Rand Paul calls out media: “Go ask the DNC” when life begins
by Kelli
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….
I think the most important thing is the general concept of: Do you support the sanctity of life? Do you think there’s something special about life? So you think when we’re born that a human baby is different than an animal, that there’s something special that is imbued into human life? And I think there is.
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.
~ Republican Presidential candidate Rand Paul, fielding questions on abortion in two different press interviews, as quoted by Philip Elliott, Associated Press, April 8
[Photo by Reuters via themalaysianinsider.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
“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 said.
So even he recognizes the need to prevaricate on the issue. He realizes that if he goes full-on anti-choice he won’t get very far.
Democrats defeated Romney with their “War on Women.”
This is a warning from Rand: Democrats, it’s time to start defending yourselves against your “War on Life.”
Does everyone remember Stephanopoulos badgering the flat-footed Republicans during the New Hampshire Primary debates about “outlawing contraception”?
It’s time to start hammering Democrats about when they are willing to protect human Life. Defend your “choices,” Dems!
Apparently, her answer is yes:
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/08/dnc-head-abortion-should-have-zero-restrictions-period/
But I think that’s old news by now. I’d be more interested in seeing whether these politicians support women’s reproductive freedom to the same extent as Planned Parenthood, who will stand by a woman’s God-given right to self-abort in the third trimester and throw the (still living) child in a dumpster. No need to ask Obama, as that would be like kicking a dead horse (or a lame duck).
I’m amazed at the support that Ben Carson has in the poll.
I liked some of the things that Ron Paul was for – at least he took a hard look at stuff and realized that fairly drastic action is called for. He was so far out there, though, practically a whack-job, in some respects, that he just wasn’t going to get in.
Rand Paul is more presentable, in a sense, but one wonders (and apparently so do voters in the poll). Bobby Jindal, too, I mean come on – 6 or 7 times as much support for Carson than for him?
Interesting stuff….
Jindal was my personal favourite (and probably the only candidate that I can see beating Hillary) but he seems to have made several critical mistakes, causing his approval rating to take a nosedive. The main criticism is that he’s focusing too much on the job he wants to properly do the one he has.
“Apparently, her answer is yes:”
I will have to give her some credit. At least she didn’t proclaim the answer to be above her pay grade.
Democrats, it’s time to start defending yourselves against your “War on Life.” – LOL. Given the policy positions on socio-economic factors of republicans and democrats that one ain’t never gonna fly.
Interesting article in response.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121511/rand-paul-raises-questions-about-abortion
Ex-GOP, I don’t have a problem with the media asking Rand Paul about his position on the rape exception. Nobody else on this thread seems to either. While it’s unlikely that a ban on most or all abortions would come up during a Rand Paul presidency (or a Jill Stanek presidency for that matter), it is still an important issue (as over 9000 rape victims have abortions every year) and as such the public ought to know where everyone stands. What I have a problem with is the media asking Rand Paul about the hard cases starting on the very first day of his presidential campaign, but hardly ever asking Democrats about their hard cases. If the media are going to be asking Republican candidates and pro-life advocates about rape, incest, life of the mother, personhood amendments, punishment for women that have abortions, and outlawing contraception, they better be asking Democratic candidates and pro-choice advocates about late-term abortion, post-abortion infanticide, Kermit Gosnell, secret abortions for minors, sex-selective abortion, and prenatal homicide laws. It very quickly becomes a game of gotcha journalism when they fail to do the latter. That’s the point Rand Paul made, and he’s right to call out the media on it (even though it would have been nice if he had actually answered the question).
Navi
I actually don’t see much of an issue. If the journalists are being journalists, they are gathering information on proposals. If somebody wants to change a law, they should question that. If somebody doesn’t want to change the laws, there obviously isn’t as much to ask – unless we just want journalists to debate people and get into logical sparring matches.
I think the whole issue, to me, if a lot more rhetoric than fact. I mean, I’d like somebody to point out an actual, specific case of ‘gotcha’ journalism when it comes to abortion (other then the hidden camera type stings). Or is it simply a ‘gotcha’ moment to ask a person what they would do?
I just think, if a person steps back and looks at it fairly – I don’t see the media trying to trap one side while letting the other off the hook. I could be wrong – would like to see some specific examples.
[…] This week Senator Rand Paul turned a question by an AP reporter attempting to brand him as a pro-life extremist back on him by asking: […]
Navi: Jindal was my personal favourite (and probably the only candidate that I can see beating Hillary) but he seems to have made several critical mistakes, causing his approval rating to take a nosedive. The main criticism is that he’s focusing too much on the job he wants to properly do the one he has.
Navi, I liked Jindal when I first heard about him, and also figured that if he found acceptance in Louisiana – what with his East Indian derivation – then he must have something going for him.
I hadn’t kept up with LA’s goings-on, but now I see some bad fiscal stuff, for sure. It’s a massively tough position for a state Governor; few people like budget cuts. To make the cuts makes you very unpopular. To have the debt from not making them also makes you very unpopular.
I think Jeb is the GOPer with the best chance.
Bush-Clinton doesn’t excite me – but I think that’s what we’re getting.
Pro-lifers aren’t the only ones that want to change the laws though. The Democratic Party platform includes language that would imply overturning the Hyde Amendment. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton supported the Freedom of Choice Act, which would legalize partial-birth abortion and could overturn all state-level laws on abortion. Its reincarnation, the Women’s Health Protection Act, was recently introduced in congress. This would establish abortion on demand up to birth in every state. Besides that, supporting the status quo should not exempt a politician from having to answer questions. By that logic, it would’ve been wrong to ask Republicans in 2009 about healthcare reform or in 2012 about the birth control mandate.
Examples are easy to find. The Purvi Patel case is a national story, but the Dynel Lane case is not even though both pertain to the same issue (prenatal homicide law). Compare the amount of coverage Kermit Gosnell got to the coverage of Wendy Davis or Todd Akin. And I think we can easily take bets on how many times Hillary Clinton will be asked about late-term abortion when she begins her campaign tomorrow.
Navi –
Not suggesting that status quo exempts – I’m saying that if somebody says they want to introduce new legislation that affects a lot of people, asking a follow-up question or two is not out of the question.
On the examples though – I don’t believe Kermit Gosnell or Dynel Lane were running for office. So let me rephrase the question. I keep hearing this rhetoric that the ‘media’ unjustly goes after politicians with ‘gotcha’ questions. I’ve watched the Akin full interview – there were no ‘gotcha’ questions. I can’t think of an actual ‘gotcha’ question. Maybe they exist – I just see a lot of rhetoric, and I don’t see the actual proof.
I don’t know what’s really left to ask Hillary on abortion – with her years of experience, I don’t much that isn’t known at this point.
Ex-GOP, if there is a “gotcha” question, then I think it gets asked – so many people these days are after ‘sound bites’ and the quick, easy, non-in-depth things.
And nobody is saying that “asking a follow-up question or two” is out of line. The problem, as I’ve discussed above, is that pro-life candidates are constantly asked about the hard cases but pro-choice candidates are not. The argument that “If somebody doesn’t want to change the laws, there obviously isn’t as much to ask” doesn’t fly for two reasons:
1. Democrats do in fact want to change the laws (see above – Hyde amendment language and FOCA/Women’s Health Protection Act).
2. Not wanting to change a controversial law shouldn’t mean there isn’t much to ask.
Kermit Gosnell and Dynel Lane weren’t running for office, but neither was Purvi Patel (or Walter Scott for that matter). So clearly whether someone is running for office isn’t the benchmark for whether a story deserves national coverage. In terms of what constitutes a “gotcha” question, a question usually isn’t a gotcha question on its own. Gotcha journalism is all about intent. The reporter (or his employer) has an axe to grind, and chooses questions that will make the subject look bad (this is sometimes done with deceptive editing or sensationalism, though not always). Asking a pro-life person about the rape exception isn’t necessarily a gotcha question. For example, it wouldn’t be gotcha journalism if Lila Rose appeared on Glenn Beck’s show and an audience member (who is pro-life, yet has understandable concerns about denying rape victims abortion) asked her what she thinks about abortion in the case of rape. His intent is to actually understand what her position is and how she got there. Even asking President Obama how he feels about so many people hating him isn’t necessarily a gotcha question (provided, of course, that you ask President Bush the same thing). In most individual cases, it’s not easy to determine intent. But when you have journalists asking the hard questions to only one side, as well as pro-choice columnists openly admitting the media narrative is that women’s rights are under attack by crazy right-wing zealots (and as such, stories on abortion are built around that narrative), the only way someone could deny that the media is partial to one side is if they were very obtuse or are rationalizing.
What should we ask Hillary on abortion? How about where she actually stands on late-term abortion (that is, whether she opposes all bans or only the ones that actually make late-term abortion illegal)? What about her support for FOCA or the Women’s Health Protection Act? What about the Hyde Amendment language in her the party platform?
[…] The Kelly File where she and Megyn Kelly discussed GOP Presidential candidate Rand Paul’s recent remarks on late-term abortion and on Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s […]