Skip to main content

DNC chair sheds light on radicals in the abortion debate

Written By | Apr 12, 2015

WASHINGTON, April 12, 2015 — Rand Paul, R-Ky., has announced his bid to become the next president of the United States. The junior senator from the bluegrass state was at the center of several political skirmishes within his first few days as a candidate, the most notable of which was his back and forth with DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

The Associated Press published a story accusing the senator of dodging questions about hypothetical exceptions to his pro-life stance, prompting Paul to fire back with a sharp, most likely well calculated, response.

“You go back and you ask Debbie Wasserman Schultz if she’s okay with killing a seven-pound baby that is just not yet born yet. Ask her when life begins, and you ask Debbie when she’s willing to protect life,” he said. “When you get an answer from Debbie, come back to me.”

Paul raises an excellent point.

Read Also:   The liberal justification of abortion: Clintonian Christianity

The media are quick to badger Republicans as to what horrible occurrence such as rape or incest, which account for only 1 percent of all abortions, would force them to waiver from their pro-life stance but declines to push Democrats in the same way.

The most startling twist in this story was how Wasserman Schultz responded to Paul’s challenge. Rather than dismiss killing a seven-pound baby shortly before birth as the heinous practice that it is, Schultz doubled down by saying, “I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story.” Not exactly a condemnation of late term abortions.

When the left’s position on abortion is actually scrutinized, it is far more radical than any conservative stance.

The chair of the Democratic Party essentially said that there should be no restrictions on abortions.  This is not an uncommon theme in liberal circles. Any opposition to any form of abortion at any time is unacceptable to Democrats, which is a far more radical position than trying to install common-sense provisions to protect the life of the mother as well as the life of a baby.

Late term abortion, a truly evil practice that is too graphic to detail here, essentially involves inducing the birth of a viable baby and immediately killing it. There are currently nine states with no restrictions as to when a woman can have an abortion. It often goes unreported that a large number of prominent Democrats in this country do not have a problem with late term abortions.

Read Also:  Abortion laws struck down again: The perpetual stalemate continues

This list includes the president of the United States himself.

In recent weeks, Hillary Clinton has failed to comment on where she stands on late term abortions which really shouldn’t require much thought.

Meanwhile, in Washington, Senate Democrats are currently in the process of holding up a bill that would crack down on sex-trafficking because it includes a provision that prevents taxpayer money from paying for abortions. That’s right. Sex trafficking is less of a priority to Senate Democrats than taxpayer-funded abortions.

Keep in mind,  despite what the left wing publications might say, there is no prominent Republican demanding to overturn Roe v. Wade. Some of those who believe that life begins at conception would like to see that law changed, but they understand that kind of legislation has absolutely no chance of moving forward. Abortion is legal in this country and will be for a long time, but any Republican effort to make it safe or to protect fully developed human life from being thrown away has been purposely mischaracterized as anti-woman.

For every phony story the New York Times publishes about Virginia Republicans trying to sexually assault women with unnecessary ultrasound equipment, 10 stories about awful late term abortions being readily provided or taxpayer money going toward abortions can be found easily.

It’s simply a false argument to dismiss conservative pro-life efforts as sexist.

The abortion subject is one of many issues where Democrats are completely out of step with the American public. According to Gallup, only 14 percent of Americans think abortions should be legal during the last three months of pregnancy, when the fetus is viable outside the womb.

That means that the position held by DNC Chair Schulz and those is shared with less than 15 percent of the country. It appears that the Republicans are the party representing the beliefs of Main Street on this one.

The media constantly belittle conservatives who hold “primitive” beliefs that children should have a right to not be killed. This is not a discussion of whether abortion is right or wrong (that can be handled by the voters); rather, this is a conversation about which party holds the more radical and uncompromising position. The facts clearly point to the Democrats on that.

Read Also:  Gosnell The Movie: America’s most notorious serial killer revealed

There is no doubt a woman should have the right to choose. It is her body after all. However, at what point do we concede that a human life, which has rights of its own, now exists? Setting that bar at 7 or 8 months is by no means radical, especially when you consider the fact that a handful of options exist to legally and humanely terminate a pregnancy before then, months before then.

If we are going to have a fair debate about abortion in this country, it is only fair to lay all the facts on the table.

It is correct that conservatives believe life begins at conception and if not right then, very shortly after.

It is also true that many liberals support absolutely no restrictions on abortions, which means they should be taxpayer funded and freely administered even when the child can survive outside of the womb.

The next question is directed at the American people: What is more radical? Pushing for safe abortions before the fetus becomes a living breathing person or fighting tooth and nail for completely unrestricted termination of human life?

This American says the latter, and a majority of the country agrees.

Andrew Mark Miller