In a November 4 joint appearance with fellow Democrats at the University of Virginia, embattled State Senator Edd Houck (VA-17), made an historical misattribution of significant proportion.

In a desperate attempt to justify his abominable pro-abortion, pro-Planned-Parenthood voting record, Houck invoked Thomas Jefferson as one who would support a woman’s right to “make her own decisions,” as reported by the Daily Progress:

“As we stand here in front of Mr. Jefferson’s Rotunda, one of the principles that Jefferson always espoused was individual liberties and individual freedom,” Houck said. “Well guess what, my opponent made it very clear in a debate last night that he stands squarely opposite of what I believe and what Mr. Jefferson believes: that a woman has the personal freedom to make her own decisions.” [emphasis added]

Principled men of Jefferson’s day never would have supported abortion on demand as Houck does. They recognized that children were a gift from God—not a “punishment” and not to be bodily sacrificed at the altar of personal convenience.

But Houck also got it wrong in attributing to Jefferson a favorable outlook on women’s “personal freedom.” In fact, Jefferson pictured a woman’s place as in the home caring for her children. He also opposed American women taking an active role in politics as he’d observed French women doing in their homeland. A letter to George Washington made clear Jefferson’s position on women in politics:

The manners of the nation allow them to visit, alone, all persons in office, to solicit the affairs of the husband, family, or friends, and their solicitations bid defiance to laws and regulation . . . [Few Americans] can possibly understand the desperate state which things are reduced in this country from the omnipotence of an influence which, fortunately for the happiness of the sex itself, does not endeavor to extend itself in our country beyond the domestic line.

Professor Edd’s historical ignorance does not end with Jefferson, however. In an October 4 Daily Progress story, Houck implies that the Bible can be interpreted to support abortion. He further states that morality and God’s word is not absolute, but rather, relative:

I think [pro-life theology] is one interpretation of what the holy scriptures say. I think it is an abomination to pull the Bible and to use churches in the way that my opponent is doing in this campaign. It’s way over the top. The holy scriptures are something that each person finds their own way of understanding and believing in…” [emphasis added]

So much for Edd’s historical grasp—such wildly inaccurate statements indicate an extreme level of desperation in Houck’s flailing re-election campaign as well as his dangerous ignorance of Jeffersonian history and Biblically based Christianity.

Edd Houck: Desperate. Ignorant.

Desperately ignorant.

Previous articleWhere’s the beef: Occupy Charlottesville flanking state food safety laws?
Next articleBreaking news: JATP Leadership statement about the “occupation” of Lee Park
Rob Schilling is founder of the multi-award-winning Schilling Show Blog and News, proprietor of Schilling Show Media; host of both the Schilling Show Unleashed Podcast and WINA's The Schilling Show heard weekdays at noon; husband; father; worship leader, Christian recording artist and Community Watchdog.


  1. The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government.
    Thomas Jefferson

  2. In as much as we have supposed representatives who do not even bother to read the bills they pass, I am highly doubtful that Edd Houck has taken the time to read and study enough of ANY founding father, the Declaration of Independence, nor the Constitution, to intelligently know where Mr.Jefferson would stand on anything.

  3. Rob, here is a thought. We are told, incorrectly, that our's is a nation founded with a "Godless Constitution." This is why we are able to espouse the frredom of a woman's right to choose. If we were to accept that as an axiom, then logically, if we are able to, as a state, support the in womb murder of the innocent unborn, why do we not execute criminals freely? If we have established that we are indeed not governed by a higher authority, then why do we extend the right to life to known individuals who do not contribute anything of use to society? For all of the number cruncher's, who do not recognize a higher spiritual authority, it is a no brainer. Make anything more than a misdemeanor an executable offense. After all, we kill millions of citizens every year, who've not had a chance to breathe, much less commit a crime against society. So why not eradicate those who have proven that they are a threat. Besides, at approximately 27,000 dollars a year to house just one prisoner in the state of Virginia, and at last count we had nearly 40,000 incarcerated, look at the money we could save, less the cost of a fifty cent bullet. Now I wonder what Mr. Jefferson would think of that?

  4. I’m pro-life, but in regards to Jefferson, Houck was making the obvious point that Jefferson championed liberty. Was the man as good as his principles? No. Who is? Did he even fully understand the practical implications of his principles? Probably not. How many of us are that far ahead of our times?

    The fact remains that Jefferson, like today’s Right, stood for individual liberty over government restrictions, and that in regards to abortion, you’re not living up to what you always profess as your highest political principle.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here