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?”
“You go back and go ask (DNC head) [mc_name name=’Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL)’ chamber=’house’ mcid=’W000797′ ] 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.”
Then Wasserman Schultz answered.
“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, [mc_name name=’Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)’ chamber=’senate’ mcid=’P000603′ ].”
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
He’s being exceptionally kind to liberals, “don’t always seem” is really “never.”
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.
Wasserman 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. [mc_name name=’Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL)’ chamber=’house’ mcid=’W000797′ ] 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.