Illinois Rep. Joe Walsh has mastered the art of backtracking. Walsh has learned to change what he said a few days earlier by stating that he said something else. It may not work at convincing most people but he has successfully convinced himself.
Last week, Walsh staked his pro-life position on abortion by stating that abortions are never necessary to save the life of a mother. Here were Walsh’s orginal words:
“With modern technology and science, you can’t find one instance. There is no such exception as life of the mother, and as far as health of the mother, same thing.”
It’s great that Walsh has so much faith in science. Too bad that he doesn’t believe in it. Walsh has been an outspoken opponent of issues from embryonic stem cell research to climate change. Now he believes that medical science can do things that no one else is advocating. That sums up his science position: Deny real science and make up science to fit his political beliefs.
In a world where we are dependent on science and technology, some are prefering to cling to beliefs that have no valid scientific basis. Strangely, the wackiest positions on science are coming from men who believe they are experts on female phsyiology.
Rep. Todd Akin from Missouri made his famous claim in August that a raped woman cannot get pregnant because her body has mechanisms to shut that pregnancy down. Now Walsh comes along claiming that women who have an abortion to save their lives are only using that as an excuse to abort because their lives are not really in danger. Clearly, these two Congressmen have gone down the same rabbit hole.
Facing stern criticism for his ignorance, Walsh took to contorting his position when he placed this comment on his website:
When it comes to having an abortion to save the life of a mother, I will say again that, outside of the very rare circumstances such as ectopic pregnancies, during which both the mother and baby will die if the baby is not aborted, and other rare health issues, the research is pretty clear that with the advances in modern medicine, an invasive and traumatic procedure like an abortion is not necessary to save the life of a mother. In those very rare cases where a mother’s life may be in danger past the point of viability for the baby, today’s doctors work to induce labor or perform a caesarean section in an attempt to save BOTH lives. These cases are extremely rare, and they unfortunately are used by the militant pro-choice movement to justify every single abortion.
This is an issue that I take very seriously. I have a wife and two young adult daughters, so this is not a political issue for me, it is a personal issue. While, I do not support abortion, I do of course support medical procedures for women during their pregnancies that might result in the loss of the unborn child. When such an occurrence takes place, that decision on whether to perform that procedure is a very difficult one and one that should be left up to the mother and her family.
Isn’t that interesting how Walsh makes the statement “I will say again” and then refers to “very rare circumstances” when abortion might be necessary? He initially said “you can’t find one instance” where an abortion is medically necessary. It is a neat linguistic trick to say again what was never said in the first place. Walsh’s logic is nearly as amazing as his science, and that probably explains a lot.
He takes that logic a step further by saying that he doesn’t support abortion to save the life of a mother but he does “support medical procedures” that does the same. Oh, yeh. It must be a wonderful world down that rabbit hole where every bumbling statement makes perfect sense.
Walsh is not just making up science to conform to his beliefs. He is also altering and making up new comments from what he is on the record saying. It’s no wonder that he has such a difficult time believing science. He doesn’t even believe what he said a few days earlier.