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)
Rand is Right !
Good on Paul. He’s right, why should pro-life advocates hide in the shadows and be ashamed, let the criminals answer for themselves.
It always surprises me when you talk to a militant animal rights person, they eschew shelters and organizations that aren’t no-kill, but when you ask them about a human child, they’re okay with abortion.
Rand is doing what we should all be doing collectively: throwing it right back to the liberals. Why it is that Republicans teeter on moral issues is beyond my understanding. If you’re firm in your convictions and you’re a moral man or woman, you should have no problem defending your positions from all attacks.
Smart guy. Hope his campaign evolves. Has the guts to define the Democrats as the party of death and decadence.
This is an issue worth fighting for, seems we have forgotten about it, what with the other big issue of the day.
Make multiple accusatory statements without allowing a response.
In the short 30 second sound bite attention span mentality of the idiot libs, these statements "stick" and become "fact" with the truth being ignored.
Fortunately Sen Paul did not allow her to get away with this tactic, but now he has been labeled as "combative", "testy".
While he isn’t my choice for president I think he is good for the race in the sense that he handles the media well. Ted Cruz has a different style but also gives the media fits.
Antimilitary open borders Paul looking for an issue where his recorded positions don’t alienate conservatives.
With Walker and Cruz duking for the lead it out poor Rand is left fighting Jeb Bush, and hoping Christie or someone else even further left will jump in.
Bye Rand. The turd didn’t fall far from the bull.
The more I see of Rand Paul, the better I like him. So far, he will not be intimidated and seems to stand on his principles. As far as I can tell, he is not a Washington insider like so many become when they go to D.C. How refreshing!
I’m still standing with Rand.
“...Paul said, “Why don't we ask the DNC: Is it OK to kill a 7-pound baby in the uterus? “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.”
... “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. “Sounds like her answer is yes, that she's okay with killing a seven-pound baby,” he said.
“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.”
... “[K]udos 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.”
Good work by Rand. All the candidates need to take the tact that Newt Gingrich would use in dealing with the media—never accept their premises, never fall for the gotcha question, and to always throw their leftist message right back into their teeth.
I hope every republican candidate will take note on how to respond to the "hot potato" questions that reporters often use against them.
What I heard of Paul’s speech was unimpressive, IMO. His interviews have been stellar, however.
Why are Libertarians running on the Republican ticket anyway? Why don’t they have their own party? Repubs are fools/dummies to allow this.
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.
Seems Randal has been watching how Chris Christie handles the unapologetic biased media.
????
Which Dems will use to fire back at Rand. Same old game.
IT IS SO FANTASTIC to finally see conservative candidates with the guts, cajones and intelligence to combat the left’s assuptions, accusations and attacks that are the essence of every question they ask.
As we’ve all known for years, the left’s arguments are hollow and empty - but we’ve never had candidates that would hit them where it hurts - and it works.
And thank God for Carly! Keep it up girl! She’s doing more damage to Hillary than maybe anyone, and while not going to get the nomination, may just do more damage to the Marxist cause than a lot of the others..........Go Carly!
Good for Rand. I’d like to see him go further and quickly recount the history of Sanger and her desire to limit the population of undesirables. I’d wonder aloud why so many PP clinics are located close to the population of blacks and question if the proximity was a matter of convenience or expediency.
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.