Debbie Wasserman Schultz can’t escape abortion questions, believes in no restrictions
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the DNC chair who’s been hurling attacks at Kentucky Senator Rand Paul after he called out Democrats and their leadership on their abortion stance. Her latest efforts to target Paul was on with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and then Megyn Kelly over on Fox.
“Rand Paul failed that test on his first day as a candidate,” Wasserman Schultz, attempting push the topic back on Paul’s deflection of the question about whether he favors exceptions in cases of rape or incest by saying: “Why don’t you ask the DNC, ‘Is it OK to kill a seven-pound baby in the uterus?'”
photo Peter anemoneprojects via Flickr
With CNN she says that Democrats “believe a decision on a woman’s reproductive choices is best left between a woman and her doctor,” and again asked for answers from Paul. Check out the clip below.
Megyn Kelly tried again on FOX, to which the DNC head stated that “…we do not support rolling back the protection that the constitutional right to make your own reproductive choices established in Roe versus Wade has given to women…” before concluding that it’s a free-for-all: “Certainly not on a whim, but when a doctor –”
This video is below.
Full Fox transcript (via Real Clear Politics):
MEGYN KELLY: You and Rand Paul have had this dust up about abortion. I understand it’s strange that Paul Paul is fighting with you a little bit, but it does bring up a serious issue as between the two parties in particular. And he keeps saying to the reporters who want him to say whether he supports rape and incest exceptions to abortion, he hasn’t been explicit on that to your point, he hasn’t.
He keeps saying, ask Debbie Wasserman-Schultz when life begins. When does she believe life begins, can you answer that question?
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, DNC CHAIRWOMAN: The question that he was asked, and that he’s trying to deflect from by pushing it on me is, does he support exceptions to his opposition to a woman’s right to make her own choices.
KELLY: I know. I concede that point. He’s not been explicit on it. But I am wondering about you, because I have you tonight.
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: From my perspective, from my party’s perspective, we do not support rolling back the protection that the constitutional right to make your own reproductive choices established in Roe versus Wade has given to women. And Republicans like Rand Paul did.
KELLY: This is such a dicey issue, and the American public is very divided on this, as you know, it’s not like 90% of the public supports abortion, they do not.
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: The majority support a woman’s right to choose.
KELLY: 80% of the public is against abortion in the third trimester. And almost 65% are against an abortion in the second trimester. So people are divided on this and that goes to his point that —
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Megyn —
KELLY: The state does have rights to set limits. So he’s trying to get to the Democrats position on at what point is it appropriate to say, it’s no longer just between a woman and her doctor.
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: What is appropriate from our perspective? I’ll speak for myself, but I think I can speak for most in my party. A woman’s right to make her own decisions about her body should be between her and her doctor. And that in terms of personal liberty, we definitely have a different opinion, Rand Paul and I do. And there is a Supreme Court decision that answers those questions for us and subsequent Supreme Court decisions that —
KELLY: That Supreme Court decision, Casey says the state has a say, and the state can set limits.
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: That’s right, and the states can make the decisions.
KELLY: But what is recognized is that it’s not just between a woman and her doctor, that the state has a right to step in on behalf of the fetus and say at some point that fetus does obtain rights. You would admit that you can’t have women aborting third trimester babies just on a whim? Right? So you would agree that there are some limits.
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Certainly not on a whim, but when a doctor —
KELLY: That’s what he’s trying to get at.
When Debbie Wasserman Schultz agitates for the “right” of a pregnant woman and her doctor to simply KILL a perfectly healthy, thriving child in the womb right up to MOMENTS before the child is actually BORN, for “whatever” reasons they find appropriate in the privacy of their doctor-patient relationship and according to the conscience or faith of the woman, Wasserman Schultz has become the face of cold-blooded murder and barbarism in our society’s highest echelons of power.
To argue that even if we wouldn’t do such a thing ourselves, we don’t have the right to impose our views on others (remember, we are TALKING about simply KILLING a perfectly healthy baby because someone has decided they need this baby dead), is like saying that even if you wouldn’t lynch a black man, you have no right to impose your view on people who may have their own reasons for needing to do so, difficult as the choice may be for them.
Is that a shocking analogy? (Indignation is a cheap and popular political resort these days, a quick dodge just to make the other side stop TALKING about things you don’t want talked about.) I have no sympathy with anybody who would (opportunistically) find that “shocking”. We are TALKING about the institutionalization of a “right” to murder a human being moments before he/she is born.
Think about that.
A “RIGHT”.
Moments before birth.
Just kill it.
Because somebody felt, for “whatever” reason (you have no right to ask what reason) it was “necessary”.
If you don’t find THAT “shocking”, appalling and monstrous, then, sorry, I have no sympathy with your convenient, predictable “outrage” (anything to change the subject, right?) at my analogy. The predictable on-cue outrage is manufactured by a Bizarro-world morality, one that is comfortable with the murder of innocent children but splutters with righteous indignation at mere words. NOBODY owes that kind of morality the time of day, CERTAINLY not to go along with its insidious manipulations….
Yes, the analogy is apt–even (considering) tame. The people who lynched African-Americans ALSO felt they had their “necessary” and compelling reasons, and certainly didn’t take kindly to others questioning their “private” choices. The idea that “I have my reasons” means whatever you want to do is ipso facto within your rights (no matter who ends up dead) is repellently reminiscent of the ideology that produced Dachau and Auschwitz.
Is Paul Paul an officially sanctioned nickname?
BS blabbermouth shultz you hippocrite babykiller because that what the DNC believes !
Debbie Wasserman Schulz doesn’t think Kermit Gosnell committed any crime. Those were “decisions made between the woman and her doctor”. This woman is sick.
[…] Debbie Wasserman Schultz can’t escape abortion questions, believes in no restrictions […]