I wonder what she means by "purposeful" in this context.
I think she is striving to help give profound meaning to her youngest son’s life, and others like him, even if it is a shorter, handicapped lifetime. Perhaps that’s part of what she meant.
Given she considers Trig purposeful, I’d be inclined to a generous interpretation. It’s an adjective she’s using to describe all human life. Occam’s razor. Don’t look below the surface when the surface will do just fine.
But yes, her thoughts about process seem muddled. I’m officially disappointed. BTW, I don’t even care if it was a dem trap. Her words have a large ripple effect, and she should never allow herself to wobble or to even be seen as wobbling on right to life.
And yes, I’m still in favor of the state-level approach, with aid from the federal only to the extent allowed by the Constitution as originally understood. I would love to be able to vote with my feet, but in a full federal superstate, where the genuine freedom afforded by the local governance of individual states is obliterated, the only one with any control is the willing tyrant at the center of the federal web. That is not a winning scenario for us, and I want to win.
My jaw hit the floor when I heard her using qualifiers like "purposeful" and "innocent" after all she's had to say about the threats to life contained in Obamacare. I know she was addressing Rice's proabort position, but she should have had better sense than to use the words she did. Very disappointing.