Rand Boxes DNC Chair In On Abortion, She Won’t Answer Questions About Her Stance

[carlton]

Rand Boxes DNC Chair In On Abortion, She Won’t Answer Questions About Her Stance

MILFORD, New Hampshire — Democratic National Committee chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) isn’t answering basic questions about her stance on abortion after a bout with Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) as the Kentuckian launched his bid for president of the United States.

It all started when the Associated Press’ Phillip Elliott tried to corner Paul in an interview on Wednesday morning.

“The thing is about abortion — and about a lot of things — is that I think people get tied up in all these details of, sort of, you’re this or this or that, or you’re hard and fast (on) one thing or the other,” Paul told Elliott when the AP reporter pushed him on abortion exemptions. “I’ve supported both bills with and without [exceptions], you know. In general, I am pro-life. So I will support legislation that advances and shows that life is special and deserves protection.”

After Wasserman Schultz’ DNC pushed the AP interview to other reporters later on Wednesday, Paul was holding a press conference here in Milford and NH1’s Paul Steinhauser asked Paul about it.

“Senator, the DNC is picking up on comments you made with AP this morning on abortion, and I just wanted to know where you stand on exemptions—should there be any exemptions for abortion or no?” Steinhauser asked.“What’s the DNC say?” Paul joked.

You know, here’s the question. We always seem to have the debate way over here on what are the exact details of exemptions and where it starts. Why don’t we ask the DNC if it’s okay to kill a 7-pound baby in the uterus.

You go back and you ask Debbie Wasserman Schultz if she’s okay with killing a 7-pound baby that’s not born yet. You ask her when life begins and you ask her if she’s willing to protect life. When you get an answer from Debbie, get back to me.

Wasserman Schultz issued a statement responding to Paul that didn’t answer his question. Instead she dodged it, and attempted to reframe the debate.

“Here’s an answer,” Wasserman Schultz said.

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

Now your turn, Senator Paul. We know you want to allow government officials like yourself to make this decision for women — but do you stand by your opposition to any exceptions, even when it comes to rape, incest, or life of the mother? Or do we just have different definitions of “personal liberty”? And I’d appreciate it if you could respond without “shushing” me.

Read the comments, Conservatives on Breitbart are loving Rands lashes against the media.. methinks today was a net plus for him.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...wer-questions-about-her-stance/#disqus_thread

 

[Virgil]

I liked this comment.

-Virgil

Cruz talks about religion and launched his campaign at an Evangelical college. Watch his speech: he doesn't talk about any issues facing the U.S. such as the economy, foreign policy, the military, etc. He talks about the "sacrament of marriage." The divorce rate in the U.S. is around 40%-60%--I'm sure those people want to hear about that. Any mention of Hillary's lying and possible treasonous behavior from Cruz? Nope, not yet. From Paul, oh yes he talked about the phony liar. I liked Cruz but now I will look at Paul, Walker, and Jindal. Cruz has already doomed his campaign by his catering to the religious crowd. The Republican Party represents more people than those who are committed to a particular faith, but that is all that Cruz seems to be about. I will vote for a statesman, not a preacher. Cruz may have already lost any chance he has of winning the nomination much less winning in the general election. Name one President who launched his campaign at a religious university, talked about religion for the next week, and then won. It may come as a shock to Conservatives 1) that one can be a Conservative and not believe in God; 2) religion is not an issue that voters care about. If Conservatives think that belief in God is required to be a Conservative, then they will only get the votes of people of faith---an endangered species in the U.S. Cruz didn't win over anyone in his speech except those who were already committed to him, and in my case, he lost my attention. If he mentions religion one more time, then he will lose any support I have and my vote in any primary. Look at Rand Paul--he has fire in his guts and is at least as intelligent as Cruz if not more so. He can think on his feet. He doesn't come across as preachy. Jindal and Walker have shown more already than Cruz has, and Paul is acting and creating messages that frame him as someone who wants to win.

 

[carlton]

Maybe this was planned, to go on the offensive against the MSM. Positive comments allover the Conservative web.. even Free Republic of all places.

 

[The Free Hornet]

? Not liking the answer and not answering the question are two different things. Do they expect a yes or no answer without context?

 

[Sola_Fide]

I like that Rand is turning the question back on the people asserting the position. What is their answer? I would like an answer, because the butchers of life should answer for their own position.

 

[RonPaulMall]

I like that Rand is turning the question back on the people asserting the position. What is their answer? I would like an answer, because the butchers of life should answer for their own position.

In fairness, she gave about as clear an answer as a person could give:

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

 

[Sola_Fide]

In fairness, she gave about as clear an answer as a person could give:

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

So that includes sucking the brains out of a 9 month old baby with a high powered vacuum? That includes decapitating a 9 month old baby in his mother's womb and throwing the decapitated head and body in a garbage can? No, she didn't answer the question.

Saying this all about "getting government out of the womb" is a fabrication. The question is about morality itself. You answer the question of morality first, and then you answer the question about law.

 

[carlton]

So that includes sucking the brains out of a 9 month old baby with a high powered vacuum? That includes decapitating a 9 month old baby in his mother's womb and throwing the decapitated head and body in a garbage can? No, she didn't answer the question.

Saying this all about "getting government out of the womb" is a fabrication. The question is about morality itself. You answer the question of morality first, and then you answer the question about law.

She's couching what she's saying in libertarian language.. probably in attempt to further wedge Rand from his base.Not going to work here.

Rand, OTOH was able to get the DNC party leader to admit to a philosophy that even most Democrats don't share, all while flipping the bird to the MSM.

Say what you want about Rands interviews but today was a good day and he'll see an explosion of conservative support for it.

 

[Sola_Fide]

If Rand was to get really edgy, he'd ask what country has decapitated more people? Radical Islamic countries? Or America in their abortion clinics?