In defense of an awkward answer

Recently, a presidential candidate was asked a hypothetical question by Chris Matthews: If the Supreme Court decided that abortion was no longer legal and a woman had an abortion, should she be punished? The candidate hesitated, started and stopped, and finally said it was a complicated topic, but yes, the woman should probably be punished in some way, he declined to suggest how. He later said he meant the doctor, not the woman, should be punished.

The negative response on both sides has been deafening. In this particular case, I would like to defend the candidate.

What would have been a politically correct answer to this baited question? I wish he had answered, "Well, Chris, I don't know. What do you think should be done to people who break the law?" Do we just obey laws we like or agree with or find convenient?

Unfortunately, we have someone in the White House right now who repeatedly breaks or ignores or bends laws he doesn't like or finds inconvenient to whatever he is trying to accomplish at the moment. Maybe people have gotten used to his example and assume we don't need to obey any law that just doesn't fit our current situation.

But I digress. Back to the candidate's unfortunate answer. He is right: It's complicated. What do we do when someone breaks the law? Does the rule of law that has defined our country from its origins define our nation still? His answer, though awkward, makes us think.

MARTHA STEPHENS, Cape Girardeau