Wasserman Schultz Still Afraid to Answer Rand Paul’s Abortion Question

Debbie Wasserman Schultz is still criticizing Rand Paul for not answering the media’s question about his views on abortion exceptions. Maybe that’s because she won’t answer the questions either. After all, he did say that once she answers, then he’ll offer his answer.

She certainly uses a lot of words to say practically nothing. Here’s The Blaze:

“The question that he was asked, and that he’s trying to deflect by pushing it out on me, is does he support exceptions—,” Schultz started saying.

Kelly interjected, “No, I know. I gave you that point. I see that point. He hasn’t been explicit on it. But I’m wondering about you, because I have you tonight.”

“So, 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,” Schultz said.

Kelly, however, wasn’t satisfied.

“The state has the right to set limits. They have the right to set limits. And so he’s trying to get to the Democrats’ position — at what point is it appropriate to say it’s no longer between a woman and her doctor?” Kelly asked.

“What is appropriate, from our perspective, I’ll speak for myself but I think I can speak for most of my party, and that is that a woman’s right to make her own decisions about her body should be between her and her doctor,” the Democratic National Committee chairwoman responded.

Kelly continued to press.

“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,” the Fox News host said. “You would admit that you can’t have women aborting third trimester just on a whim?”

“Certainly. Certainly not on a whim,” Schultz responded.

“So that’s what he is trying to get at,” Kelly said.

“We’ve been very clear,” Schultz shot back. “There is no ambivalence here. We are very clear. We believe that that decision is best left not to government, but between a woman and her doctor. So, I can’t tell you a specific date and time past which we on all cases are certain that choice shouldn’t be made. Because that decision is very unique and individual to the woman and should be in consultation with her conscience and her God and her doctor. That is a decision left to her.”

Skip ahead to 5:50 for the conversation:

“We’ve been very clear,” huh? No, she hasn’t. She hasn’t answered the question of when life begins, nor has she said anything about whether it’s okay to kill a 7-pound baby who hasn’t been born yet. She deflects the question in the same way in which she accuses Senator Paul.

But she did say “certainly not on a whim.” Why would that make a difference though? Why wouldn’t it be okay to kill a baby in the third trimester if it was “on a whim?” If the entity inside the mother’s womb is not a person and therefore not deserving of any protection from the law, then it shouldn’t matter what the circumstances are or how far along she is, the mother should always be able to terminate the pregnancy whenever she wants, even if it’s “on a whim.”

Imagine if we were talking about removing a cancerous tumor from someone’s body. Some pro-choice people describe an unborn baby as a “parasite” or something like a cancer. Would anyone ever say that it was wrong to have a cancerous tumor removed “on a whim?”

Something’s not right here, and Wasserman Schultz isn’t willing to divulge any details about what she really thinks. Maybe she doesn’t really know what she thinks, because people have never pressed her on it before.

If the thing that is inside a pregnant mother’s womb is nothing more than a mass of tissue, then the mother should be able to have it killed and removed at any stage in gestation, regardless of whether it was “on a whim.” It should make no difference. However, if the entity inside the mother is a child whose life began at conception, then killing him (or her) at any stage of pregnancy is murder. Wasserman Schultz wants to have it both ways.