.
Posted on 08/07/2015 6:32:25 PM PDT by Morgana
Fox News host Megyn Kelly was among the moderators of last night’s Republican presidential debate, and her question to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker – “Would you really let a mother die rather than have an abortion?” – has garnered disappointment with pro-lifers for various reasons, not the least of which is because it is not based in fact.
In 2012, a panel of obstetric and gynecological experts signed the Dublin Declaration, which states that “direct abortion is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman… there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child.”
When the mother’s life is at stake, medical actions are taken with the intent to save the woman, not to dispose of the child.
TRANSCRIPT:
MEGYN KELLY: Governor Walker, you’ve consistently said that you want to make abortion illegal, even in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. You recently signed an abortion law in Wisconsin that does have an exception for the mother’s life, but you’re on record as having objected to it. Would you really let a mother die rather than have an abortion? And with 83% of the American public in favor of a life exception, are you too out of the mainstream on this issue to win the general election?
SCOTT WALKER: Well I’m pro-life, I’ve always been pro-life, and I’ve got a position I think is consistent with many Americans out there in that I believe that that is an unborn child in need of protection out there, and I’ve said many a time that that unborn child can be protected and there are many other alternatives that will also protect the life of that mother. That’s been consistently proven. Unlike Hillary Clinton, who has a radical position in terms of support for Planned Parenthood, I defunded Planned Planned more than four years ago, long before any of these videos came out. I’ve got a position that’s in line with every day America.
Following the debate, Walker had a chance to sit down with Sean Hannity and explain his position further. “[I]t’s a false choice,” Walker said of the life of the mother vs. life of the child proposition. He’s right. Live Action President Lila Rose interjected on Twitter:
Abortion proponents like to remind us that we’re not living in the 19th century or even the 1950s, but they conveniently forget that means we can handle medically challenging pregnancies and deliveries better than ever before. In a 2004 study from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, only 4% of women cited “physical problem with my health” as reason for getting an abortion. But never has literal abortion actually been necessary to save the life of the mother, and no woman should be made to believe otherwise. This is where definition comes into play, and where media figures like Kelly get it wrong.
As Governor of California, Ronald Reagan determined that “interrupting a pregnancy means the taking of a human life. In our Judeo-Christian tradition, that can only be done in self-defense.” Reagan’s regret over signing an abortion bill (the “Therapeutic Abortion Act”) with multiple life-of-the-mother, rape, and incest exceptions was seeing those exceptions become exploited loopholes used to increase the number of abortions in California. He cited his inexperience in government at that time as the reason for that mistake.
It is understandable that Walker would maintain a firm pro-life position to avoid a similar error, though virtually all legislation regarding abortion signed by pro-life executives has a superfluous life-of-the-mother exception in print anyway.
Debate moderators shouldn’t shy away from asking any candidate challenging questions, but they need to be careful to not frame a question in a misleading way, or use rhetoric from the media thought pool instead of what citizens need to know. “Would you really let a mother die rather than have an abortion?” is an emotional ploy that first misconstrues the definition of literal, direct abortion with a false choice, and secondly misconstrues the role of the U.S. President on this issue.
Strictly speaking, according to Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the president cannot be a pro-abortion or pro-life absolute monarch. He does not, with a wave of his hand, order the legality or illegality of abortions. He doesn’t write the laws or rule their constitutionality. He doesn’t control what the States decide within themselves. As far as abortion is concerned, the president must have discernment in signing legislation, vetoing legislation (which can be overridden), nominating judges (which can be rejected by the Senate), and perhaps in appointing department heads that carry out the laws of the land (which can be rejected by the Senate).
But a citizenry that cares about the lives of mothers and babies must be proactive at all levels of government and community, and not rely upon a presidential candidate’s views or record for solving or hindering the pro-life cause in one fell swoop.
He really should be our next President...........Sometimes I hate the voters. We screwed our country when we didn’t chose Santorum in 2012 and will probably screw the country again by not choosing Walker because he is not flashy enough and give a stupid speech. It is no wonder that we are failing. We support the dumbest people on Earth. Such a shame. Oh well, the country’s loss.
.
I recall a congressional hearing on the subject of medical conditions of the mother which might require an abortion to save her life. The testimony I recall is that such conditions are almost non-existent. I mean true physical problems and not mental or emotional problems.
Maybe someone is knowledgeable about this, but what I took away from the reports on those hearings was that such conditions of a pregnant woman are extremely rare.
There is a dr. that has explained that what it takes to do a late term abortion would actually kill a woman if she were in true need. you would perform a cesarean. he said in his career he had terminated many pregnancies, but had never had to kill the unborn child.
Outside extreme circumstances like Tubicular pregnancy and even more rare medical situations, women do not die in 2015 from pregnancy related issues. It is vanishingly rare to require abortion to save a mother’s life.
The problem is that if a woman FEELS bad, they now consider that a threat to her life.
Its clear Kelly and Wallace like his father are both Democrats. I don’t want to watch their shows any longer
this is the way too get back at them for their cheap shots.
I think the abortion to save a woman’s life claim has always been an almost total fabrication, but few will saw that.
I guess if a woman’s heart became very weak for some reason, she might be unable to continue nourishing herself and an unborn baby, but that would be a one-in-a-million type of condition for younger women.
but to prepare for a late term abortion takes days. perform the cesarean if the mother’s life is truly endangered, and you don’t have to kill the child.
Anyone having a late term abortion is doing it purely out of evil.
A pregnant woman would not be a mother unless she is carrying a child.
I've sometimes thought it was a threat to MY life.
I agree, but a condition that endangers the mother could occur early in pregnancy. Such conditions could occur, but only rarely do from the information I recall from a congressional hearing.
Ooh reality sucks for progressives
Married a redhead huh? I feel your pain...hers to! ;)
never has been... well maybe 1 in 1000 or more
Ectopic pregnancy is a real threat to the mother’s life. This is a situation where the zygote implants in the fallopian tube instead of in the uterus. (Pro-abortion persons would not even call this “pregnant,” since they don’t recognize pregnancy until the zygote implants in the uterus.)
Any other serious medical condition in pregnancy can almost always be handled by continuing the pregnancy until the baby can be delivered with the intention to preserve his life.
It is appalling that Walker can't answer this guaranteed-to-be-asked question better than that. He just dodged the question. Not impressive.
Try something like this instead:
"In less than one percent of abortions, the doctor has to choose between saving the life of the mother and saving the life of the fetus. In those very rare cases, the mother's life should come first."The instant after a Republican candidate describes this as a false choice in a typical MSM television interview, an OB/GYN will pop up on the screen describing cases of severe preeclampsia, and the Republican candidate will look like an idiot.
Republican candidates should not set themselves up for such treatment. Don't bother calling Kelly's question a false choice in a television interview. Treat it as a hypothetical, and ANSWER THE QUESTION. Being pro-life does not mean believing that the fetus's life is more valuable than the mother's. There is nothing wrong with pointing that out in an interview.
Dodging the question, as Walker did, will not save a single life.
Ben Carson wasn’t making a small point when mentioned performing surgery on a baby still in the womb.
removing ectopic pregnancies are not abortions and thechild is hardly viewed as unwanted or a burden.
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.