Patterico's Pontifications

4/9/2015

Rand Paul Challenges Debbie Wasserman Schultz; She Responds; Media Ignores

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:51 am



Rand Paul was questioned by somebody yesterday repeating DNC talking points about abortion. Paul turned around and told the media to ask the DNC what their position is.

Why don’t we ask the DNC: is it OK to kill a 7-pound baby in the uterus? You go back and you ask Debbie Wassif she’s OK with killing a 7-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. When you get an answer from Debbie, come back to it.

It’s around 8:00 here:

CNN notes that Wasserman Schultz responded quickly:

Wasserman Schultz quickly responded, saying Paul should explain whether he believes abortion should ever be legal.

“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, Senator Paul.”

So in the view of Wasserman Schultz, apparently, if a woman can find a “doctor” to kill her viable baby for any reason at any moment before it is fully delivered, it’s A-OK. Will reporters ask Hillary! if she agrees with that? You let me know when that happens, OK?

This is a game that’s being played here, I think. My best guess is that Paul’s views are probably somewhat similar to my own and he doesn’t want to say what they are for fear of alienating religious conservatives. He probably thinks that generally classical liberals believe in freedom, but that one must also recognize that a growing human life has an ever-increasing insistence on our collective duty to care for it. That if you don’t take a hard-line view one way or the other — whether it’s a religious view that life begins at conception, or a wild DWS “stab ’em in the head at any moment before they come out!” free for all — that it’s a difficult question that does not open itself up to easy answers. That early-term abortions done for the right reasons are inferior to adoptions but may not demand state action. That rape and incest should be exceptions to any law prohibiting abortions. And that, no matter how difficult these questions can be early in the pregnancy, they become pretty common-sense once a baby begins to resemble a fully-formed human being in form and function. And that the hard-line Democrat DWS view is monstrous.

But Big Media ignores all nuance and wants to get him on the record because they know it will get him in trouble with the hard-line religious conservatives, whose views I respect and Paul likely respects, even if we might disagree with some of them in some particulars.

So they let the monstrous nature of the position of the DNC Chair slide. Hillary! will never be asked about it. Nobody will follow up with DWS and ask: “Do you really mean” x, y, or z. Just more pressing on Paul, because he seems evasive.

This is the game Big Media plays. We’ll see how well Paul continues to play it. So far, I think he’s doing OK.

44 Responses to “Rand Paul Challenges Debbie Wasserman Schultz; She Responds; Media Ignores”

  1. “I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story.

    So it definitely should not be covered by Obamacare or Medicaid or its inclusion mandated in Obamacare-compliant policies. Especially those of nuns and 58-year old men. We can definitely agree on that, Debbie. See, it’s not all that vast a divide.

    nk (dbc370)

  2. For Hillary, they can always replay that old safe legal and rare clip.

    Though I must say I find your position to be, uh, nuanced to the point of mushy. Are there ever “right reasons” for an abortion? At what point of time does the fetus resemble a fullborn human to deserve protection?

    I used to have the same position as DWS, which is sensible from the point of personal freedom…why is it justifiable for the government to intervene in personal medical decisions? In fact, the same basic argument against Obamacare!

    But the last few years, I keep finding myself coming out on the religious conservative side when I think it over. Even though I am no more religiously conservative than I was before. If life is worth protecting one day before birth, it is also worth protecting 270 days before birth.

    At the very least, we could revisit Blackmun’s invocation of viability in Roe, given that viability now comes significantly earlier thanks to medical advances in the intervening years.

    kishnevi (91d5c6)

  3. That’s not the question he asked. Non-responsive.

    Plus we already so how that worked out with doctor gosnell.

    dnice (929dc5)

  4. The other part of the game is that a Republican candidate is always asked a version of this question:

    You have expressed a pro-life position, so what would you say to a young woman who is impregnated through a brutal rape by her father or her uncle? Should she be forced to bring that child to term?

    But I don’t ever recall Democrats being asked a version of this question:

    You have said that abortion should be a decision left up to a woman and her doctor. Does that include cases where a woman chooses to abort in the third trimester because she is expecting a girl and her culture places higher prestige on boys? If a “gay gene” is ever discovered would you support a woman choosing to terminate a healthy pregnancy for no other reason than she thinks the child might turn out to be gay?

    All GOP candidates should handle the question the same way that Rand Paul does.

    JVW (a1146f)

  5. For Hillary, they can always replay that old safe legal and rare clip.

    For Hillary! I think I would ask this: You say that you want abortion to be rare; does that mean that you think there is something inherently immoral about it? Otherwise, what is wrong with a woman using it as just another form of birth control? And if it is immoral, doesn’t that mean that abortion opponents have a very good argument to make against it even if you believe that it is a necessary evil?

    JVW (a1146f)

  6. Has Debbie Poodleman-Shultz ever squeezed any puppies out? Because CHOICE!!!!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  7. A better question to ask of all candidates: “Do you view abortion as an acceptable method of birth control?” Most people would say no to that.

    It is one thing to accept that abortion must be legal for some uncommon circumstances, but it is quite another to believe women should be able to use it routinely.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  8. i would rather they ask about stuff like jobs and civil asset forfeiture and why are the taxes so high

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  9. Other wedge questions:

    “Do you think Man should interfere in evolution with laws like the Endangered Species Act?”
    “Why do you think unemployment is higher during Democrat administrations?”
    “Should immigration be stopped if people already here can’t find work?”
    “If global warming is a fact, how should the government force oil companies and power plants to reduce pollution?”

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  10. Now, now let’s give some context to

    “or a wild DWS “stab ‘em in the head at any moment before they come out!”

    After all, Our Dear Leader supported an IL law that expressly allowed abortionists to kill a viable child after it leaves the womb (courtesy of a botched late term abortion) cuz that was the whole point of the reason the woman was there at the Family Planning Clinic. Now finish executing the plan!

    I’d wager that Obama and DWS would be OK with a Gosnell-like creature chasing a baby around the room with scissors if they had to.

    Progressive love their right to kill innocent children.

    in_awe (7c859a)

  11. If DWS is a mother someone call child protective services.

    East Bay Jay (a5dac7)

  12. So DWS is fine with infanticide. End of story.

    Steve57 (cd6f9a)

  13. Patrick, you — and I — tend to flunk litmus tests.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  14. Don’t start thinking you and Pat are so special, Beldar.

    I’ve been flunking litmus tests since Tailhook.

    Steve57 (cd6f9a)

  15. Yes, but do you flunk the cilantro test, the sodium phenylacetate test, and the avocado test?

    Dejectedhead (4bfcf6)

  16. More grist for the mii:

    http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/162520/usaf-plans-for-radical-upgrade-reveal-f_35-obsolescence.html

    So is keeping our Military-Industrial complex suitablity exercised worth $2 Trillion without tangible results?

    DNF (a644db)

  17. A quick review of my spice/herb cabinet reveals I pass the cilantro test.

    Actually a review of my spice cabinet makes me feel like an idiot. Because, no s***, there was a bottle of cilantro leaves knocked over in the back. So I didn’t see it, and bought another while teh original was still perfectly OK.

    I may not live long enough to work through these two bottles of cilantro leaves. Unless I start putting it on everything. Which I’m just not willing to do.

    Steve57 (cd6f9a)

  18. “This is a game that’s being played here, I think. My best guess is that Paul’s views are probably somewhat similar to my own and he doesn’t want to say what they are for fear of alienating religious conservatives.”

    Then don’t run for president. He should let the electorate know what he believes and then turn around and demand the press to ask the uncomfortable question to DWS back and make damn sure that he says loud and from the rafter that as DNC chair, that is the position of the entire democratic party. So does that mean that DWS believes a women in the hospital 21 hours into labor should be able to demand an abortion without medical cause?

    Jeffrey (2eddb6)

  19. I think Debbie’s mother, in consultation with her doctor of course, should be able to abort Debbie without cause.

    For a rule of wider application, let’s drive off that bridge when we get to it.

    nk (dbc370)

  20. So let’s get this straight. It is not the government’s business if a woman and her doctor terminate a viable fetus.

    But it is the govt’s business if a baker won’t bake a cake for a wedding she considers immoral or sinful, and the couple have to find another baker. In that case, we have to haul the baker before an administrative court and fine her a six-figure fine and send her into bankruptcy.

    Got that?

    Bored Lawyer (0d8a05)

  21. How about 170 pounds?

    Steve57 (cd6f9a)

  22. I’m curious about that “six-figure fine”. Where’s that from? In the Colorado case, it was $500.00. It’s bad enough with the freaks trying to scare us, without us scaring ourselves too.

    nk (dbc370)

  23. There are so many great questions that could and should be asked. I would have asked DWS if a woman’s right to control her own body and healthcare decisions means that she is entitled only to terminate a pregnancy, or is she entitled to a dead baby too? Follow up with specific questions about Born Alive legislation.

    RigelDog (b70d0f)

  24. I think Debbie’s mother, in consultation with her doctor of course, should be able to abort Debbie without cause.

    P.J. O’Rourke’s old quip: “Hey, I’m for abortion too! As long as it’s retroactive.”

    JVW (a1146f)

  25. And by the way, does DWSs statement imply that the doctor gets a say in whether the abortion takes place, or just that (for the time being) the doctor won’t be forced to participate in the abortion against his or her own will? I mean isn’t the true hardcore abortion rights mantra that the choice is up to the woman? Why does DWS add the doctor into the equation? Is it just to make it appear that all abortions are of medical necessity?

    JVW (a1146f)

  26. That early-term abortions done for the right reasons are inferior to adoptions but may not demand state action. That rape and incest should be exceptions to any law prohibiting abortions.

    So what crime is the baby guilty of that requires the death penalty? It is very sad that a woman is raped. It’s not the baby’s fault. Maybe if we brought back the death for rapists, the number of rapes would go down.

    Tanny O'Haley (c674c7)

  27. Because adding a doctor makes the statement seem more legitimate. Like there is an actual concern to deal with…it doesn’t take into account that the doctor could be Gosnell.

    Dejectedhead (4bfcf6)

  28. That should be “death penalty for rapists…”

    Tanny O'Haley (c674c7)

  29. forcing a woman to bear children for her rapist is not very america really

    and given the parlous state of the failmerican justice system, i don’t think the death penalty for rape is a good idea

    i think what might be a more better idea is making it to where all the taxes aren’t so high

    happyfeet (831175)

  30. it doesn’t take into account that the doctor could be Gosnell.

    That’s pretty much it, Dejectedhead. Following Roe v. Wade, abortion mills sprung up in the swankiest addresses on Chicago’s Magnificent Mile. A sting caught some of them performing abortions on women who were not pregnant.

    nk (dbc370)

  31. 29.forcing a woman to bear children for her rapist is not very america really

    Whereas the killing of over a million babies a year has “America” written all over it.

    Hoagie (58a3ec)

  32. 1) Debbie has three kids and a husband, although Wikipedia does not give their ages.
    2)The six figure fine apparently refers to this case….
    http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0L703320150203?irpc=932

    kishnevi (9c4b9c)

  33. How do they come up with that $75,000? http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.855 It’s $1,000 maximum as best as I can see. I repeat, scare tactics. “They” just pull numbers out of the air.

    nk (dbc370)

  34. $75,000 in damages for each member of the lesbian couple, apparently, meaning $150,000…not civil fines.
    This is the most recent I could find. Maybe the damage verdict is still pending…
    http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2015/03/halfway_through_sweet_cakes_by.html

    kishnevi (9c4b9c)

  35. Thanks, kishnevi. I hadn’t seen that an administrative judge can grant jury-type damages under the Oregon law. My apologies, Bored Lawyer.

    nk (dbc370)

  36. @ steve57 (#14): Point made and noted!

    @ dejectedhead (#15): Not sure about those particular tests, but when you thump me in the middle, I do make a nice, deep, satisfyingly resonant noise.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  37. Though I must say I find your position to be, uh, nuanced to the point of mushy. Are there ever “right reasons” for an abortion? At what point of time does the fetus resemble a fullborn human to deserve protection?

    I think there can be “right reasons.” For example, some babies are certain to be born with horrible birth defects that would condemn them to an extremely short and utterly miserable life. I think that’s a fairly obvious example.

    As far as when fetuses deserve protection, certainly at viability, but I believe before then. They are recognizable as human beings long before they are viable. But it’s a difficult problem. So yeah, my views are mushy.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  38. forcing a woman to bear children for her rapist is not very america really

    Again, what crime did the baby commit so that it deserves to be murdered?

    Who said its for the rapist?

    Tanny O'Haley (c674c7)

  39. My views of the abortion question as a legal and constitutional matter aren’t mushy at all: The Constitution doesn’t address abortion rights one way or another, nor empower the Congress to speak to it, leaving it entirely a subject for regulation by the several states depending on their respective judgments, as tempered by the state political process and state constitutions, which I believe can legally and constitutionally enact a broad range of different alternatives as a matter of public policy.

    My views of abortion as a moral issue are indeed very mushy.

    If you can’t separate those two viewpoints, you’re not paying attention.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  40. Nice blog post patterrico. Personally, I find great significance, biologically, in the line between an embryo and fetus. That’s at about seven or eight weeks after conception. At that point all the organs are formed: hands, arms, legs, internal organs, and the rest. Also at that point, the risk of miscarriage sharply drops. Additionally at that point movement begins.

    The stats show that rape only accounts for a very tiny fraction of abortions. But still it’s an important aspect of the conversation, because a woman really shouldn’t have to go through all the difficulties of pregnancies to give birth to a child she had no choice about begetting. So then you have to ask: should any woman be entitled to a safe and legal abortion if she merely says that she was raped, even if she (like Norma McCorvey) wasn’t really raped? That’s why I think it would make some sense to require such a woman to, for example, give the remains to the police for DNA analysis, or at least give so e kind of report or statement under oath to the police, if she wants to proceed with an abortion

    This whole issue is tedious and tiresome because it really doesn’t matter what any of us peons think. Anthony Kennedy has made the decision for everyone, just as the ayatollahs do in Iran. Personally, I think the best policy approach would be to let the laws on abortion be exclusively determined by female voters and female legislators, but maybe we’d have to amend the Nineteenth Amendment to make that happen. In the mean time, all we can do is beg and plead for SCOTUS to undo this terrible crime that they have committed.

    Andrew (0a4664)

  41. My views of the abortion question as a legal and constitutional matter aren’t mushy at all: The Constitution doesn’t address abortion rights one way or another, nor empower the Congress to speak to it, leaving it entirely a subject for regulation by the several states depending on their respective judgments, as tempered by the state political process and state constitutions, which I believe can legally and constitutionally enact a broad range of different alternatives as a matter of public policy.

    My views of abortion as a moral issue are indeed very mushy.

    If you can’t separate those two viewpoints, you’re not paying attention.

    Agree all the way through.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  42. Yeah, I agree 100% with Beldar about that too.

    Andrew (0a4664)

  43. Interesting. My legal views are mushy, kind of along the lines of “Oh, you’re from the government and you love this baby more than its mother, really?” My moral views are that it’s pretty clearly murder of the innocent but it’s hard to draw the line. I do not object to contraception or the morning after pill. Augustus Caesar thought celibacy was murder of one’s progeny and he was a pretty smart guy. Hmm.

    nk (dbc370)

  44. I may or may NOT agree with contraception OR the MORNING AFTER PILL. I’m quite sure that stabbing the full term CHILD in the HEAD with SCOTT PETERSON’S scissors, crosses a line. Far too many of our fellow AMERICAN’S are lying LIBTARD hacks. R-U? Are you unable to be honest about the EXECUTION of BABIES for CONVENIENCE?? YES. Many many of you Democrats are. Nearly all of you.
    Please name a PRO-LIFE democrat. I’ll wait.

    Gus (7cc192)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3665 secs.