Rand Paul slams media on abortion: Ask Democrats if it’s okay to kill a seven-pound baby in the womb

I have no idea how an answer like this plays among the electorate generally — maybe it’ll be seen as evasive — but among righties on Twitter, who are high-fiving over it as I write this, it’s spun gold. Via Dave Weigel, skip to 8:00 of the clip below for the question and answer. The AP tried to corner Paul on abortion this afternoon by asking him to state definitively which exceptions to a ban he’d support. (In their defense, although firmly pro-life, he has been strategically cagey about his intentions on this subject if elected president.) Paul danced around the AP’s questions; the DNC then dutifully sent the story around to the media, hoping they’d take the baton and keep asking him about it. Sure enough, at his presser in New Hampshire this afternoon, a local reporter asked him about exceptions to abortions bans. Paul was ready for them this time. Watch the clip and see.

And this is no idle tu quoque. The great majority of Americans oppose late-term abortion; the vast majority, maybe a unanimous majority at this point, of Democratic leaders support it without restriction. They are, without exaggeration, absolute fanatics on this subject. And proudly so.

Obama feels no differently. Neither does Nancy Pelosi, who’s gone as far as to use the word “sacred” when discussing her feelings on this topic. Paul’s response should be a stock answer for any GOP candidate who gets a question on a third-rail social issue going forward: We’ll weigh in just as soon as Hillary Clinton does. Want to know what Marco Rubio thinks about abortion exceptions? No problem — just as soon as Hillary tells us when life begins. Want to hear Ted Cruz’s take on gay marriage? He’d be happy to provide it — just as soon as Hillary answers a simple question about how many genders she thinks there are. The wedge question should cut both ways this campaign, whether the media likes it or not.

CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE VIDEO

Some great answers here. One more thing I think should happen - at least occasionally - when they do this is to put the question right back to the interviewer. “I know I’m the one that’s running for office but survey after survey show that the MSM is just an extension of the Democrat Party. It filters the news and supports the goals of the Democrats. It gets it’s talking points directly from the President. It gives its money overwhelmingly to Democrat candidates and causes. So, where does NBC (CBS, ABC, Fox, CNN, etc.) stand on this issue and where do you, personally, stand on this. Is it ok to kill a black baby right up to the day of birth? If you can’t answer that so the public has a clear understanding of where you stand and your bias in these areas, then I’m not answering. Until you and your network acknowledge your presuppositions personally and corporately in this area why should people trust you to handle the responses of candidates fairly? Everyone knows you’re not neutral in this debate so make it public just like you want us to do. Fairs fair, right?”

Paul is a libertarian, so you have to listen to him closely rather than just let him give an impression.

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.

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.