Rawstory lies about Rand's abortion position - quell surprise

[jmdrake]

The statement by Rawstory:

Insisting that “there are thousands of exceptions” to his latest proposal to extend the rights of personhood to fetuses — a move that would make all abortion and some forms of birth control illegal — Paul told CNN host Wolf Blitzer that “decisions made privately by families and doctors” will not be covered by his proposal.

The statement by Rand Paul.

Pressed by Blitzer on whether that means he believes in exceptions to fetal personhood protections, Paul repeated his claim that there will be “thousands” of exceptions dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

“There is going to be, like I say, thousands of extraneous situations where the life of the mother is involved, and other things that are involved, so I would say that each individual case would have to be addressed,” he explained. “And even if there were eventually a change in the law — let’s say people came more to my way of thinking — there would still be a lot of complicated things the law may not ultimately be able to address in the early stages of pregnancy. That would have to be part of what occurs between the physician, and the woman and the family.”

The lie? That Rand was talking about "thousands of exceptions" as opposed to one exception realized "thousands of times." There's a huge difference between saying there are "thousands of times" where a woman's life may be in danger and an abortion is warranted even if you accept fetal personhood and that there are "thousands of exceptions" in general where abortion is okay even if it isn't generally allowed. Saying you support abortion in the case of rape, incest, life of mother, health of mother, genetic defect of fetus and gender selection are only 6 exceptions if you count it in terms of "types" of exceptions to abortion as opposed to the number of times any one exception might occur.

And note, I haven't watched the interview yet. I'm just going by what Rawstory said. And based on their own words they told a subtle but important lie. Shame on them.

h ttp://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/20/rand-paul-aborts-his-own-pro-life-views-live-on-cnn/ (Liar's link broken)

[jmdrake]

Update: I just watched the video. I'm even more certain that Rawstory purposefully lied! The did not quote what Blitzer said right before Rand talked about "thousands of exceptions." Blitzer asked Rand about an exception for the life of the mother. Rand then said "there are thousands of exceptions." Based on this, the only honest reading of what Rand said is that he believes in an exception for the life of the mother which may occur thousands of times.

[itshappening]

They're celebrating a "win" because a Republican "caved" (in their eyes).

Don't get too worked up about it Drake!

[Matt Collins]

The MSM has also been lying about his immigration policy too

[TheGrinch]

Yep, the whole thing, much like most abortion debates, was taken grossly out of context.

[July]

Ok I watched the interview and it seems pretty obvious to me Rand was talking about the limitations of the law, and of the federal government in regulating it. As a doctor, I'm sure Rand knows that especially in the very early stages of pregnancy, there is a point at which it becomes difficult (or impossible) to prove or determine if a woman has suffered a miscarriage accidentally, or from natural causes, or whether she intentionally triggered it herself or with someone's help. So there are limitations in that sense. And secondly, even if life were to be defined as beginning at conception, would it always be considered first degree murder in every circumstance? It's against the law to murder an adult too, but many reasonable people would not call it murder if you are in the process of being mortally attacked and you kill someone in self defense. Or say, you are attempting to rescue a drowning person, and they are about to pull you under as well, and you let go. If a mother's life is in danger, likewise, that might be a case where it is considered a form of self defense. It depends on the circumstances, and there might be thousands of different hypothetical scenarios. So the issue just isn't as black and white or as simple as saying "abortion is always murder, in every case, no exceptions ever". Just acknowledging that fact doesn't mean you are saying abortion is never murder and always morally the right thing to do. But some people want to say that if you believe there is any exception at all, ever, then that makes you "pro choice" and in the same camp with those who don't consider a fetus to be a human being at all.

[jmdrake]

They're celebrating a "win" because a Republican "caved" (in their eyes).

Don't get too worked up about it Drake!

I'm not. I'm just hoping that Rand gets damage control out enough to mute the lies. Now why don't you try not to get worked up next time Rand makes a strong statement about being pro-life? :rolleyes: That won't cause the sky to fall regardless of what you think.

[Christian Liberty]

I'll eat humble pie, I thought Rand flipped and I was wrong...

[itshappening]

I'm not. I'm just hoping that Rand gets damage control out enough to mute the lies. Now why don't you try not to get worked up next time Rand makes a strong statement about being pro-life? :rolleyes: That won't cause the sky to fall regardless of what you think.

The lies aren't working. Plenty of people are defending him and pointing out the lie.

I'm not getting worked up but when ABC/NBC/CBS start paying attention they will start pressing him on RAPE much more than Wolf did.

[jmdrake]

The lies aren't working. Plenty of people are defending him and pointing out the lie.

I'm not getting worked up but when ABC/NBC/CBS start paying attention they will start pressing him on RAPE much more than Wolf did.

Rand's proposal had nothing to do with rape. And ultimately he should play the federalism card. Let the states sort that out. That said, both he and Ron have taken reasonable positions on that in the past. If you're a rape victim, you've got a short window of opportunity to use "Plan B." It's best to exercise your "choice" then. There is a line where the "choice" to kill the child of a rapist is not acceptable. Most civilized people would say that at least at birth the child should be save. (Though some "bio-ethicists" in England disagree apparently.) Most late term abortion laws have no rape exception. I know the federal one does not.

[itshappening]

Rand's proposal had nothing to do with rape. And ultimately he should play the federalism card. Let the states sort that out. That said, both he and Ron have taken reasonable positions on that in the past. If you're a rape victim, you've got a short window of opportunity to use "Plan B." It's best to exercise your "choice" then. There is a line where the "choice" to kill the child of a rapist is not acceptable. Most civilized people would say that at least at birth the child should be save. (Though some "bio-ethicists" in England disagree apparently.) Most late term abortion laws have no rape exception. I know the federal one does not.

The trouble is Rand cannot explain it without using the word "rape" which is not advisable after Akin and Mourdock and general hysteria. He should completely forget about using the words "rape", "incest" and "murder" in the context of an abortion discussion with any journalist.

So get round that one.

He will get pressed on it more and more and they will try and get him to say RAPE or something stupid because 90% of the public support exceptions for rape and think a politician waffling on it is crazy

[jmdrake]

The trouble is Rand cannot explain it without using the word "rape" which is not advisable after Akin and Mourdock and general hysteria. He should completely forget about using the words "rape", "incest" and "murder" in the context of an abortion discussion with any journalist.

So get round that one.

He will get pressed on it more and more and they will try and get him to say RAPE or something stupid because 90% of the public support exceptions for rape and think a politician waffling on it is crazy

It matters not whether he uses it. Others will use the word when interviewing him and fashion their articles about his response as if he used the "R." How he fashions his response is all that matters.

[itshappening]

It matters not whether he uses it. Others will use the word when interviewing him and fashion their articles about his response as if he used the "R." How he fashions his response is all that matters.

It matters. They want him to say the R word and then they can replay a million times and make him the next Akin or Mourdock. Rand will not say it and instead waffle a bit and play for time... which is what he did with Wolf.

The establishment media want a "gotcha" but Rand is too clever for it.

[jmdrake]

It matters. They want him to say the R word and then they can replay a million times and make him the next Akin or Mourdock. Rand will not say it and instead waffle a bit and play for time... which is what he did with Wolf.

The establishment media want a "gotcha" but Rand is too clever for it.

If Murdock had said in answer to the question "What about abortion in cases of rape" the following:

He replied: “I think even when life begins in that horrible situation, that’s something God intended to happen.”


do you honestly think that simply omitting the "R" word would have made a difference?

[Natural Citizen]

I think Rand is going to get nailed if his supporters keep conforming to and prioritizing the same old social issues and placing above the more important context all over the www when there are far better and more important discussions to be had. He needs to stick to big boy speak like pap did. Folks may disagree with that but it's true. His own supporters are feeding him to the sharks by romper rooming the issues. They are playing along to the same old tired neoconservative/liberal or false left right paradigm that always dictate talking points from media. I don't blame Rand at all. At the end of the day memes don't get the job done. They never have and they never will. They are dangerous. Of course, thats' just an observation. People are free to disagree.

[cajuncocoa]

Here is what The Blaze (Glenn Beck's site) is reporting ...


Republican Senator Rand Paul boldly declared last week when he introduced the Life at Conception Act (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s583?utm_campaign=govtrack_feed&utm_source=govtrack/feed&utm_medium=rss) that “human life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore is entitled to legal protection.”

However, during an interview on Tuesday with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, the Kentucky senator seemed to soften his tone when asked about abortion in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is at risk.

“Just to be precise, if you believe life begins at conception, which I suspect you do, you would have no exceptions for rape, incest, the life of the mother. Is that right?” Blitzer asked.

“What I would say is that there are thousands of exceptions. I’m a physician and every individual case is going to be different,” Sen. Paul responded. “Everything is going to be particular to that individual case and what is going on that mother and the medical circumstances of that mother.”

Paul continued:


I would say that, after birth, we’ve decided that when life begins, we have decided that we don’t have exceptions for one-day-olds or a six-month-olds. We don’t ask where they came from or how they came into being.

But it is more complicated, because the rest of it depends on the definition of when life comes in. So I don’t think it’s as simple as checking a box and saying, “Exceptions” or “No exceptions.”

I’ve been there at the beginning of life. I’ve held one pound babies in my hand that I examined their eyes. I’ve been there at the end of life. There are a lot of decisions made privately by families and their doctors that really won’t, the law won’t apply to. But I think it is important that we not be flippant one way or the other and pigeonhole and say, “Oh, this person doesn’t believe in any sort of discussion between family.”



“I don’t know if there’s a simple way to put me in any category on any of that,” he concluded.

“Well, it sounds like you believe in some exceptions,” Blitzer pressed.

“Well, there is going to be, like I say, thousands of extraneous situations where the life of the mother is involved and other things that are involved,” the senator responded.
“I would say that each individual case would have to be addressed and even if there were eventually a change in the law, let’s say people came more to my way of thinking,” he continued, “there would still be a lot of complicated things the law may not ultimately be able to address in the early stages of pregnancy that would have to be part of what occurs between the physician and the woman and the family.”

He concluded:


What I don’t believe that I can compromise on is that I think that there is something special about life and that all of the rights that we spend time up here discussing … all of these things stem from a sort of a primordial right to your life and how you use it.



Watch the senator’s comments here:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/19/cnn-asked-rand-paul-about-abortion-exceptions-this-is-how-he-answered/

[itshappening]

If Murdock had said in answer to the question "What about abortion in cases of rape" the following:

He replied: “I think even when life begins in that horrible situation, that’s something God intended to happen.”


do you honestly think that simply omitting the "R" word would have made a difference?

No, but they want him to say "rape" badly. Discourse is not rational and the media desperately want to catch Republicans in a "gotcha" moment. Whether it's from the left like Wolf or the right like Hannity... They will continue pressing him on their various agendas.

[jmdrake]

I think Rand is going to get nailed if his supporters keep conforming to and prioritizing the same old social issues and placing above the more important context all over the www when there are far better and more important discussions to be had. He needs to stick to big boy speak like pap did. Folks may disagree with that but it's true. His own supporters are feeding him to the sharks by romper rooming the issues. They are playing along to the same old tired neoconservative/liberal or false left right paradigm that always dictate talking points from media. I don't blame Rand at all. At the end of the day memes don't get the job done. They never have and they never will. They are dangerous. Of course, thats' just an observation. People are free to disagree.

It's not Rand's supporters that made abortion a front page issue by introducing, or promising to introduce, a "life at conception act." It was Rand. Speaking for myself, I defended Rand for doing that, while others seemed to think the sky was falling and we would lose all the independent voters. Had Rand taken a different position I would have found a way to defend that if I could. As Rand seemed to be flip flopping based on poor reporting by the media I grew naturally concerned. And FTR, Ron at times said things that made me wince, not because I disagreed but because I knew how they would be perceived. There's no way he should have handled his comments on the raid that killed OBL the way he did. The country didn't want to hear about Pakistani sovereignty and international law at a time when everyone was jubilant about the raid. The best answer, if you weren't going to attack the administration's fake info that came out (which Ron did to some degree and kudos for doing so) was to say "Good. OBL's dead. Now when do we get our freedoms back? Or is the man who supposedly attacked us because he hates our freedoms going to win as the government takes our freedoms?"

[jmdrake]

No, but they want him to say "rape" badly. Discourse is not rational and the media desperately want to catch Republicans in a "gotcha" moment. Whether it's from the left like Wolf or the right like Hannity... They will continue pressing him on their various agendas.

http://cdn.overclock.net/4/47/47e8dbce_Point_over_your_head1.jpeg

[V3n]

I think what itshappening is saying is; there have been a lot of gaffes spoken over the last 2 years by Republicans regarding "rape"; "legitimate rape"; "body shuts down"; "rape baby is a blessing" - and by "gaffe" I mean really-dumb-most-idiotic-thing-anyone-has-ever-heard comments by Republicans.

Wolf, et al, will keep pressing Rand trying to make him say something stupid like that. But Rand doesn't bite and just says vague statements like "that's another discussion" - "there are exceptions". It's a political maneuver, so it seems disingenuous to the purists among us; but I think it's a smart way to play it to not get nailed down.

[jtstellar]

I'm not. I'm just hoping that Rand gets damage control out enough to mute the lies. Now why don't you try not to get worked up next time Rand makes a strong statement about being pro-life? :rolleyes: That won't cause the sky to fall regardless of what you think.

as long as some of the whiners among our very own aren't propagating the same crap on our own accord, without liberal's help. or is it liberals using our help, the other way around? getting hard to tell.