By DEXTER DUGGAN
After three tries, a social-media reporter still couldn’t get Democrat Party national headliner Debbie Wasserman Schultz to answer the question of whether, in her opinion, her own children were human beings before birth.
The conservative Media Research Center posted a video and article on October 13 showing Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, simply avoiding answering its reporter the first two times, instead lauding “reproductive choices.”
A viewer would have to conclude that the second time she was asked, Wasserman Schultz actually said she was proud to have had the opportunity to abort her three children, but chose not to. What did she believe about her own preborn children? Here’s how that response went:
“That I had the right to make my own reproductive choices, which I was glad to have and which I was proud to have.”
On the third try, asked just for a yes or no about their being human beings, Wasserman Schultz dug in her heels and still placed leftist political correctness above acknowledging the human dignity of her own offspring. She said:
“They’re human beings today, and I’m glad I had the opportunity to make my own reproductive choices, as — a right that every woman has and should maintain.”
She didn’t say if she thought the kids previously were carrots, canines, or calliopes, and at what point they transitioned into becoming human beings “today.”
Wasserman Schultz knew the pickle she was in. If she truthfully said yes, her own dear kids were human beings before birth, that would lead to a follow-up question of why it’s OK to kill human beings before they’re born. So she tossed the kids under the Planned Parenthood bus instead.
This is the same woman who kept dancing around the question last April of whether she thought it’s all right to abort a seven-pound baby, instead trying to sneak through with language that it should be a private matter between an abortionist and his transient client, er, “a woman and her doctor.”
Surely Wasserman Schultz is ashamed of herself for her servitude to the Culture of Death. But, hey, politics involves a lot of backstabbing, even if politicians sometimes do it to their own progeny.
Planned Parenthood has fistfuls of cash to reward pols who do death, and clenched fists for pols who dare defy. And the dominant pro-abortion media are the cops on the beat to keep everyone in line.
Even Democrat presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, hardly a model of morals or ethics, dared to go so far in late July as to admit she found “pictures” from the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) “disturbing,” although she otherwise lauded PP.
It probably didn’t take long for Clinton to get a few angry phone calls from PP’s enforcers. She reverted only to praising PP and not getting around to watching the actual videos.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) is another among many flies stuck in PP’s web. Straightforwardly asked by conservative reporters about unborn babies in 2013 and 2015, Pelosi snapped out evasions about being such a good Catholic with such a bunch of her own children born in quick succession, then she pronounced the subject closed.
(See the October 22 issue of The Wanderer, p. 3, “Even if she won’t say so, Nancy Pelosi’s conscience begs for help.”)
One day the Wasserman Schultzes and Clintons and Pelosis, like other, um, human-being slaves to the PP ideology, may decide they can’t live with these degrading shackles any longer, and snap them off.
Meanwhile, we can examine the blinded mindset that has kept them in the dark.
Much of its development is grounded in the dominantly pro-abortion media, which led them to this point and wants to keep them imprisoned here.
Look at some, although certainly not all, of reader feedbacks online regarding permissive abortion, even for articles where uncomfortable facts come through. It’s hard to imagine people commenting like this if they hadn’t been put through the brainwash machine for a few decades.
The pro-abortion Washington Post posted a feature about CMP project leader David Daleiden on October 14, “Meet the millennial who infiltrated the guarded world of abortion providers.”
The story at least sees where Daleiden is coming from, mentioning his shock in college at learning of research done with “the brains of aborted fetuses.”
This led Daleiden to see “a cruel paradox,” the Post said — “that when it comes to a fetus, ‘its humanity isn’t considered valid, yet it’s precisely that same humanity that makes it valuable for experimentation’. . . .
“Daleiden developed an in-depth knowledge of fetal-tissue research. On the videos, he can be heard breezily questioning whether the eyeballs in a petri dish are sufficiently developed to be useful for researchers, and praising the intactness of a tiny liver,” the story added.
Hmmm, perhaps blind pro-abortionists could benefit from fetal eye transplants?
The Post story linked to some CMP video footage, including words by leading national Planned Parenthood official Deborah Nucatola, MD, about obtaining hearts, lungs, livers, and muscle.
Nucatola’s graphic and repulsive candor was there saying, “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above….”
Very real unborn baby parts were listed, but some reader feedback still couldn’t absorb this.
“Potential people are not actual people,” said one, apparently not curious why merely “potential people” are the source of actual living hearts, lungs, and livers ardently sought by procurers.
“If a fetus were, in fact, a human life in any scientific sense, abortion would be illegal,” said another commenter, who obviously was entirely ignorant of the contortions the U.S. Supreme Court devised to legalize permissive abortion in 1973.
“There is no child,” said a commenter.
“There is no such medical procedures as a ‘partial birth abortion,’ first of all,” said another.
“. . . Finally, there are no babies involved, and certainly no ‘billions of dollars’.”
“No children involved in an abortion,” insisted yet another.
There also were repeated exhortations for contraception, although protection for the “nonexistent” babies was the issue.
Similarly out-of-touch feedback greeted New York Times pro-life columnist Ross Douthat after he posted “Lies, Carly Fiorina, and abortion” on September 28.
The Times is regarded as reaching some of the best-informed liberals in the nation, but this feedback showed some gross ignorance.
One grievously misinformed person said that late abortions only “are done to save the life of the mother. To ban them would kill women. Kind of makes you wonder what pro-lifers have in mind, doesn’t it?”
Another seriously uninformed commenter, comparing the Newtown, Conn., school massacre, in 2012, said the shootings killed “actual children, not fetuses without sensation or sentience.”
Although images of two different babies were shown in the CMP video when organ procurer Holly O’Donnell described how she harvested a newly aborted baby boy’s brain, commenters repeatedly mentioned only one image and erroneously said it was a stillbirth. In fact, there were separate images of one miscarried baby and one aborted baby.
Providing detailed misinformation, one feedback said: “The footage is of a stillbirth, not an abortion. The filmmakers, the woman who provided the footage and doctors who have critiqued the footage all say it’s a stillbirth — yet Carly continues to insist that it’s footage of an abortion.”
Really jumping off the deep end, one feedback said that if we watch these videos, why not also watch racial videos made by the Ku Klux Klan, while another speculated that if Fiorina “saw a picture of George Washington driving a stake through Abraham Lincoln’s heart,” she’d think it acceptable to say Washington killed Lincoln because she saw a picture of it.
While such readers were completely disconnected from the reality of the CMP videos, other people knew what they had seen and were appalled.
One, who said “I have always been pro-choice,” commented:
“I just cannot accept how a civilized society allows the chin of an almost fully formed baby to be cut upwards on the face in order to extract its brain. . . . (F)or the pro-choice side, it’s got us all thinking a little harder about our pro-choice beliefs. If I can’t accept chopping up an almost fully formed fetus, how do I support cutting up and vacuuming out what it was just 20 or so weeks previously?”
Another person said: “The willful blindness in these comments to the atrocities and moral depravity documented in those videos is appalling. Our society will be considered on par with the antebellum South by future generations for what we allowed and rationalized.”
Heal The Conscience
One attitude apparently cherished by pro-abortionists is that no new person ever existed when a baby is extinguished. That momentarily quells their consciences. They get angry when they discover that a person like singer and speaker Gianna Jessen survived an abortion.
They loved Jessen when all they knew is that she has a disability, she says, but when they discover the cerebral palsy was caused by the abortion, they’re having to confront that abortion not only does damage but actually routinely kills a new life at the beginning of its journey. That’s far more than they want to know.
But failing to face it only produces angry people like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Nancy Pelosi, and Hillary Clinton. Buried consciences always rise up in protest. Better to heal the conscience than try to silence it.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress