Baby Killing OK With Democrats

Baby Killing OK With Democrats
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (right) with former Congresswoman and abortion clinic director Allyson Schwartz at an Obama rally in 2012

Playing the “war on women” card, that worked so well in 2012 for the divisive win-at-all-cost power seekers that run the Democrat Party, GOP candidate Sen. Rand Paul was queried about abortion by the party minions that work in its AP  propaganda division.

Wrote AP’s Phillip Elliot: Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, a newly declared Republican presidential candidate, is dodging a central question about abortion: What exceptions, if any, should be made if the procedure were to be banned?

He was then asked again about abortion and gave this answer:

“Why don’t we ask the DNC: Is it OK to kill a 7-pound baby in the uterus? You go back and go ask (DNC head) Debbie Wasserman Schultz if she’s OK with killing a 7-pound baby that’s just not born yet. Ask her when life begins, and ask Debbie when she’s willing to protect life. When you get an answer from Debbie, come back to me.”

So Ms. Wasserman Schultz then responded saying “Here’s an answer. I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story.”

So Paul then, correctly, noted: “it sounds like her answer is yes, that she’s okay with killing a seven pound baby.”

There is an obligation to protect the weak and helpless and obviously life starts somewhere. Ms. Wasserman Schultz has revealed in a rather definitive way that monsters now run the Democrat Party.

Baby Killing OK With Democrats

5 thoughts on “Baby Killing OK With Democrats”

  1. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is married and has three children.
    apparently it’s okay to kill other kids, but not hers.

  2. Her position can be said to be a libertarian position, can’t it? I haven’t decided whether that’s big-L libertarian, that is, I’d expect people who are members or sympathizers of the Libertarian Party, or small-L libertarians, people who believe in small government and the supremacy of the individual over the State, to be likely to hold such a position. But either way, the problem is that it is an amoral position to hold. It ignores the point about our opposition to abortion, that it is the taking of an innocent life.

    1. Debbie actually threw something like that back at Paul.

      His answer was this: “The thing is, is that there is a role for government in our lives and the role is basically to prevent violence. So when a baby is born, I’m a physician and so I examine babies in the neonatal nursery often. Two pounds, they can fit in the sometimes, the babies in the palm of my hand. Everybody agrees that that baby that I examine has rights, that no one can injure that baby and the government has a role to come, even into the household if a mother or dad or relative is somehow injuring a baby, that the baby has rights,” he said.

      “So somehow we have to decide when does a baby get rights. So a one pound baby has rights but a seven pound baby in the uterus still getting ready to be born or a nine pound baby would have no rights. It seems like an abrupt sort of diminution of rights that all of a sudden you have rights and then a couple minutes before you didn’t have rights. These are very, very difficult discussions and then that’s a question of when does life begin, and I don’t think we all agree on that. I personally believe that life is special, that human life is special and that there is a sanctity and that we are more than just, you know, clay and dirt.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.