Shane Vander Hart, did a great job today of explaining Rand Paulās latest exchange with the press over abortion. When the reporter, Paul Steinhauser, asked him to clarify his position on abortion exceptions, Paul tried to turn the tables on the reporter by insisting that he first ask the Democratic National Committee chairman, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, about the Democratic āextremeā position of allowing abortion throughout the entire pregnancy.
As Shane pointed out, Wasserman took the challenge and answered the question. She said she supported all abortions, even the 7-lb baby that Paul used as an example, to try and paint her and the DNC as extremists. Is anybody surprised at that answer? The pro-abortion crowd has stood on the no-exceptions position for decades. And the American people, despite the fact they donāt agree, continues to put 100% pro-abortion candidates into office. The Democrats took the bait, and escaped with it, leaving Paul holding an empty pole.
Now letās see if Paul follows through with his end of the bargain. He said heād answer, if the DNC answered.
1)Does he believe that every life is sacred and that every single one should be protected? If so, the battle lines are finally drawn. Each side would be following the natural end of its position. If the unborn children are sacred, every one should be defended. If they are not sacred, every abortion should be allowed.
Now THAT would be a debate worth having.
or
2) Is he willing to sacrifice on the altar of political expediency the lives of some unborn babies, to ostensibly save the lives of others? And leave any real discussion for later, kicking the can and the babies down the road.