Four days ago, rebel Democratic Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was being questioned on his abortion views by a reporter from NBC at the Iowa State Fair and said, “I believe a decision to abort a child should be up to the women during the first three months of life,” but “once a child is viable, outside the womb, I think then the state has an interest in protecting the child.” Kennedy then said he would support a federal ban on abortion after the first three months of pregnancy.
That’s not a very intellectually consistent position on abortion, but it qualifies as moderate and reasonable for a progressive like Kennedy, especially as the Left’s pro-abortion Borg increasingly adopts the frightening position that unborn children should be candidates for extermination right up to birth. Unfortunately, because the Democratic Party now embraces the extreme version of “choice,” Kennedy immediately backed down, turned around, and retracted his statement.
Speaking through his campaign, Kennedy said that he “misunderstood” the question posed to him by the reporter ( after all, it was shouted out in a crowded, noisy exhibit hall!) and didn’t mean to say he would support limits on abortion as President. His mouthpiece “clarified” that Kennedy’s position on abortion “is that it is always the woman’s right to choose. He does not support legislation banning abortion.”
Wow, he really must have misunderstood that question, since he said, quite clearly, exactly the opposite of that in response to the question.
This is useful though. Now we know that…
- Robert Kennedy Jr. believes unborn children do not qualify as living human beings at any point during pregnancy, and if a mother decides to kill hers on a whim in the 9th month of pregnancy, that is just fine and dandy. This also means that he doesn’t accept the Declaration of Independence’s first and foremost declaration, that a right to life is among the rights that cannot be taken away from the innocent. Good to know.
- RFK Jr. will abandon what he believes as soon as political advisors tell him that his principles will alienate enough voters. He’s not just another Kennedy, he’s another Bill Clinton!
- Kennedy is capable of lying through his teeth, and denying that he meant to say what he very clearly said if he thinks such gaslighting will help his candidacy.
- He lacks honesty, integrity, and courage, even when human life is at stake. That’s really good to know.
Ethics Alarms 
Yes, really good to know, indeed …though I don’t trust politicians in general to tell the truth, and especially not when it comes to maintaining a responsible or moral position when under pressure whether to stand firm or fold on personal convictions already stated publicly. Mostly, they are all cowards (and should have watched more John Wayne movies).
That’s because babies don’t vote and women do. It’s kind of frightening the attitude that younger women have towards abortion now. As far as a lot of them are concerned, it is a fundamental right right up to the moment of birth, and no one, especially not a man, has the right to tell them otherwise. Unfortunately, American culture where women are concerned has gotten to the point where women are encouraged to be narcissists. Some of it might start with the whole Disney princess culture and the idea that the only story worth telling is the story of. However, it certainly doesn’t stop with Disney. Everywhere you look, television, commercials, lesson plans, etc it’s all about women deserving not just everything, but the best of everything simply because they’re women. Girls, after all, are the ones who pass the tests, behave well, keep up with keeping the home in order, and everything else that’s necessary. They also look and smell nice. It’s the boys who struggle academically, behave badly, and shirk their duties at home. They also tend to get dirty and smelly. Women grow up to be powerful warriors of kindness, or some nonsense to that effect, while men grow up to be clumsy, clueless oafs who really can’t get anything done unless a woman guides them.
So, given that circumstance, it shouldn’t come off as unusual that women would think that it was perfectly all right if, by abortion, they prevent more of these clumsy, clueless, idiotic creatures who are more trouble than they’re worth into the world. It also shouldn’t come off as a surprise that women dismiss the men who don’t fit that stereotype and who can engage them on the same level of intelligence as simply mansplainers, who, if they knew better, would just keep quiet.
Given this set of circumstances, does it strike you as odd that women think they have the right to carry on like cheap whores on busy weekends without consequences? After all, consequences-free sex is just their reward for being so much better than men.
Steve, I’d say the unfettered right of women to have an abortion dates back to at least the late ’60s/early ’70s. I’d say it was somehow grafted into the consciousnesses of college age women at that time and has never weakened. It’s only grown stronger. It’s a very strange thing that happened but it seems irreversible. “Keep your hands off my body” curiously seems to follow from “Sure, let’s do it.”
I wonder how many of those same people called for denying health care to people who refused one particular vaccine.
That “new level of respect for RFK Jr.” that I spoke about in a comment after I saw his interview with Tucker Carlson just got stripped away.
So now we know that RFK Jr. is a confirmed brazen hypocrite.
Anything to get power and keep it.
I don’t understand RFK’s thinking on this at all. From a purely political perspective, he’s not trying to beat President Biden…he’s trying to beat President Trump. Right now, every candidate – Democratic party, Republican party, Suits party, Birthday party, whatever – is taking aim at Donald Trump. The idea is to siphon votes from your rival.
While I think his moderate view of abortion is still immoral, I think some (maybe “many”) in the Democratic party would consider his “abortion-is-legal-in-the-first-trimester” stance as something of a compromise. And I think many more in the Republican party would consider his “abortion-ban-after-the-first-trimester” stance as something of a compromise.
Isn’t is possible that this kind of “middle-ground” approach would have broader appeal, particularly if he showed that kind of thinking in many other areas? I don’t know…maybe I’m totally wrong in my analysis.
Regardless, he walked it back, which as you said, makes him little more than a “stick-my-finger-in-the-wind” politician we’ve grown to know and hate. Every time a politician waffles and reverses position, I think of a satirist-singer that, nearly 40 years ago, wrote:
A politician next door…swore
He’d set the Washington Arena on fire
Thinks he’ll gladiate ’em
But they’re gonna make him a liar
He’s a good ole boy who was born and raised
In the buckle of the Bible belt
But remember when you step into your voting booth
He’ll never lie he’ll just “embellish the truth”
Promises were made to be broken, right?
You gotta play the game to win…
I LOVE Steve Taylor. I even have his autograph.
–Dwayne
Right. All we need to know. Act accordingly.
(Drat, somewhat of a disappointment. No one would call me naive but I honestly, foolishly as it now seems, thought this pedigreed guy might appeal to a disenchanted dem voter, a citizen who is still a bonafide donkey but may be feeling a little disenfranchised by the party of choice, it’s selected madnesses; he might even himself be a throwback to blue dog days, but nooo, he’s just another died-in-the-wool pol, profile in nothing.)
This is important information for me about Kennedy’s views on abortion, and for me, it opened more insight into his character in other areas.
Just as with Kennedy, I have concerns with Ramaswamy and his connections to the Soros family, even though it is George Soros’s brother.
So far, I have many disappointments with the candidates running for President.
Understatement of the Decade!!!
“I believe a decision to abort a child should be up to the women during the first three months of life,” but “once a child is viable, outside the womb, I think then the state has an interest in protecting the child.” Kennedy then said he would support a federal ban on abortion after the first three months of pregnancy.
This initial position bugs me. The first sentence is a perfectly fine statement of his opinion. But, moving on to the second sentence was senseless. The Supreme Court has, essentially, eliminated federal power to do the thing he says he supports. He could have simply said, “under recent Supreme Court decisions, those limits are to be left to the individual states.” Then, he would not have to back-track at all. Even better, it would demonstrate that he has some understanding of the role of the position to which he seeks to be elected.
-Jut
Although a Constitutional Amendment is a theoretical federal solution, though a practical impossibility….
What about applying the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the unborn?
I wonder how the Democratic Party’s position on abortion became so radicalized in the past thirty years.
Easy, ME—the existence of abortion as “right” and the long, long tolerated practice of allowing “choice” to represent “killing” graduallly warped the issue beyond all recognition.
The last Democrat to have any integrity, especially on the abortion platform, was Bob Casey, Sr. He was silenced by the party in order to allow the anti-life platform be made central.
I was a PA resident back then and proudly voted for him.
–Dwayne