Chicago Sun-Times
Staff reports on all things politics - from City Hall to Springfield to Washington, D.C.

Joe Walsh: abortions never necessary to save life of mother

| 11 Comments | No TrackBacks

The abortion conversation came up during the final match-up in the 8th congressional debate Thursday night, with Tammy Duckworth accusing Joe Walsh of preferring to let a woman die rather than allow abortions in some instances.

Walsh charged that wasn't fair.

In a news availability afterward, Walsh said that these days, abortion was never necessary to save the life of a woman.

"With modern technology and science, you can't find one instance," where a woman's life was in danger because of an unborn child, Walsh said. "There is no such exception as life of the mother, and as far as health of the mother, same thing."

Duckworth responded to Walsh's claims in a statement:

I am saddened by my opponents remarks. Not only do they show how uninformed he is, but his views put women's lives in real danger. Prohibiting a woman to have an abortion when her life is at risk shows a blatant disregard for the facts and a carelessness that is not acceptable from an elected official. It is essential that we condemn Congressman Walsh's remarks and continue to work towards empowering women to be able to make their own choices about their bodies.

The abortion exchange was sparked by a question about an ad hitting the incumbent congressman hard on the issue.
Walsh described himself as 'Pro-life without exception."

He said he did not believe in an exception for rape and incest because -- "there's still a life there." He then added: "the life of the woman is not an exception." Walsh nicked Duckworth for having the complete opposite view.

"[Duckworth] actually supports tax-payer funding of abortions," Walsh said.

Duckworth went full steam ahead at her response.

"I'm pro-choice without restriction, and here though, Mr. Walsh ... what he said -- not for rape, incest or life of the mother -- he would let a woman die rather than give her, than to give the doctor the option to save her life."

Walsh interrupted her, all the while saying: "That's not fair."

After the debate, Walsh later explained his remark that the life of the woman is not an exception, saying that medically today, the health of the mother is not a reason for an abortion.

No TrackBacks

TrackBack URL:


This is horrifying on two levels. First, and foremost, it absolutely and positively bad information. But now, there are some women who will believe that their doctor is lying to them and that they really don't have to think about the issue because "medical technology" will keep them safe. Second, it demeans the pain that has been suffered by women and the people who love them who have confronted issues like. For example, if you are experiencing an ectopic pregnancy, your life is at stake. If you have placenta previa and begin to hemorrhage, your life is at stake! Do we want doctors to be afraid to act to protect a mother because there has been a legislative determination that actions to protect a mother are never medically necessary?

Why does anyone ask male politicians their stance on abortion, in evolutionary terms they would never be in a position to actually get one. So why ask and get an answer thats most likely going to piss women off?

I understand these are the people we elected into congress which then have control over those laws that could potentially harm women in turn but what do we expect from people like Joe Walsh and countless of others who say such irrational and illogical things such as abortion and "modern technology".

As women we need to stand up to people like Mr. Walsh and let him know he will not define abortion in his own terms and decide who it is meant for and who it is not.


Hey pro-lifers:

Where is the support for single mothers who were promised support by deadbeat dad's who don't pay?

Where is the providing of medical insurance for crack babies who are born and live in constant withdrawal pain?

Are you going to provide a job and health care to all of these "lives" that you are "saving?"

Pro-lifers are all the same. "Oooh, life is sacred, we must protect it." Until birth, that is. Then they kick the little brats to the curb and tell them they're on their own. "My tax dollars shouldn't be spent to provide health care to someone else. They're just lazy!" What pathetic and cruel hypocrisy.

That there newfangled Google is downright confusing, right Walsh? Here, let me help you:

To Jimmy:

That is the first thing that comes to mind with these pro-life folks. They want abortion to be illegal; yet, the complain about their tax dollars going to the welfare system. I guess its not enough to the pro-life folks that a woman would rather keep her baby and live on welfare a few years until she get her life together (college/trade school). Not every woman in a situation is not going to put that baby up for adoptation. Also they forget their friends, like Joe Walsh, are one of the reasons why their tax money is going to welfare system. Even the judge blasted Walsh's attorney because Walsh was a no-show for the child support hearings.

Just like Jesse Jackson, Jr. He should not be re-elected, period.

"Thanks" to Fox Noise and Religious Fundamentalism for making Americans stupid enough to vote in this moron in the first place. Even more pathetic that he still has supporters!

Joe Walsh is an uninformed idiot!! I had an ectopic pregnancy 26 years ago; it was hemorrhaging and threatened to rupture, which would have killed me, leaving my husband a 30 YO widower. Because of an emergency so-called "abortion" to delete that bleeding mass and a D&C to prevent infection, I lived another 26 years and have two wonderful young adult children as a result of that life-saving abortion.
I'd ask Joe this: If it were your wife who was going to die unless the doctor performed an abortion, would you let her die?? Sure you would!
Doubt it, hypocrite!!!

Hey Jimmy,

Off topic dude. The topic is performing abortions when the mother's life is in question, not about the women's right TO CHOOSE. Different issue altogether. There is unstable ideals on both sides of this issue. But if the mother's life is in jepoardy, her life should come first. I also agree on SKCHGO comments on why are we asking a male's point of view on abortion and birth in general? It should be up to the women on her choice. If you stand be and think for a second, we are sounding much like the communist country China's views on 2-limited children (eventhough they are really overcrowed there)..

Whichever way you look at it, you are devaluating human life to "throw-away" status.

I am one instance where an abortion was necessary to save my life. I was hemorrhaging during my pregnancy, and my 16 week old twins had heart beats. Had my doctor not terminated my pregnancy, both me and the twins would have died.
How sad this jerk is so uninformed :(

All pro lifers do not think and act this way. That's just plain nonsense. I firmly support public assistance for women who need it for the medical care of their children etc. Not everyone can make ends meet. That has nothing to do with being lazy. Anyone who would call themselves pro life and act and think this way is despicable in my opinion. Also, this Joe Walsh guy who claims there are NO circumstances where terminating a pregnancy to save the mother's life. That statement is so false that I don't know where to begin. Any pro lifer who would not intervene by taking the baby to save a woman's life has got to be insane. These cases are in fact rare, but yes, these tragedies do happen.

How dare you claim all pro lifers act and think in the way you describe. This is simply not the case.

Leave a comment