Posted on 04/15/2015 12:28:17 PM PDT by drewh
Sen. Rand Paul’s abortion question is beginning to haunt Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz – thanks to some in the media. During a CNN interview on April 14, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) refused to cite any acceptable restrictions on abortion – and deemed the decision to abort a 7-pound baby a “personal liberty.”
The abortion question continued to follow her during a Fox interview where she couldn’t pick a “specific date and time” for when life begins. The issue arose when a New Hampshire journalist asked Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) about his stance on abortion April 8. The 2016 presidential candidate retorted, “You go back and you ask [Rep.] Debbie Wasserman Schultz if she’s OK with killing a seven-pound baby that is just not yet born yet.”
Exposing a media double-standard, Sen. Paul continued, “When you get an answer from Debbie, come back to me.” Hours later, Rep. Wasserman Schultz replied to Sen. Paul (but not, of course, because the media asked her). “I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period," she wrote in a DNC statement.
During a CNN interview with host Wolf Blitzer later that day, Sen. Paul translated her stance. “Debbie's position, which I guess is the Democrat party position, that an abortion all the way up until the day of birth would be fine,” he said.
Six days later, Blitzer followed up on Sen. Paul’s statement in an interview with Rep. Wasserman Schultz. “[I]s he right when he says that it's okay from your perspective to kill a 7-pound baby in uterus, is that your position?” he asked. (Note: Blitzer actually used the word “kill.”) “We have very different definitions of personal liberty,” she said. “The Democratic Party’s position is that we are pro-choice.”
In other words, according to Rep. Wasserman Schultz, “We believe that a decision on a woman's reproductive choices is best left between a woman and her doctor and I am still waiting for Rand Paul to say whether or not he supports exceptions when a woman is raped.” With that bridge, Rep. Wasserman Schultz suggested Sen. Paul’s position sentences women to death. “Are we going to force a woman to carry a baby to term and not allow her to make that choice? Are we going to – when she's the victim of rape, when she’s the victim of incest?” she ranted. “Are we going to let a woman die? Would Rand Paul let a woman die because she's carrying a baby or is he going to let her make that choice with her doctor?”
Later that day on The Kelly File, Rep. Wasserman Schultz again dodged questions from Fox host Megyn Kelly asking when life begins. “You would admit that you can't have women aborting third trimester babies just on a whim, right?” Kelly pushed later in the interview. “You agree there are some limits.” That was the one thing Rep. Wasserman Schultz could agree with.
“Certainly not on a whim, but when a doctor –” she interjected. “There's no ambivalence here, we're very clear. We believe that that decision is best left not to government but between a woman and her doctor.” In the end, Rep. Wasserman Schultz hinted she doesn’t know when life begins. “I can't tell you a specific date and time past which we on all – in all cases are certain that that choice shouldn't be made because that decision is very unique and individual to the woman,” she said, “and should be in consultation with her conscience and her god and her doctor, that is a decision left to her.” Catholic League’s Bill Donohue criticized Rep. Wasserman Schultz’s response in a press release.
“By denying the biological origins of life, and dismissing nature-based differences between the sexes, the Democratic Party, as represented by its spokesperson,” Donohue challenged, “is marginalizing itself from biology, common sense, and the American public. -
To Democrats freedom is limited to sex, abortion and entertainment. Everything else is subject to government control.
Hey. If I personally consult with my doctor and we both agree going around murdering Liberals is in my best interest and in the interests of my mental health, I guess that makes is all OK, eh, Dippy?
Once that baby is delivered, though, all personal choices end. The government will take it from here. After all, it only takes a woman’s “choice’ to HAVE a baby, but it takes a village to RAISE one.
Absolutely. I fail to see any logical difference.
We all know of cases when Dr’s recommended abortion and the mother refused, only to have a baby that was loved and, often, perfectly healthy.
My mother was told by her Dr. to abort because my father’s parents were deaf. She had 3 healthy children in spite of his advice.
The law is not in place to encourage infanticide but that is its effect. Laws against the murder of neonatal children are no more government interference than laws against any other crime against persons.
Slice it and dice it however you wish. All abortion is infanticide and as such is legalized murder. If allowances for the health of the mother, rape and incest were the only consideration for abortion in this country, death by abortion would be reduced by more than a million babies a year.
Translation: Yes it is ok to kill a baby up until the moment of birth and on the birthing table.
Pray America is waking
Keep asking her the questions, her non answers are ridiculous and eventually people watching will be scratching their heads
By all means, if it’s a “health” issue instead of a moral issue, then your doctor should be able to tell you it’s OK.
It’s for your “health”, no less.
The consistency is in their refusal to be personally responsible for any consequences for their choices.
“DNC Chair to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: Aborting 7-Pound Babies Is ‘Personal Liberty’”
How about aborting black babies no matter how much they weigh. Is that a personal liberty too?
DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) deemed the decision to abort a 7-pound baby a “personal liberty.”
Sport abortions — “If it is 7-pounds, kill it.” Thanks Debbie.
For this and all dems, they are free to answer with the standard prayer to the altar of abortion, and there will be no repercussions, even though this is, on its face, horrifying. I have little doubt a democrat would not defend the right to kill ANY unborn baby.
But for a Republican, answering in any fashion will warrant an outcry from whomever the media can chase down to put on camera. Had Cruz answered his question (about fringe abortion scenarios) with the recognizable, staunchly conservative answer, he would have been crucified by the left. Had he acquiesced with an answer pleasing to the culture of death (and I know Ted Cruz wouldn't but for the sake of argument), the media would run then to whatever Conservative base they could find and begin to undermine his Conservative bona fides.
The point is that the media won't chase reactionary opinion to Deb's answer. She's free to say it, even though it repulses (or at least should) a rational person.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz believes in abortion until the baby has committed a violent multiple homicide and been sentenced to death by a jury. *That* baby must be kept alive.
Let’s get very specific with this evil libtards- they think they can argue for ‘choice’ and no one knows what is happening
Ask her he if it is OK to pull a 7 pound baby out by its legs, ram a tube into it’s neck and suck out its brain while its head is still inside (and ‘technically’ not born yet) and then yank it out the rest of the way.
And how exactly does that procedure help the health of the mom? Wouldn’t it be quicker (and easier on the mom) to finish yanking it out before stopping to kill it?
How does the mom feel when her baby’s head tries to scream in agony inside her body and then dies inside her before pulling it out? That must be a sensation you remember for a while...
They are all for liberty, except for the liberty to run your life without government control
She is such an idiot. The DNC and her deserve each other.
If a pregnant woman is murdered, quite often the murderer faces two charges of murder, one for the woman and one for the baby. A life can’t be deemed a life only if it’s wanted. It is either a life or it isn’t. And it IS a life. I hope to see the day that the majority of our society sees that and starts saving these babies instead of killing them.
Not for the babies.
“nor shall any person...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” — Fifth Amendment
The Chia Pet!
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.