Democratic National Committee Chair avoids answering when she believes life begins and whether aborting a seven-pound baby is okay

By Dave Andrusko

KellyWasserman3reEditor’s note. My family will be on vacation through the end of this week. I will be posting an occasional new story, but for the most part we will be re-posting columns that ran over the last year. Many will be strictly educational while some will about remind us of notable victories this legislative cycle.

Along the way, Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) must have been told to dial back her extremist position on abortion. Clearly, judging by her comments to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and Fox News’s Megyn Kelly, Wasserman Schultz ignored the memo.

According to Newsbusters’ Katie Yoder, referring to comments made by pro-life presidential candidate Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Blitzer put it this way to Rep. Wasserman Schultz.

“[I]s he right when he says that it’s okay from your perspective to kill a 7-pound baby in uterus, is that your position?”

“We have very different definitions of personal liberty,” she said. “The Democratic Party’s position is that we are pro-choice.”

Not exactly a precise response to the question, but the implication is clear: “pro-choice” means it’s up to the woman to decide whether she aborts a seven pound child.

Subsequently Wasserman Schultz and Kelly had a fairly lengthy discussion in which Kelly repeatedly allowed Wasserman Schultz to criticize Sen. Rand but also insisted she spell out her own position.

Kelly began by politely repeating Rand’s challenge–asking Wasserman Schultz when did she believes life begins? Wasserman Schultz simply refused to answer.

They then began with a back and forth about what public opinion is on abortion. In the transcript, provided by Real Clear Politics, Wasserman Schultz would retreat to vague generalities such as “The majority support a woman’s right to choose.” Kelly would point to specifics, such as the public’s overwhelming opposition to second trimester abortion and even more to third trimester abortions.

The most fascinating concession (even though it is undeniably true) was in this exchange:

KELLY: That Supreme Court decision, Casey [v. Planned Parenthood handed down in 1992] says the state has a say, and the state can set limits.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: That’s right, and the states can make the decisions.

And then this:

KELLY: 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. 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.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Certainly not on a whim, but when a doctor —

KELLY: That’s what [Senator Rand] trying to get at.

Moral of the story? A recurring one. Pro-abortionists defend a position backed by a tiny minority of the public. The position held by pro-lifers is much closer to the position of a majority of the American people.