On Tuesday, a Congressional hearing was held on the constitutionality of the highly controversial H.R. 3 bill, aka The No Taxpayer Funding For Abortions Act. This being a hearing on the constitutionality of the bill (which is also somewhat suspect), House Republicans decided to support the bill on moral grounds. Confusing, no?
Sadly, the Republicans apparently didn’t get the whole constitution message, because each decided to talk about how much of an abomination abortion is and forget about that silly document they claim to uphold. You know, the one about individual liberties and freedoms?
Thankfully the extremely pro-life Republican panel had some shrewd “insight” into the constit- uhh moral problems with our current NON-TAXPAYER FUNDING (see Hyde Amendment) of abortions. After the obligatory Planned Parenthood bashing by Rep. Mike Pence, fellow Republican Rep. Steve King brought out a chart showing how a partial birth abortion is performed, asking if the panelists would be morally opposed to watching the procedure themselves.
The constitutional debate didn’t stop there. Witness Richard Doerflinger of the pro-life U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops decided he was going espouse his philosophy on why rape-based provisions in abortion legislation shouldn’t be there. He stated:
I’ve met some kids who were conceived in rape, they and their mothers are great people and they are glad it was not an abortion. The objection [to the word forcible] … was people saying it doesn’t mean that rape already means forcible so if you say forcible rape that’s redundant.
I would not know what it is like to have a pregnancy resulting from rape. And these women who decided to have their children despite the horrific process are no doubt courageous.
But at the end of the day it was their choice to have that child. Just because Mr. Doerflinger believes something and he has found others who agree, do0esn’t make it the law of the land. If that’s the way America worked, then we would not have a democracy based upon rights, but an authoritarian government based on the whims of those in power. (Goodbye, Constitution.)
Lastly, “forcible rape” is not redundant. Last time I checked, this addition is a big deal, as it allows for a reinterpretation of our own rape statutes. That means potentially the bill would lead a judge to say that a drug or alcohol-induced rape is not rape anymore.
Mr. Doerflinger proves there are people in this country who would not mind restricting the rights granted to us in the Constitution (you know, that document the hearing was on) on the basis of their moral agenda. I believe Ms. Rosenbaum said it best: “I prefer actually to keep my moral positions out of this hearing; I have very strongly held religious and moral views on many things.”
This post is brought to you by Salvatore.