SUPPORT THINKCIVICS — Donate HERE
OR Subscribe for free to the Civics+ newsletter.
NEWS FEED — GAB — FACEBOOK — TWITTER — RUMBLE
On Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held their hearing on “The Assault on Reproductive Rights in a Post-Dobbs America,” reminiscent of a hearing the House Judiciary Committee had last July, when Democrats also controlled the House. Not only were both hearings full of fearmongering, but also dishonesty when it comes to their support for abortion up until birth.
During his time to ask the witnesses questions, Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) asked “do you support it being legal to abort an unborn child up to the moment of birth,” a pretty straightforward question. One witness called by the Democrats, however, sought to play games with the senator.
After a long pause, Professor Michele Goodwin responded with her claim that “Senator Kennedy, it is not a yes or no question,” before offering another typical pro-abortion talking point that “I support women like Ms. Zurawski,” speaking of another witness called by the Democrats.
Seeking to reclaim his time, Kennedy interjected by pointing out “no, ma’am, no ma’am, I don’t–I think it is a yes or no question,” leading to a back and forth with a witness who would not admit she and the Democratic Party that invited her to speak believe in abortion up until birth.
Kennedy offered her an even more direct question to answer, pointing out “I’m just trying to understand your perspective, and I’m not accusing you of this, but, you know, people sort of talk around this issue,” as he highlighted a key pro-abortion position of those who try to hide from and even outright claim they don’t actually support abortion up until birth.
“If there were a bill that said that a woman has an unfettered right to abort an unborn baby for any reason up to the moment of birth, do you vote yes or would you vote no?”
The witness’ non-answers only got more ridiculous from there. “Senator Kennedy, I refuse to be shackled by your question,” she responded with. “What I have answered is that there are conditions that occur during–”
“You don’t know whether you’d vote yes or no,” Kennedy interjected to ask, again highlighting how the professor would not answer such a straightforward response. Goodwin instead continued to sidestep the question by repeating her point about “conditions in pregnancy” that supposedly necessitated abortions increasingly later into term. “I would support her life, I would support her personhood,” she said, speaking again of Zurawski—her tone getting more passionate as she sought to speak over the senator.
“You would support, you would support–you’re here advocating, you’re advocating a law that says that an unborn baby can be aborted up to the moment of birth for any reason, are you not?”
“Let me clarify what the 14th amendment says in the first sentence,” Goodwin responded back with, not actually clarifying anything at all, and actually asking the senator “do you support our Constitution?”
The senator managed to keep his cool, though, offering: “I’m not trying to argue, I just want to understand what your position is, and I think you’re afraid to say that you do support that. If you do support it, I think–just for the purposes of an intellectual discussion–you ought to just say so.”
Professor Goodwin then went on to claim “for purposes of an intellectual discussion, I’m happy to have that with you,” as Kennedy reminded she wouldn’t answer his direct question and asked it once more. As she again offered that they could have that “intellectual discussion,” the professor still would not answer him, leading Kennedy to chuckle as he offered, “We could start if you answered that question,” reminding her: “I can’t go to my next question ’til you answer that question.” That prompted a “well…” from the witness, who claimed she did want Kennedy to go to his next question and repeated her response about “conditions.”
Making it even easier for her, Kennedy once more asked, phrasing his question as how “no, I said unfettered discretion, no conditions, I’m making it easy for you.” As she continued to not provide an answer, Kennedy was forced to move on, so as to not waste all of his time on the witness.
This exchange is UNBELIEVABLE.
KENNEDY: “If there were a bill that said that a woman has an unfettered right to abort an unborn baby for any reason up to the moment of birth, would you vote yes or would you vote no?”
DEM WITNESS: “I refuse to be shackled by your question!” pic.twitter.com/NAKH8rRbob
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) April 26, 2023
The bill in question that Kennedy is referring to is known as the Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA), which was promoted by Chairman Dick Durbin (D-IL) in his opening remarks. It’s been promoted at length by the White House as well, including from President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris directly. Despite what its supporters claim in a way that misleads on the WHPA, it would not merely codify Roe v. Wade, but rather would expand it to allow for abortion up until birth throughout the country without any legal limit.
When asked the same question, the witnesses called by Republicans actually did answer the straightforward question, which is that they do not support abortion up until the moment of birth.
One such witness, Dr. Ingrid Skop, offered a particularly telling point about how abortion up until birth is not even needed. “I do not support unfettered abortion, and I would like to point out that, if a woman did have a life-threatening condition in pregnancy past approximately 22-weeks, that baby can be delivered alive by induction or C-section, and we can try to save that baby. The intent of abortion is a dead baby, and that is not necessary in that situation,” she shared.
The leading source for breaking news, videos, politics, entertainment, opinion, culture, tech, and more.