Posted on 04/09/2015 5:49:50 AM PDT by lifeofgrace
Thank you, Rand Paul, for sticking it to The Woman. The AP threw him “the question” on abortion Wednesday during his NH campaign swing, and Rand threw it right back.
Later in the day, when asked after a campaign stop in Milford about the interview, which the Democratic National Committee had sent reporters, Paul said, "Why don't we ask the DNC: Is it OK to kill a 7-pound baby in the uterus?"Then Wasserman Schultz answered."You go back and go ask (DNC head) Debbie Wasserman Schultz if she's OK with killing a 7-pound baby that's just not born yet," Paul said. "Ask her when life begins, and ask Debbie when she's willing to protect life. When you get an answer from Debbie, come back to me."
"Here's an answer," she said in an emailed statement. "I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story. Now your turn, Rand Paul."Later, on CNN, Wolf Blitzer threw it back at Paul again.
But Paul wasn't fazed — or impressed — by Wasserman Schultz's answer. In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, the senator said it seemed to him like she wasn't opposed to late-term abortions.There’s a couple of points here. First, kudos to Rand Paul, who has learned to turn the tables on loaded questions, like Scott Walker did with Obama’s faith. It’s good to see the media step and fetch to defend the indefensible. It defangs them when GOP candidates make otherwise reasonable answers."Sounds like her answer is yes, that she's okay with killing a seven-pound baby," he said.
Paul went on to say that "even most of my friends who are pro-choice" are opposed to such abortions, but acknowledged that "there's a bit of doubt and discussion [about abortions] earlier in the pregnancy."
"But Debbie's position, which I guess is the Democrat Party's position, that an abortion all the way up until the day of birth would be fine, I think most pro-choice people would be really uncomfortable with that," he added. "So I don't know -- I really think she's got some explaining to do."
The second, and much greater, point is that Wasserman Schultz doesn’t need to explain anything. Really. As the tweets rolled in, it’s clear that the DNC chair’s position is that there should be no legal restrictions on abortion whatsoever. She makes this clear.
But it’s more than that. People who cast their lot with Planned Parenthood and NARAL don’t simply want unlimited abortion, or as Hillary Clinton put it “safe, legal, and rare.” The New York Times’ Ross Douthat opined on this topic.
The problem with the conservative story is that it doesn’t map particularly well onto contemporary mores and life patterns. A successful chastity-centric culture seems to depend on a level of social cohesion, religious intensity and shared values that exists only in small pockets of the country.So, the argument goes, if the country is a libertine free-for-all, then the government’s job is to promote the lifestyle of the promiscuous hedonists inhabiting it. Our current abortion culture wants nothing less than that argument, gold-plated and carved in stone.
In fairness, Douthat debunks the myth of “rare”:
At the same time, if liberal social policies really led inexorably to fewer unplanned pregnancies and thus fewer abortions, you would expect “blue” regions of the country to have lower teen pregnancy rates and fewer abortions per capita than demographically similar “red” regions.He’s being exceptionally kind to liberals, “don’t always seem” is really “never.”But that isn’t what the data show. Instead, abortion rates are frequently higher in more liberal states, where access is often largely unrestricted, than in more conservative states, which are more likely to have parental consent laws, waiting periods, and so on. “Safe, legal and rare” is a nice slogan, but liberal policies don’t always seem to deliver the “rare” part.
As for “safe”—the abortion industry holds that hostage to “legal and rare.” Planned Parenthood makes money by killing babies, and if they can do that more efficiently by using medical workers and facilities that make third-world free clinics look attractive by comparison, so be it. The argument goes, if the government cared about “women’s reproductive rights,” they’d pour public money into abortion (which they do anyway, to the tune of $540 million in 2013, earmarked for non-abortion procedures, as if PP cares how they get the money), and build gleaming temples to the death god, which would be staffed by government-funded doctors and filled with comfortable chairs.
Of course, those doctors would give up their souls after killing babies day after day, and if you think TV Doctor House is a stone-cold bastard, you should look into the eyes of an abortion doctor.
Washerman Schultz and the Democrats who surround themselves with the abortion industry elite (President Obama among them), are not pro-choice.
They’re not, really. They do not want a young unmarried woman to sit down on a comfortable couch, with a compassionate person by her side, showing her pregnancy test results, and discussing her options in a clear, non-confrontational manner. They wouldn’t want that even if the person counseling the young woman was totally neutral in the abortion war, wanting only for the woman to be comfortable with her decision.
Why? Because “abortion-minded” women tend to suffer buyer’s remorse. It takes quite a bit of social pressure for a woman to go through with killing the life inside her. Once she’s aware of it, that can’t be erased from her mind. Usually, it’s the boyfriend, or parents, or friends who supply the pressure. And the abortion industry doesn’t want anyone—anyone—interfering with that. A counselor interested only in what the woman herself wants tends to short-circuit that pressure.
This is why the abortion industry opposes crisis pregnancy centers. They want them closed down. They don’t want women to see their ultrasounds, even if it’s free to the woman, and privately funded. They don’t want a counselor to sit with a woman, and hold her hand while she cries, and tell her it’s going to be okay. They don’t want somewhere the woman can go and just chat, or receive some life skill training on how to be a mom (or bring the dad too).
They only want to give in to society’s basest instincts: have sex, teach 7-year-old girls about condoms, use Plan B, and failing that, run to the nearest abortion clinic, be processed like an animal, and sent out with a shining new uterus, for you to seek the next pleasure and come back again to kill the consequences.
That’s not choice. That’s slavery.
Rand Paul did the entire conservative movement a wonderful favor. Debbie Wasserman Schultz won’t ever explain her position, because doing so would expose her and her party as anti-woman, anti-baby, and anti-choice.
Now we can explain it for her. Democrats want the progressive liberal, all-the-sex-you-want culture to rule the country, and every girl to be trained up in it, and every woman to serve it as a sex slave.
(crossposted from RedState.com)
Does his supporting the President in the Iran deal not bother you a little bit? He has only recently reversed his position (since deciding to run) on stopping defense aid to Israel. He also seems weak on illegal immigration. Those are two Huge issues that I find Paul falls short on.
Rand Paul is a Republican, last I checked. Yes, yes he is. Not a Libertarian. He might lean “libertarian” with a small “l” but lots of Republicans lean that way.
Rand Paul isn’t pro-life. Notice how like a typical libertarian, he tries to give an impression that fools you, while holding to the liberal side.
Do you think that Rand Paul is pro-life when he describes himself pro-life “in general”?
“The thing is about abortion—and about a lot of things—is that I think people get tied up in all these details of, sort of, you’re this or this or that, or you’re hard and fast (on) one thing or the other,” Paul told Elliott. “I’ve supported both bills with and without (exceptions), you know. In general, I am pro-life. ?
Rand reminds me so much of Mitt Romney, he can “evolve” instantly and frequently.
CNN:
BLITZER: So, just to be precise, if you believe life begins at conception, which I suspect you do believe that, you would have no exceptions for rape, incest, the life of the mother, is that right?
PAUL: Well, I think that once again puts things in too small of a box. What I would say is that there are thousands of exceptions. You know, I’m a physician and every individual case is going to be different, and everything is going to be particular to that individual case and what’s going on with that mother and the medical circumstances of that mother.
I would say that after birth, you know, we’ve decided that when life begins, we have decided that we don’t have exceptions for one- day-old or six-month-olds. We don’t ask where they came from or how they came into being, but it is more complicated because the rest of it depends on the definition of when life comes in. So, I don’t think it’s a simple as checking box and saying exceptions or no exceptions.
And there are a lot of decisions that are made privately by families and their doctors that really won’t — the law won’t apply to, but I think it’s important that we not be flippant one way or the other and pigeon hole and say, oh, this person doesn’t believe in any sort of discussion between family. And so, I don’t know if there’s a simple way to put me in a category on any of that.
BLITZER: Well, it sounds like you believe in some exceptions.
PAUL: Well, there’s going to be, like I say, thousands of extraneous situations where the life of the mother is involved and other things that are involved.
So, I would say that each individual case would have to be addressed and even if there were eventually a change in the law, let’s say, the people came more to my way of thinking, it’s still be a lot of complicated things that the law may not ultimately be able to address in the early stages of pregnancy that would have to be part of what occurs between the physician and the woman and the family.
It's refreshing to see conservatives field a group of young, energetic, articulate candidates who aren't afraid to take the fight to the MSM and the Democrats. I'd be perfectly happy with Paul, Cruz, Walker or even Rubio at the top of the ticket. Much better than the gaggle of losers we ran last time around.
I just hope that when the primaries start counting, the guys in the back bow out gracefully in let the man in the lead take the fight against Jeb.
Yes and little blond poofy Megyn Kelly had to try to pile on Rand Paul last night. She is just beyond obnoxious. I She is so full of herself its sickening.
Mr. GG2 and I are sick of the right eviscerating their own people all the time. Its bad enough that the left comes after them. As far as I’m concerned every GOP candidate except for Bush and Christie are all good decent guys whether you subscribe to their point of view or not and they all command respect. They way they are going after Rand Paul is just horrendous.
He doesn’t support an Iran deal without congressional approval. He signed the letter sent to Iran by Congress.
It will be interesting to see what he does when Obama defies Congress, which he will. No matter what, Paul is definitely not the one to make us feel safer, not when he has been accurately described as “Left of Obama” on foreign policy.
And every time Republicans lose, conservatives are quick to blame the libertarian candidates for being spoilers. Fact is, there's a lot of younger voters who lean libertarian on issues such as technology, government spying and our draconian drug policy. Senator Paul is reaching out to these voters. Paul is also reaching out to those voters who think, "Hey, maybe we should follow the Constitution once in a while?" And he's doing this while remaining steadfastly and unapologetically pro-life.
The media and Dems have Rand right where they want him— talking about issues on abortion while the entire country is being decimated by Obama and the Iran deal is never even mentioned. Paul is dumb enough to let them do this.
The media and the Dems are going to corner every Republican candidate on abortion. It's been a successful "gotcha" question time and time again; force Republicans to adhere to the politically unpopular "no abortions ever" position and then beat them over the head with it while giving Democrats a pass on the equally unpopular "abortion anytime for any reason" position.
Senator Paul is finally calling them out on this.
Yea, I can’t say I’d feel safer with Paul, but the more I see the middle east problems the more I think we should let them kill each other and just make sure they leave Israel and us alone.
Gee, that sounds Orwellian... that statement maps well with CS Lewis' "The Abolition of Man"
The point isn’t whether Rand Paul meets your (or my) standards for being “pro-iife” enough, it’s that the Democrats and Wasserman Schultz favor a position so extreme that nobody reasonable holds it...they hold an indefensible, evil position which leads to infanticide and horrors beyond imagination. Rand Paul may not meet everyone’s definition of “pro-lfe” but he’s certainly against abortion in the vast majority of cases, and I’ll take that as a positive.
I totally agree with you.
Some people on our side try to brow-beat us all to think exactly the same on all issues.
In a nation of 320 million people, we are only allowed 2 points of view?
Don’t think so.
Unfortunately, this is the only thing Ms. Wasserman-Schultz doesn't want the government involved in.
This is a republican primary for president the pro-life party with the only exception being life of the mother, and you want to promote a pro-choice candidate to head it, speak for it, represent it, change it, and make decisions on abortion at the federal level for federal hospitals, and employees and foreign policy?
“And thank God for Carly! Keep it up girl!”
Yes its time to give the MSM drive by’s a headache and the Libtard talking heads. Carly Fiorina is good for the GOP. I’m not talking President but she knows the first rule of a gunfight is to bring a gun.
I agree. We are never going to bring peace to the Middle East. We just need to stand with Israel. If we had someone looking out for us, I’d say they should be working with Netanyahu to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities. Dealing with liars that want to destroy us is playing with fire. Sooner or later that only leads to disaster.
” ”Rand Paul went on to say that “even most of my friends who are pro-choice”
Far out, man....Rand, since when is murder a choice ?
Yeah, it sure does no good to use their terminology.
It’s either life, or it’s killing life. Helpless life, at that.
But... he’s a politician, and they play to the audience at the moment...
I’m at the point where anyone who desires to be a politician should be banned from holding office for life : )
[ I’m still standing with Rand. ]
I am Cruz-ing with Ted!
Voting for a Paul/Cruz or a Cruz/Paul ticket would be the best day in the voting both I have had in over 10 tyears!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.