Originally published April 10 2015
Democratic chairwoman says abortion is between a woman and her doctor - so why should government mandate vaccination?
by J. D. Heyes
(NaturalNews) Another presidential election cycle is looming, so it only stands to reason that a new wave of political hypocrisy will be unleashed. In fact, it already has been.
In recent days, the "gotcha" mainstream media -- which really only plays the game with conservative candidates -- attempted to box in Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who became one of the Republicans to announce a 2016 presidential candidacy, on the issue of abortion. It's a tried-and-true tactic of the Lefist media: Get a Republican to say he or she is against the procedure and then paint him or her as an enemy of choice, of women and of medical judgment.
As reported by Breitbart News, a controversy over the subject arose in recent days between Paul and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee; some have accused her of failing to answer basic questions regarding her own stance on abortion following a bout with Paul as the junior senator from Kentucky launched his campaign.
"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 told an Associated Press reporter who pushed him on abortion exemptions. "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."
Dodging the issue
Led by Wasserman Schultz, the DNC then pushed the AP interview to other reporters, who were expected to seize upon it to "prove" the points that Paul is anti-choice, anti-women, and so forth.
Later that same day, Paul was holding a press conference in Milford, New Hampshire, when a local TV reporter asked him about it.
"Senator, the DNC is picking up on comments you made with AP this morning on abortion, and I just wanted to know where you stand on exemptions -- should there be any exemptions for abortion or no?" Paul Steinhauser asked.
"What's the DNC say?" Paul asked in reply, as a joke.
He further stated:
You know, here's the question. We always seem to have the debate way over here on what are the exact details of exemptions and where it starts. Why don't we ask the DNC if it's okay to kill a 7-pound baby in the uterus.
You go back and you ask Debbie Wasserman Schultz if she's okay with killing a 7-pound baby that's not born yet. You ask her when life begins and you ask her if she's willing to protect life. When you get an answer from Debbie, get back to me.
At that, Wasserman Schultz issued another statement saying that Paul did not answer the question. But instead, she was the one dodging the issue (because she knows that recent surveys note that most Americans oppose the procedure in nearly all instances).
"Choice" in abortion, no "choice" in vaccination
"Here's an answer," Wasserman Schultz said. "I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story."
An artful dodge, but a dodge nonetheless. Still, it's an interesting statement, given the current state of debate over the issue of vaccine choice.
In February, Wasserman Schultz told the Sun-Sentinel newspaper that she strongly believes that parents should vaccinate their children. End of story.
"As a parent with children in public school and as someone who really believes in vaccination I'm absolutely for vaccination and making sure that we don't go backwards when it comes to infection and the spread of disease that long ago should have been stamped out," she said.
Adding that every parent "has to make a judgment for themselves," she also defended vaccines as inherently safe.
"But there is no proof whatsoever, in fact it's been disproven, that there is any risk to the health of a child when they're vaccinated," she lied.
Translation: Abortion -- killing babies up to the last moment before birth -- is a woman's "choice," but parents should really not get to choose whether to have their children injected with dangerous and sometimes experimental vaccines. Got it.
Let the election cycle hypocrisy continue.
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml