"You will no longer be abandoned, lonely or scared. You will no longer be in danger. You're not going to be in danger any longer. You will no longer have anxiety from all of the problems our country has today.
You will be protected. And I will be your protector. Women will be happy, healthy, confident and free. You will no longer be thinking about abortion..."
-- Donald Trump, at a Pennsylvania rally, September 23, 2024
Listening to this man, who has boasted about sexual assault and been found liable for rape, pledge to be a protector of women is analogous to being given a Rorschach test: Donald Trump or Kamala Harris?
Some women will find Trump's message inviting and will cast a ballot for him. Others will find Harris, an independent woman who has campaigned on reproductive freedom, to be a better choice. Could anyone straddle this divide, unsure of which way to go?
This goes for men as well. Some men would like to keep women in their places, in traditional gender roles. Other men are onboard with the equality of women and men.
Make America Great Again clearly harks back to earlier eras when men's domination of women was not in question. That dichotomy, between the respective social and legal roles of men and women, as much as racial hierarchies, is embedded in Trump's pitch. Not for nothing are white evangelicals, who abhor strong, independent women unwilling to bend a knee to men, the core of the MAGA base. The blather by JD Vance and others about childless women, women over 50, grandmothers, and so on -- it's all part of the opposition to women's equality and autonomy.
Clearly, Kamala Harris is outside the bounds of acceptability for the MAGA cohort (and not just evangelicals).
The contrast is stark. And completely consistent with the choice American voters are being offered. Access to women's healthcare, including abortion, is an issue because with Trump's appointment of three Supreme Court justices, cementing a Republican supermajority, the high court overthrew Roe v. Wade. Trump continues to boast about this. A slew of Republican-ruled states immediately instituted bans on abortion. Many women have been harmed by the bans; some have lost their lives.
Meanwhile, Republicans continue to look for ways to restrict women's choices. In states that have banned abortion in clinics and hospitals, Republicans have sought to ban the use of abortion pills and to criminalize travel out of state to secure legal abortions elsewhere. Securing successful prosecutions of such women would require diving into their medical records. Proposed laws include monitoring women's pregnancies, including menstruation surveillance.
In Virginia, bipartisan legislation passed by the state house would have prohibited the government from securing menstruation data from computers, smartphones, and other electronic devices. The Republican state senate, at the behest of the Republican governor, killed the bill. In Missouri, the state's Department of Health and Senior Services Director has previously acknowledged tracking the menstrual periods of women who visited Planned Parenthood clinics. Project 2025 would impose abortion surveillance in all 50 states, reported to the CDC, and enforced by withholding federal funding to states that failed to cooperate.
On Wednesday, senior Trump advisor Jason Miller told a Newsmax interviewer that Trump would not prohibit pregnancy monitoring by states.
In fact, Donald Trump made the same commitment -- to allow Republican-led states to monitor pregnancies -- back in April.
So, when Trump pledges to be women's protector, know that he's intent on making decisions for women's own good. No need for anyone to worry her pretty little head about it. As he pledged in a Truth Social post, days before his rally in Pennsylvania:
Reassured? Or not? We'll choose in November.