President Obama is really working hard to ensure that he has the most militantly pro-abortion administration in history. Power Line notes
Early on, we were alarmed by President Obama’s selection of the radical Dawn Johnsen to head the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel. We have also wondered (based on the reporting of the Wasington Post’s Barton Gellman) about Johnsen’s candor.
Today Johnsen’s radicalism and her lack of candor were both on display before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The issue was Johnsen’s position on the relevance of the Thirteenth Amendment to the abortion issue.
Here is what Johnsen once wrote in a brief to the Supreme Court:
Statutes that curtail [a woman’s] abortion choice are disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude, prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment, in that forced pregnancy requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state’s asserted interest.
Here is Johnsen’s testimony today about that brief:
I made no Thirteenth Amendment argument. I can state categorically I do not believe the Thirteenth Amendment is relevant at all.
Senator Specter, who is pro-abortion, told Johnsen that he did not understand her answer. He was being polite. Although Johnsen’s brief did not argue that restrictions on access to abortions violate the Thirteenth Amendment, it did argue by analogy from that amendment. It is therefore disingenuous for her to deny haveing made a Thirteenth Amendment argument.
Moreover, at the time she filed the brief in question (20 years ago) Johnsen certainly thought the Thirteenth Amendment was relevant; otherwise she would not have cited it. Perhaps she now “categoricaly” believes otherwise. If so, she should admit that she made a Thirteenth Amendment argument, say that she has changed her mind, and attempt to explain why.
Johnsen should also explain whether she stands by this appalling language that also appears in her brief:
The woman] is constantly aware for nine months that her body is not wholly her own: the state has conscripted her body for its own ends. Thus, abortion restrictions “reduce pregnant women to no more than fetal containers.
Johnsen’s appointment is consistent with the emerging (and entirely predictable) trend of the Obama administration — appoint non-radical liberals and a few centrists to cabinet leve positions, and then populate key sub-cabinet jobs with radicals
If she was being considered for a post in the Injustice Department she would be perfect. By the way don’t forget to get a card for Fetal Container Day. Mother is just so passe. If you are really brave and willing to risk death call a pregnant mother a “fetal container” to her face.
12 comments
The state’s “asserted interest”??? I guess Johnsen received state approval to become a “fetal container” for her two sons.
Well, pro-lifers knew about Obama’s agenda ahead of time. This sort of pick is completely in line with his 100% pro-death voting record, his support of infanticide in Illinois, and his promise to pass FOCA as soon as he took office.
It’s a scandal that 54% of Catholics put him in office to make such disasterous appointments.
Disgusting. I cannot believe people actually think this way. Lord, show them the error of their ways.
Surreal.
Funny how “the state” has conscripted my body for its own ends. I thought that my husband and I, with the grace of God, were the ones involved…at least I don’t remember having a federal agent in the room when my children were conceived!
But if I follow her logic out, it implies that my precious children are the property of the state. And that is a FAR more dangerous assertion to make to this mother than calling her a “fetal container.”
Actually, the state’s interest is only supposed to come into play when the well-being of the child is seriously threatened. For example, even though a 2-year-old belongs to parents and not to the state, the state should intervene if the mother decides to get rid of the toddler by shoving him in front of a bus.
Not all societies have done this. For example, in ancient Rome, a father could kill a recalcitrant child legally – ‘patria potestas’. What we have now is ‘matria potestas ‘, effective at least until birth.
Proudly serving as a fetal container.
Have mercy on your people O Lord, they know not what they do.
Couple this with his goal of overturning President Bush’s “conscience” protection for medical personnel and, just today, the apparent nomination of Governor Sebelius as HHS.
So what do young Catholics see as their “role models”? Biden; Pelosi; Sebelius. Be a pro-abortion “Catholic” and your rise to power is assured in the New Order of president Felsenburgh, er, Obama.
And with a few notable exceptions, our pastors scurry for cover or favor.
“the state has conscripted her body for its own ends.”
Oh, did the state impregnate her?Now that would make an interesting sci-fi/IVF story. Bizarre.
I don’t understand you people.
She’s not saying “the fetus belongs to the state.” She’s saying “if the state can force a woman to remain pregnant against her will, then it’s as if the fetus belongs to the state.”
Try reading what folks say/write without your partisan glasses on.
Oh, and by the way–anyone who thinks anyone else is “pro-abortion” or “pro-death” is being either disingenuous, or willfully obtuse–or just plain stupid.
Boots,
Your comment that “Oh, and by the way–anyone who thinks anyone else is “pro-abortion” or “pro-death” is being either disingenuous, or willfully obtuse–or just plain stupid” is what id disingenuous. Do you promote the party line taken by folks like my state’s governor, K. Sebelius, that “I am personally against it, but…” The obvious question is, of course, if there is nothing wrong with abortion, why are you personally against it? Single-ply t.p. holds water better than that argument. “Pro-choice” promoters should at least have the guts to admit the truth: if you are not anti-abortion, you are pro-abortion.