Help FR Continue the Conservative Fight!
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 04/24/2015 8:03:54 AM PDT by Kaslin
It was sort of inevitable that on his first day of campaigning as an announced candidate for president earlier this month, Rand Paul would be asked whether he supported a ban on abortions in cases of rape or incest.
Reporters have been asking Republican candidates that question ever since 2012, when the Missouri Republican Senate candidate said he supported such a ban and added that pregnancies were unlikely in cases of "legitimate rape."
But Paul's reply wasn't what the reporter expected. "Why don't we ask the (Democratic National Committee) is it OK to kill a seven-pound baby in the uterus? You go back and go ask (DNC Chair) Debbie Wasserman Schultz if she's OK with killing a seven-pound baby that's just not born yet.
"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."
Reporters didn't have to ask Wasserman Shultz, who quickly tweeted in reply, "I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story." In other words, any abortion before birth is OK. That's consistent with the platform adopted at the 2012 Democratic National Convention.
It's also a position, like Akin's, not supported by a large majority of the American people. Large majorities oppose re-criminalizing all abortions. But large majorities also support limits on abortion, including banning them after 20 weeks (when about one-quarter of babies can survive) or 24 weeks (when half or more can).
The Democratic National chairman and the Democratic national platform say that abortions are permissible beyond that time. If reporters can ask Republicans all over the country whether they share the view of a past Republican Missouri Senate nominee, shouldn't they be able to ask Democrats all over the country whether they share the view of the national Democratic Party's chair and platform?
It's not big news when a party's Senate nominee in one state disagrees with the party's Senate nominee in another. That happens fairly often. It's bigger news -- not earthshaking news, but bigger news -- when a party's Senate nominee disagrees with the party's national leaders.
So Rand Paul was on solid ground when he refused to answer the rape-and-incest question until reporters started asking Democrats the 7-pound-baby question.
Including, certainly, the likely Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton. Which conscientious reporters will do if they consider it more important to do their jobs fairly than to help the candidates they like or the causes they support.
"Abortion should remain legal, but it needs to be safe and rare," Clinton said on the 2008 campaign trail. She has also claimed that the decision to have an abortion is "one in which the government should have no role."
As a senator, she voted against the partial-birth abortion ban and against a bill to make it a crime to harm a fetus in the course of committing a violent crime. During her 2000 Senate campaign she said, "I can support a ban on late-term abortions, including partial-birth abortions, so long as the health and life of the mother is protected."
But as those who follow the issue know, "health of the mother" is a loophole that devours the law. The courts have interpreted "health" to include emotional health, and it seems reasonable to assume that most women with unwanted pregnancies are suffering some emotional distress. Most Americans think they should be able to abort the baby at early stages in the pregnancy, but not at late stages.
So let the reporters who ask Hillary Clinton and other Democrats their views on late-term abortions keep in mind, for use in follow-up questions, that the "health" exception means abortion at every stage is permitted.
It has become a standard rule in political analysis that cultural issues help Democrats, particularly with young voters. That's true of same-sex marriage, which only a few voters supported 20 years ago but which has majority support today and supermajorities among Millennials.
But opinion on abortion has changed little over the years. Millennials, many of whom have seen sonograms of siblings, are if anything a bit more negative on abortion than their elders.
On this issue, many Democrats are out of step with public opinion. Rand Paul is right that reporters who avoid questioning them about that are remiss in their journalistic duty.
The Biggest problem this nation faces is the fact that the left wing has total control of information and entertainment in this nation.
You don't see anything on television that has not gone through the filter of dozens of Liberal activists. If they don't approve it, you don't see it.
The question to ask:
“Is a person’s right to life dependent on which side of their mother’s cervix they’re on?”.
Democrats have no soul. You’ll never win a battle of morals with them.
You said it
Don't play their game. Play Barak Obama's instead. If you are uncomfortable overtly lying about your positions (as Obama did with a host of issues, including his disastrous health care law, immigration and gay marriage), simply say nothing. And, again, follow his lead. Gain the office and then use executive orders to fundamentally change the nation.
To be clear: My number one political issue is Right to Life. However, I don't think its helpful at this time to distract voters from the issues that will win this election.
I would add that I find Paul, as a closet libertarian, the least trustworthy of all the Republican candidates when it comes to abortion. He seems to talk about this issue more than any other Republican candidate because it is always a good way to reach out to conservative voters (who disagree with him strongly on foreign policy and social issues). But I highly doubt that he would be persuaded to make abortion a high priority, should he win the election.
RE: Rand Paul Is Right to Demand Reporters Ask Democrats About Late-Term Abortions
I believe some reporters did — especially to Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Here’s her reply:
TITLE:
DNC Chair Wasserman Schultz States Full Support for Late Term Abortion- Including STABBING BABY SKULLS
Paul is talking about late term abortion partly as a cover for what he is saying at the same time, that republicans are too “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” on abortions performed during the times that he finds acceptable.
Paul told Elliott. “I’ve supported both bills with and without (exceptions), you know. In general, I am pro-life.”
It the baby is late term, and the mother had some emergency health issue, how do they explain aborting the baby instead of delivering it by cesarean and trying to save it?
Excellent point
Of course she does. Liberals are evil
This is also a rough translation of Hillary Clinton's official position on this issue.
What a lot of Democrats really believe is that it is still OK to kill a baby which hasn't completely emerged and maybe even for a few days (or more) after to ensure the infant won't be too much of an inconvenience.
Hilarious answer - because is there a single other aspect of human existence that Debbie doesn't want the government involved in? :)
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.