By Tom Quiner
When it comes to human abortion, anything goes with the Democratic Party.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, responded to Rand Paul’s query on whether the Democratic Party supports any restrictions on human abortion. Ms. Wasserman was clear: no.
“Here’s an answer. I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story. Now your turn, Senator Paul. We know you want to allow government officials like yourself to make this decision for women — but do you stand by your opposition to any exceptions, even when it comes to rape, incest, or life of the mother? Or do we just have different definitions of ‘personal liberty’?”
Democrats like to portray themselves as being the compassionate party because they believe in a big welfare state. Their willingness to redistribute wealth in the name of a lavish safety net, in their mind, offsets their willingness to allow a ‘mother and her doctor’ kill the seven pound child in the mom’s womb.
Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia points out the obscenity of their position:
“Jesus tells us very clearly that if we don’t help the poor, we’re going to go to hell. But Jesus didn’t say the government has to take care of them, or that we have to pay taxes to take care of them. Those are prudential judgments. You can’t say that somebody’s not Christian because they want to limit taxation. To say that it’s somehow intrinsically evil like abortion doesn’t make any sense at all. I certainly can’t vote for somebody who’s either pro-choice or pro-abortion.”
Honorable people can disagree on the prudential judgements of social welfare; they can’t disagree on the intrinsic evil of human abortion and maintain their honor.