Proverbial “hats off” to Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT), for grilling former California Attorney General, and now U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), Xavier Beccera on the subject of whether partial-birth abortion is illegal in the U.S.
On June 10, Daines pressed this former top-prosecutor for California and newly sainted head of the unconstitutional HHS, asking a simple question: is partial-birth abortion illegal in the U.S.?
Daines then tweeted video of the exchange, showing Beccera repeatedly skirt the question by first replying:
What I can tell you is that women in this country, under Roe v. Wade, have a right—
Daines cut off the rest, and repeated his question. But it’s worth noting that, even in those few words, Beccera gets it wrong.
Women don’t “have a right” to anything based on some court ruling. People either have rights prior to and apart from the government, or they do not. Government does not give people rights, God does.
So, Daines repeated his question, and Beccera, adopting the classic dodge of the sophist replied:
Senator, again, we’re going to get into this technical discussion…
Daines had to remind him that it is not a “technical discussion…”
It’s a question. Is it legal or illegal?
Beccera’s reply? More of the same nonsense.
A woman has a right to receive abortion care…
Ahh, yes. That euphemism for murder: “abortion care.”
As Secretary of HHS, I would hope you understand that Title 18, of the US Code, Section 1531, signed into law in 2003, states that partial-birth abortion is illegal. Do you agree with that?
Beccera still would not answer, showing that, as head of HHS, he is not prepared to execute the statute banning partial-birth abortions.
Senator I could talk to you about the legal cases that have arisen because of that particular statute, but it’s probably better to say to you that a woman has a right in this country to exercise reproductive choice.
Here’s the first big thing to remember:
Engaging in reproductive choice occurs before the act of reproduction, in other words, before conception. Once a new human life is conceived, reproduction has occurred. Euphemistically calling the taking of a life “reproductive choice” is damnably foul and foolish.
Here’s the second:
Roe v. Wadehas no bearing on the 2003 federal Partial-Birth Abortion ban.
Here’s the third:
The federal Partial-Birth Abortion ban is extra-constitutional. As set out in the enumerated powers of Articles One, Two, and Three, and as reiterated in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, the definition of Capitol Murder crime is left up to the states. As much as pro-life people might not like it, federalism demands that state legislatures determine these crimes and the penalties.
However, that brings us to point four:
The Fourteenth Amendment “Equal Protection Clause” dictates that all states with prohibitions against murder must protect all people equally, and since a fetus is a human and it is being – a human being – any state statute protecting humans outside the womb must also be applied to humans in the womb.
And, finally, point five:
As laudatory as Daines’s questions for their ability to expose Beccera, Daines might have gone further, noting that Beccera’s job and the entire HHS are not sanctioned by the U.S. Constitution that created Daines’ Senate Seat.
So, hats off to Daines, in a way, but, also, a reminder to him that he swore an oath to uphold his heralded Constitution, and because of this, he has an obligation to expose not only Beccera’s position on the 2003 statute, but the statute as unconstitutional and the entire HHS as the same.
Related: Obama Admin. Buying Aborted Baby Parts From Planned Parenthood Customer
(Cover Photo: Gage Skidmore)