Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Opinion

RFK Tries To Take Both Sides Of The Life Issue

Is does he share the North Korean No Limits model or not?

Just last week, the other-other guy in this race took a hard stand on abortion. Days later he started backpedaling.

Statistically, even left-wing sources like NPR admit that the American public does not have an appetite for unlimited abortion-on-demand from conception to the moment of birth.

Two-thirds want abortion limited to the first trimester
Despite the majority support for abortion rights generally, 66% said abortion should be legal in, at most, the first three months of a pregnancy.
Almost 9 in 10 Republicans and three-quarters of independents want to see abortion restricted to three months or less. A majority of Democrats favor a longer window, but even 42% of Democrats want to see it limited.
— NPR (April, 2023)

Maybe he’ll blame the brain worm for the discrepancy. But RFK gave two very different answers on abortion last week.

First, he was all-in. In an interview with Sage Steele, he made it clear that his position, even if the baby was crowning, was that the this was still a ‘decision’ for the mother to make, not a case in which the state can intevene.

“So, in other words, keeping it as is with Roe v. Wade having been overturned and leaving it up to the states to determine if and when a woman can have an abortion,” Steele followed.
“No, I wouldn’t leave it to the states,” Kennedy responded. “We should leave it to the woman. We shouldn’t have government involved.”
“Even if it’s full term,” Steele said.
“Even if it’s full term,” Kennedy replied, later adding, “I think we have to leave it to the woman, not the state. I think we should do everything in our power to make sure that never happens and everything that we can do. But I think, ultimately, you know, nobody sets out to do that. And there are always some kind of extenuating circumstances that would make a mother make that kind of choice, a terrible, terrible choice which is, you know, you can’t overstate how bad that is. And I think, ultimately, we have to trust women.” — FoxNews

Of course, by his own logic, the state should not be trusted to intervene in instances of child neglect or abuse, because the state has a compelling interest in defending the life of the child, but ‘the state cannnot be trusted’. It wouldn’t take too many questions on a search engine to find examples of the state showing itself it could not be trusted in child endangerment cases.

In fact, even friendly press has admitted that Joe Biden’s open-borders immigration policy has directly resulted in at least 85,000 cases of child exploitation. And that’s an out-of-date number.

What is he saying now?

In a tweet, he gave a looooooong response to this issue. You can almost guarantee he ran it through a gauntlet of consultants to get it ‘just right’.

Here it is. It’s strange that on such a prominent issue as abortion he claims to be ‘just now learning the facts’ about a question whose answer he waded confidently into just a day or two earlier.

Is he ‘learning’, and ‘responding to new information’ or is he just one more of a long line of political weathervanes?

Abortion has been a notoriously divisive issue in America, but actually I see an emerging consensus — abortion should be legal up until a certain number of weeks, and restricted thereafter. Even in the reddest of red states, voters reject total abortion bans. And on the other end, almost no one supports gruesome third-trimester abortions except to save the life of the mother.

I’ve been a medical freedom advocate for my entire career and have fought for bodily autonomy, and I trust women’s maternal instincts. What if the baby has some fatal condition that ensures it will survive just hours or days after birth in intense suffering? Can we, should we, legislate such painful decisions and take them away from the mother? Is a bureaucrat or judge better equipped than the baby’s own mother to decide?

Cases like this are why I am leery of inserting the government into abortion. I had been assuming that virtually all late-term abortions were such cases, but I’ve learned that my assumption was wrong. Sometimes, women abort healthy, viable late-term fetuses. These cases of purely “elective” late-term abortion are very upsetting. Once the baby is viable outside the womb, it should have rights and it deserves society’s protection.

I learned this because I was willing to listen — to my family, advisors, supporters, and others who shared their perspectives. My promise to myself and to America is that I will continue to listen and incorporate what I learn into my decisions.

I support the emerging consensus that abortion should be unrestricted up until a certain point. I believe that point should be when the baby is viable outside the womb. Therefore I would allow appropriate restrictions on abortion in the final months of pregnancy, just as Roe v. Wade did.

That is the principle that will guide my actions as President, whether implemented by Congress, the states, or in court. It is the right policy for our country. It is the will of the people.

But there is more to it than that. We should be looking at why there are so many abortions in the first place. The biggest reason according to studies is affordability. Almost three-quarters of women cite economic reasons to explain why they chose to abort a pregnancy. So, we have developed a policy that we call “More Choices, More Life.” We can reduce abortion across the board by supporting motherhood, supporting parents, and supporting families. Soon we’ll unveil our plan for universally affordable child care, which will cap child care expenses at 10% for most families. And we will support women in need so that abortion isn’t their only choice.

At least he’s honest enough to acknowledge that Roe placed limits protecting the life of an unborn child beyond the point of viability… most Democrats would never admit such an obvious fact. It undercuts their position too badly


Lionhearted: Making Young Christian Males Rowdy Biblical Men

Dear young Christian male, this book you’re about to read is meant to challenge you to your very core. Its intent is not to make you feel warm and fuzzy. Some of the chapters will upset you greatly, especially if you’re a dandy who was raised with kid gloves by a helicopter mommy.

That said, in addition to the holy introspection contained herein, this book will also shoot adrenaline into your soul. It’ll push you to be a Godly risk taker and earth shaker. A veritable Rebel With A Cause just like the Captain of Our Salvation, the Lord Jesus Christ.

If you want a feel-good book that tickles your ears and morphs you into a little Christian popinjay, this tome ain’t for you. You should put this book down and walk away from it immediately. However, if, young man, if … your motto is to give God your utmost for His highest, and you wanna live a life worthy of Christ’s death, then this book will be grist for your mill.

Get your copy of Lionhearted: Making Young Christian Males Rowdy Biblical Men TODAY!

Wes Walker

Wes Walker is the author of "Blueprint For a Government that Doesn't Suck". He has been lighting up Clashdaily.com since its inception in July of 2012. Follow on twitter: @Republicanuck