth” abortions. He said he would not, and that he is “pro-choice in every respect.” (Note: This shows he was indeed asked the question, despite his statement to CNN that “as a businessman I’m not sure I was ever even asked the question.”) 
 
 “I’m very pro-choice,” Trump told NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I hate the concept of abortion. … But still, I just believe in choice.” 
 
 But now on the presidential campaign trail in 2016, Trump is a vocal opponent of women’s rights to abortion — even to the point of saying that women who receive illegal abortions should be subject to “some sort of punishment.” Trump explains that he hadn’t given it much thought from a policy perspective when he was a businessman. And now that he is a presidential candidate, he says he is decidedly antiabortion. 
 
 How similar is that to Ronald Reagan’s evolution? 
 
 In June 1967, six months after becoming the Republican governor of California, Reagan signed a bill into law that he later would call “my worst decision as governor.” 
 
 It was the California Therapeutic Abortion Act, which aimed to make California the third state in the nation to liberalize abortion laws. Having an abortion was a crime in every state, and doctors were performing thousands of illegal abortions in the state every year (and some women were going to Mexico to get illegal abortions). 
 
 There was no “pro-choice” or “pro-life” lobbying at the time. The battle lines were drawn along religious lines, according to Reagan biographer and former Washington Post reporter Lou Cannon. In 1967, the majority of Californians, including 67 percent of Catholics, had supported liberalizing abortion laws. (California at the time permitted abortions only to save the life of the mother.) 
 
 Catholic Democrats generally were antiabortion, but liberal Democrats pushed for a permissive version of a law to provide women broad access to abortions. Conservatives who were not Catholics, generally Protestants, supported the proposed law, believing the government should stay out of “the boardroom and the bedroom,” Cannon wrote in “Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power.” 
 
 Yet Republican lawmakers wanted to stop a broad-ranging version of the bill from progressing, and pushed for a less permissive version. Some Republicans also believed that if Reagan didn’t sign some sort of abortion bill into law in 1967, the issue would come back every year — or that the legislature would override his veto. 
 
 Reagan was torn. He had not given abortion much thought and had no strong opinion prior to taking office — it wasn’t a leading social issue at the time — but he was faced with a decision that could set the tone for the rest of the country. Not helping with Reagan’s indecision, his staff were split along religious lines on the issue and had no clear consensus on which direction the governor should go. For instance, his legal affairs secretary, Edwin Meese, urged Reagan to sign the bill. 
 
 “I did more studying and soul searching on this matter than on anything that was to face me as governor,” Reagan later said in a radio address detailing his struggle contemplating the law. 
 
 “My answer as to what kind of abortion bill I could sign was one that recognized an abortion is the taking of a human life. … Therefore, an abortion is justified when done in self-defense. My belief is that a woman has the right to protect her own life and health against even her own unborn child. I believe also that just as she has the right to defend herself against rape, she should not be made to bear a child resulting from the violation of her person and therefore abortion is an act of self-defense. I know there will be disagreements with this view, but I can find no evidence whatsoever that a fetus is not a living human being with human rights.” 
 
 Reagan reluctantly signed a compromise bill, and said the measure did not fully satisfy him. California became the third and largest state to legalize abortions in cases of rape, incest or when the pregnancy “would gravely impair physical or mental health” of the mother. 
 
 Then, abortions increased exponentially, as doctors took a loose interpretation of the “mental health” provision. Annual abortions spiked, and Reagan regretted his decision once he saw how the law was being implemented. Even Democrats were surprised at how doctors interpreted this “mental health” exception. 
 
 “It’s the only major thing that he ever did as governor or president, that I’m aware of or that I can recall, that he ever said he did the wrong thing,” Cannon recalled to The Fact Checker. Reagan later ran for president on an antiabortion platform. 
 
 As readers can see, it clearly was a different point in history. By the time the Supreme Court considered Roe v. Wade in 1973, legalizing abortion nationally, almost half the states had followed the decisions of states like California to open up abortion laws with exceptions. Back then, even supporters of abortion rights were skeptical of Roe v. Wade decision or opposed it. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal icon, has even criticized it for empowering the antiabortion movement, and cutting off a gradual move among states to legalize abortion along with courts and state legislatures. 
 
 The Pinocchio Test 
 
 In a rare instance, the Republican front-runner is not glaringly incorrect. He accurately cites a controversial decision by Reagan that allowed abortion in California in cases of rape, incest and physical and mental health of the mother — one of the first states to do so. Reagan was torn on the decision; he believed the fetus was a “living human being with human rights,” but was presented with evidence of thousands of women in his state already seeking abortions illegally. Reagan’s view of allowing abortions in cases of rape, incest or life of the mother is actually consistent with what many people with “pro-life” views believe. 
 
 Reagan signing the law was not necessarily a reflection of his support for women’s right to choice, as it was long before the terms “pro-choice” and “pro-life” existed. Rather, his decision resulted from a confluence of a grass-roots movement among women and doctors, political maneuvering from legislators in the State Assembly, and his own lack of direction on exactly how he stood on the matter. Looking back now, it is clear Reagan had “pro-life” tendencies, as we now use the term. 
 
 We take issue with the historical comparison Trump makes. His evolution is not analogous with Reagan’s, when considering the historical context. Trump said he was “very pro-choice,” and now he identifies as “pro-life.” But he is identifying with such labels after the battle lines in the abortion debate long had been drawn. In contrast, Reagan’s evolution took place when he deliberated whether to legalize abortions for specific circumstances that he believed were appropriate: rape, incest and physical and mental health of the mother. When the last provision was interpreted far beyond what he had intended, he regretted his decision and became even more strongly antiabortion. 
 
 Politicians obviously have the right to change their views on key issues. But Trump’s suggestion that he has “evolved” just like Reagan suggests he does not really know the history of Reagan’s decision-making on the law. Trump should drop the comparison; it’s a gratuitous one that lacks historical context, and not analogous to his own evolution. 
 
 Two Pinocchios 
 
 
 
 
 
 (About our rating scale) 
 
 1 of 45 Full Screen Autoplay Close Skip Ad × What Donald Trump is doing on the campaign trail View Photos Businessman Donald Trump officially became the Republican nominee at the party’s convention in Cleveland. Caption Businessman Donald Trump officially became the Republican nominee at the party’s convention in Cleveland. Donald Trump speaks at a campaign event at Trump Doral golf course in Miami. Carlo Allegri/Reuters Buy Photo Wait 1 second to continue. 
 
 Send us facts to check by filling out this form 
 
 Check out our 2016 candidates fact-check page 
 
 Sign up for The Fact Checker weekly newsletter ||||| Yesterday on Meet the Press, Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson made clear that he not only wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, he also opposes exceptions for rape and incest. Lots of viewers probably saw that and said, “Wow, that’s a pretty radical position to take.” And it is. But they may not realize just how radical the entire field of Republican presidential candidates is on the issue of abortion. 
 
 I’ll be getting to exactly where the GOP candidates stand in a moment. Because public opinion on abortion has been relatively stable for decades now, because the two parties take clear and opposing positions on the issue, and because certain kinds of vague poll questions show a near-even split among Americans, reporters often assume that the public is evenly divided on the issue and therefore it will always be a wash when election time comes around. But that’s not actually true. 
 
 To understand why, you have to separate what Americans say when asked these questions in different ways, what they say when they’re asked specific questions as opposed to general questions, and where each of the Republicans actually stand. 
 
 The poll questions that produce roughly equal divisions come in two forms. The first asks whether respondents generally consider themselves “pro-life” or “pro-choice.” While at times one or the other has moved into the majority, those two options have stayed close in popularity for the last 15 years. The second form asks whether abortions should always be legal, always be illegal, legal under most circumstances, or legal under only some circumstances. In that case, you tend to get slightly over 50 percent saying always or mostly legal, and around 40-45 percent saying always or mostly illegal (the latest Pew data show a 55-40 division on this question; see here for trends on both questions). 
 
 Politicians don’t have the luxury of just saying “I’m pro-life” or “I think abortion should be legal in most circumstances.” They have to tell us exactly what they’d do. And what the Republican candidates would do is not just unpopular, but unpopular even within their own party. 
 
 I’m going to focus on two questions for the moment: whether Roe v. Wade should be overturned, and whether, if abortion is banned, there ought to be exceptions for victims of rape and incest. 
 
 The Roe v. Wade question is critical, because it is all but guaranteed that should a Republican become president, he will appoint only Supreme Court justices who can be counted on to vote to overturn Roe, which would allow states to ban abortion completely. Right now there are four Supreme Court justices ready to overturn the decision; if the right justice (or two) retires, it would be gone. 
 
 But that’s not what the public wants. Polls consistently show that between 55 and 65 percent of Americans say that Roe should not be overturned, while only around 30 percent say it should. And even within the Republican Party opinion is divided almost evenly. Yet with the exception of George Pataki, every single Republican candidate for president is in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade (if we assume that Donald Trump’s relatively recent conversion to the pro-life cause includes opposition to Roe; he doesn’t seem to have said specifically, but when asked, he insists that he’s pro-life and hates abortion). 
 
 On the question of exceptions to abortion bans in cases of rape or incest, I should note that opposing such exceptions is philosophically consistent. If you believe that abortion is murder, then you ought to believe it’s always murder, however the woman got pregnant. You could also argue that rape and incest exceptions reinforce the idea that abortion access ought to be granted through some kind of puritanical virtue test — a woman who was raped didn’t willfully have sex, so therefore she isn’t a dirty sinner and she can get an abortion. 
 
 Nevertheless, the fact is that most Americans believe women who are raped or girls who are the victims of incest should be able to access abortion. And not just a majority, but a huge majority. Polls that have asked this question find between 75 and 85 percent favoring legal abortions in case of rape and incest (see here for some of them). 
 
 So here’s where the GOP candidates stand on that question: 
 
 Donald Trump: Supports exceptions for rape and incest. 
 
 Supports exceptions for rape and incest. Ben Carson: Opposes exceptions for rape and incest. 
 
 Opposes exceptions for rape and incest. Jeb Bush: Supports exceptions for rape and incest. 
 
 Supports exceptions for rape and incest. Marco Rubio: Opposes exceptions for rape and incest. 
 
 Opposes exceptions for rape and incest. Ted Cruz: Opposes exceptions for rape and incest. 
 
 Opposes exceptions for rape and incest. John Kasich: Supports he favors exceptions for rape and incest. 
 
 Supports he favors exceptions for rape and incest. Carly Fiorina: Supports exceptions for rape and incest. 
 
 Supports exceptions for rape and incest. Rand Paul: Proposed a constitutional amendment applying the 14th Amendment at the moment of conception, which would outlaw all abortions, including those resulting from rape and incest. 
 
 Proposed a constitutional amendment applying the 14th Amendment at the moment of conception, which would outlaw all abortions, including those resulting from rape and incest. Chris Christie: Supports exceptions for rape and incest. 
 
 Supports exceptions for rape and incest. Lindsey Graham: Supports exceptions for rape and incest. 
 
 Supports exceptions for rape and incest. Bobby Jindal: Opposes exceptions for rape and incest. 
 
 Opposes exceptions for rape and incest. Rick Santorum: Opposes exceptions for rape and incest. 
 
 Opposes exceptions for rape and incest. Mike Huckabee: Opposes exceptions for rape and incest; even defended the government of Paraguay for denying an abortion to an 11-year-old girl who had been raped by her stepfather. 
 
 Opposes exceptions for rape and incest; even defended the government of Paraguay for denying an abortion to an 11-year-old girl who had been raped by her stepfather. Jim Gilmore: Unclear. 
 
 Unclear. George Pataki: Supports keeping Roe v. Wade; would presumably support rape and incest exceptions, though I was unable to find any references to him addressing them specifically. 
 
 For good measure, the departed Scott Walker also opposed exceptions for rape and incest. That leaves us with this: 14 of the 15 remaining Republican candidates want to overturn Roe v. Wade, and 7 out of the 15 would ban abortion with no exceptions for rape and incest. 
 
 As I said, you can argue that opposing those exceptions is a philosophically consistent position. But you can’t argue that it isn’t radical, when a majority of both Democrats and Republicans disagree, and the belief is shared by as little as 15 percent of the American public. 
 
 We’ve talked a lot about how the Republican candidates are being pulled to the right by their base on the issue of immigration, and how that could damage the eventual nominee’s prospects in the general election. But on abortion, the base isn’t pulling the candidates; they’re out on the rightward extreme already, even more so than their constituents. ||||| Ted Cruz Rafael (Ted) Edward CruzOvernight Health Care — Sponsored by PCMA — Showdown in court over Medicaid overhaul Ted Cruz shares basketball training video as he prepares for one-on-one game with Kimmel Franklin Graham criticizes Trump policy of separating families at border MORE lashed out at Donald Trump Donald John TrumpTrump announces North Dakota rally for June 27 Kim Kardashian on running for office: ‘Never say never’ State Dept. warns Americans of terrorist threat at World Cup MORE on Wednesday for saying that women who get abortions illegally should be punished. 
 
 “Once again Donald Trump has demonstrated that he hasn’t seriously thought through the issues, and he’ll say anything just to get attention,” Cruz said in a statement. 
 
 “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. 
 
 ADVERTISEMENT 
 
 "Of course we shouldn’t be talking about punishing women; we should affirm their dignity and the incredible gift they have to bring life into the world,” he added. 
 
 Trump was asked what a nationwide ban on abortion would look like in an interview with MSNBC's Chris Matthews. 
 
 “The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment,” Trump said. 
 
 “For the woman?” Matthews asked. 
 
 “Yeah, there has to be some form,” Trump responded. 
 
 Trump's comments sparked a firestorm. The celebrity businessman later attempted to walk back the comments in a statement released later on Wednesday. 
 
 “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. 
 
 “The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb. My position has not changed — like Ronald Reagan, I am pro-life with exceptions.”
– Donald Trump entered the national abortion debate on Wednesday as smoothly as a burning oil tanker slamming into a fireworks warehouse. After causing an outcry by saying that if abortions are banned, women who have them should be punished, he went on to claim the issue was "unclear" before issuing a statement saying that doctors, not women who have abortions, would be the ones to be punished if abortion was outlawed. "My position has not changed—like Ronald Reagan, I am pro-life with exceptions," he insisted. A roundup of reactions: The statements came amid what Politico calls "24 hours of mayhem" for Trump that also included scrapping his GOP loyalty pledge, a fresh line of attack in the Corey Lewandowski case, and complaining about the Geneva Conventions. Politico predicts that with the party now hopelessly divided, a contested GOP convention is almost inevitable. Ben Carson offered a very Carsonesque defense of Trump in a CNN interview. "I don't think he really had a chance to really think about it," Carson said, adding that Trump was able to "come up with a more rational and informed type of answer" after talking to advisers. Carson said he agreed with Trump's latter position that abortion providers, not women, should be the ones to be punished if the US ever bans abortion. Ted Cruz didn't pass up the opportunity to slam Trump, the Hill reports. Trump "has demonstrated that he hasn't seriously thought through the issues, and he'll say anything just to get attention," Cruz said in a statement. "We shouldn't be talking about punishing women; we should affirm their dignity and the incredible gift they have to bring life into the world," added Cruz, who, unlike Trump, does not support exceptions for rape and incest under an abortion ban, according to the Washington Post. Some anti-abortion activists are just as outraged as pro-choice groups by Trump's earlier comments, the New York Times reports. They say the call to punish women shows that Trump's shift toward being anti-abortion is very recent—and insincere. "No pro-lifer would ever want to punish a woman who has chosen abortion," says the president of the March for Life Education and Defense Fund. "We invite a woman who has gone down this route to consider paths to healing, not punishment." The Washington Post fact-checks Trump's claim that his change of position mirrors Reagan's, finding that this time, Trump is not "glaringly incorrect," although the comparison is a "gratuitous one that lacks historical context, and not analogous to his own evolution." The Post gives him two Pinocchios on a scale that goes to four.