Ever since Republican presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) challenged Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz to answer whether it is okay to kill a 7-pound baby in utero, she has been forced to defend her no restrictions, “end of story” answer while making the talk show rounds.
Following up on Paul’s question, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Schultz if Democrats believe it’s okay to kill a 7-pound baby, and, just like in her statement response to Paul, she attempted to obfuscate by responding that the decision should be between a woman and her doctor, and tried inexpertly to return the discussion to questions of rape and incest.
“But is he right when he says that it’s okay, from your perspective, to kill a 7-pound baby in uterus?” asked Blitzer. “Is that your position?”
Schultz responded: “Rand Paul spends his entire first day as a candidate for president arguing with me over a woman's right to make her own reproductive choices.... I made that clear in my response the Democratic Party’s position is we are pro-choice. We believe a decision on a woman’s reproductive choices is best left between a woman and her doctor and we're still waiting for Rand Paul to say whether or not he supporting exceptions when a woman is raped, going to force a woman to carry a baby to term and not allow her to make that choice? When she’s the victim of rape, the victim of incest? Are we going to let a woman die? Would Rand Paul let a woman die because she’s carrying a baby or is he going to let her make that choice with her doctor?”
“We’re waiting on that, but Rand Paul’s first day out of the gate as a candidate for president was spent not talking about the issues that matter the most to Americans – the economy, jobs, and helping people reach the middle class – but debating me on abortion,” Schultz said.
Schultz sounds unhappy with Paul’s direction, and it’s clear why. Pro-life Republicans have had to constantly delineate their no-exceptions on abortion stance, while Democrats have never had to answer at what point (if any) they believe abortion is no longer an acceptable option.
Megyn Kelly tried to hone in on that point with Schultz last night, following up on Sen. Paul’s question and asking her when life begins.
“The question that [Paul] 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,” began Schultz, attempting her own bit of deflection.
Kelly asked her again for her opinion, since “I have you on tonight.”
“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,” she said, which is not an answer to the question of when life begins.
Kelly tried to redirect Schultz into an answer by prefacing her question with: “The American public is very divided on this, as you know, it's not like 90% of the public supports abortion, they do not.”
“The majority support a woman's right to choose,” said Schultz.
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…”
Schultz tried to interrupt, but Kelly continued: “The state does have rights to set limits. So he's trying to get to the Democrat’s position on at what point is it appropriate to say, it's no longer just between a woman and her doctor.”
“What is appropriate from our perspective? I'll speak for myself, but I think I can speak for most in my party,” said Schultz, the chairwoman of the Democrat party.
Schultz sounds like she’s just about to answer the question here, but she again does not: “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 …”
“That Supreme Court decision, Casey, says the state has a say, and the state can set limits,” interrupted Kelly.
“That's right, and the states can make the decisions, and states have done so,” answered Schultz.
“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,” said Kelly.
Feeding answers to Schultz, Kelly asked: “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?”
“Certainly not on a whim, but when a doctor…” began Schultz.
“That's what he's trying to get at,” said Kelly. “Where do the Democrats stand on where the limits should be set?”
“We’ve been very clear,” said Schultz. “There’s no ambivalence here. We’ve been very clear. We believe that decision is best left, not to government, but between a woman and her doctor. I can’t give you a specific date and time that we are in all cases are certain that that choice shouldn’t be made, because that choice is very unique and individual to the woman, and that choice should be between a woman and her God and her doctor. That is a decision left to her.”
“There is an overlay of restrictions that the Supreme Court has imposed through Roe vs. Wade and subsequent decisions and states have gone and implemented their own laws to put their own restrictions in place, and I don’t agree with all of those restrictions, but the law should be followed and that’s our view,” said Schultz. “I want to hear from Rand Paul what his view is. And he should stop deflecting and answer the darn question!”
Paul actually has answered the question of abortion exceptions on multiple occasions, including in his interview with Wolf Blitzer: “I've supported legislation both with exceptions and without exceptions.”
As Paul made clear in his Facebook post:
It barely took 24 hours after I announced my candidacy for President of the United States before the media began peppering me with gotcha questions that most "pro-life" politicians wilt under.
But instead of shrinking back – I called out pro-abortion Democrats for their extremism. After all, why doesn't the media ever ask them why they support horrific "procedures" like late-term abortion?