Question for pro-choice Dems: If gun control is worth doing if it saves just one life, how about limiting late-term abortions?

posted at 4:41 pm on June 19, 2013 by Allahpundit

Via John McCormack, this makes twice in less than a week that a prominent, proudly pro-choice congressional Democrat has been reduced to stammering non sequiturs after a question about late-term abortion. Last time it was Nancy Pelosi, who explained the difference between what Kermit Gosnell did and what Republicans are trying to ban by mumbling something about her faith and then quickly moving on. Today it’s abortion warrior Diana DeGette, co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus and ardent gun-control advocate. (You might remember DeGette from the post-Newtown debate for suggesting that magazines can’t be reloaded.) Simple question for her: Given what we now know about what Gosnell did, why not endorse restrictions on late-term abortion so that other viable babies aren’t serially murdered? “If it saves just one life” was good enough to justify a big gun-control push. Why isn’t it good enough to justify, shall we say, an abortion-control push? Her answer, transcribed by McCormack:

“Many Democrats, when they were arguing for gun control in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting said even if this saves one life it will be worth doing. Why not support this bill then, if it undoubtedly will save lives of babies that have been carried throughout 5 months of pregnancy?”

DeGette said, “Well, this is, this is. … We already have laws in many states of this country. This bill is blatantly unconstitutional.”

“And, and if you look at the perceived—if you look at the stated reason of doing this legislation the Kermit Gosnell case, that gentleman was convicted of murder and sentenced to life,” DeGette said. “Any other questions?”

When CNSNews.com tried to follow up, DeGette said, “No, excuse me. Any other questions?”

So it turns out that constitutional rights do trump if-it-saves-just-one-life imperatives. Imagine that. The answer DeGette wants to give here, obviously, is that no “life” is in play until the baby emerges alive from the womb, or maybe even a few minutes after. (Planned Parenthood seems ambivalent about whether a doctor should be allowed to finish off an infant outside the womb if it survives the initial abortion attempt.) But that’s an answer Democrats seem increasingly uncomfortable offering publicly. When people look at the Gosnell photos or read the description of him keeping feet in jars as souvenirs and feel sick in their gut, how do you turn around and tell that that wasn’t “life”? Better to run away from the question or fall back on a non sequitur citing the fact that he was, after all, prosecuted. Of course he was prosecuted; the question is, should he have been? Should there be murder laws involved here at all? Watch the second clip for that, as McCormack himself asks her if she’d be comfortable banning abortion at any point of pregnancy. Only a fanatic would refuse to draw any line at all. Guess whether she draws one.



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

The Death Panel was brought to you by the Death Party

faraway on June 19, 2013 at 4:43 PM

“Chewbacca…”

Washington Fancy on June 19, 2013 at 4:47 PM

“And, and if you look at the perceived—if you look at the stated reason of doing this legislation the Kermit Gosnell case, that gentleman was convicted of murder and sentenced to life,” DeGette said. “Any other questions?”

Leave it to ta radical feminist to call a murderer, Kermit Gosnell, a gentleman.

sentinelrules on June 19, 2013 at 4:47 PM

These are the same crowd, though, that ridicule pro-life arguments by dishonestly twisting someone’s words to suggest he’s saying that a fetus masturbates.

Anything to distract from any of the other myriad signs of life. It may have human DNA, a functioning brain and nervous and circulatory system, it may suck its thumb and respond to outside stimulii, but never mind all that hoo-haw! Some guys said they masturbate, and that has a dumb, so all arguments about preserving human life are now invalid!

The Schaef on June 19, 2013 at 4:48 PM

“Remember… legal… safe… and rare…” had been the mantra…

All three are no longer the case…

Gosnell is murder…
In a very unsafe environment…
And part of a system that has killed 23% percent of all expected births in the United States in 40 years, removing about $2 trillion annually from our economy using dynamic economics…

Slow clap Dems.

Washington Fancy on June 19, 2013 at 4:49 PM

Keep this up and put these soulless cretins on the spot. The dirty little not-so-secret is that the Democrat Party and pro-abortion lobby are perfectly fine with late-term abortions and many of them(including Dear Leader) are even ok with infanticide. But they prefer it be left up to the woman and her doctor so they’re not forced to publicly defend their position. The whole “ignorance is bliss” mentality.

Doughboy on June 19, 2013 at 4:51 PM

In reply to your question I can only say shut up!

Mason on June 19, 2013 at 4:54 PM

Democ rats are nothing if not hypocrites, on this and all topics.

Schadenfreude on June 19, 2013 at 4:55 PM

If gun control is worth doing if it saves just one life, how about securing our country’s borders ?

burrata on June 19, 2013 at 4:57 PM

Because war on women

forest on June 19, 2013 at 4:58 PM

Speaking of war on women, how many late term abortions occur because the parents find out the baby will be a girl?

forest on June 19, 2013 at 4:59 PM

Hey, Dems, it’s for the children!

Quite literally.

Who are you to ever use them as a foil to justify your draconian policies when you don’t care whether they live or die?

INC on June 19, 2013 at 5:01 PM

Funny how she claims constitutionality about abortion even though it isn’t specifically written in the constitution like guns are.

The Notorious G.O.P on June 19, 2013 at 5:02 PM

Like I said before. Democrats would be ok with the whole Sandy Hook shooting if it was just labeled late term abortion.

The Notorious G.O.P on June 19, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Mark Levin made this point weeks ago. He played all the Dems saying “if it saves one life” meme after the school shooting. It’s as I’ve said for years, if the Repubs were smart they would have Levin as a consultant. He truly is the great one.

neyney on June 19, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Only a fanatic would refuse to draw any line at all. Guess whether she draws one.

She didn’t even refuse to draw a line. She refused to answer the question of whether she would draw a line.

aunursa on June 19, 2013 at 5:05 PM

I could see where she need to move to other questions, quite the crowd in that room.

Cindy Munford on June 19, 2013 at 5:05 PM

Stupacked!!

can_con on June 19, 2013 at 5:07 PM

This. All of this. Put them on the spot. Find the wedge issues and put them on the defensive for once. Pull a Newt and question the premise. Its not some academic debate where you can win on points.

If you’re explaining….you’re losing. Make them explain.

ChrisL on June 19, 2013 at 5:09 PM

De Git.

ddrintn on June 19, 2013 at 5:10 PM

DeGette said, “Well, this is, this is. … We already have laws in many states of this country. This bill is blatantly unconstitutional.”

Hmmmmm… now remind me, does the second amendment explicitly detail a right to bear arms, or to obtain an abortion?

Funny how saving lives only matters to Democrats if those lives end at the barrel of a gun. It’s also funny how in one case we’re talking about self-defense, while in the other case we’re talking about slaughter for the sake of convenience — and how Democrats would much rather preserve the latter than the former.

The difference really comes down to whether you want to protect and defend the innocent and helpless, or if you want to enable predators to slay without obstruction. Be it on gun control or abortion, the Democrats’ position is clear.

Stoic Patriot on June 19, 2013 at 5:10 PM

And what’s the question for those Republicans that want to deemphasize the abortion issue, that realize the issue in most cases and especially cases where the candidate makes no exception for rape or incest, works to lose us elections. It would seem to be reasonable to limit late term abortions, but by constantly bringing the abortion issue up again we serve to remind a huge number of independent voting women and even men that perhaps the false caricature of Republicans as being right wing religious nuts is true. Ok, I understand the strong feeling against abortion, but perhaps even for such an eminently reasonable prohibition on late term abortions, because of the sensitivity of the electorate to abortion and the effectiveness of Democratic appeals on the abortion issue, I wish we’d figure out how to lessen the visibility of that issue.

anotherJoe on June 19, 2013 at 5:10 PM

Yeah, that whole “if it only saves one life” thing was always just a rationalization and not the REAL reason for what the Democrats strive for. Who’s surprised, really, to find that that particular rationale for gun control can’t be applied to things the Democrats don’t want, like limiting late-term abortions?

Aitch748 on June 19, 2013 at 5:11 PM

Yeah, that whole “if it only saves one life” thing was always just a rationalization and not the REAL reason for what the Democrats strive for. Who’s surprised, really, to find that that particular rationale for gun control can’t be applied to things the Democrats don’t want, like limiting late-term abortions?

Aitch748 on June 19, 2013 at 5:11 PM

Nobody, really. They’re shameless liars, and seem to take pride in it. The root of it is that the MSM is in their pocket.

ddrintn on June 19, 2013 at 5:13 PM

I wish we’d figure out how to lessen the visibility of that issue.

anotherJoe on June 19, 2013 at 5:10 PM

Not possible. The progressives run the media, entertainment and academia. Have to take the fight to them.

nobar on June 19, 2013 at 5:13 PM

Speaking of pro-choice, can’t we invent a little up-down button to drop down into the womb so the infant-to-be can weigh in on their own life vs. death? That’s pro-choice or am I missing something?

IndieDogg on June 19, 2013 at 5:15 PM

Ok, I understand the strong feeling against abortion, but perhaps even for such an eminently reasonable prohibition on late term abortions, because of the sensitivity of the electorate to abortion and the effectiveness of Democratic appeals on the abortion issue, I wish we’d figure out how to lessen the visibility of that issue.

anotherJoe on June 19, 2013 at 5:10 PM

Utterly cowardly, and that’s exactly the reason the progs are in the driver’s seat. The Gosnell case was and is a terrific illustration of prog irrationality, and you want to run and hide simply because, let’s face it, the lib-dominated MSM might make fun of you.

ddrintn on June 19, 2013 at 5:17 PM

I trap my sister on so many liberal policies and she responds just like this. Shut up, change the subject, and “you’re so mean!” are her typical resorts. Her reality? she lives in NoVa and thinks Rachel Maddow knows everything.

DanMan on June 19, 2013 at 5:21 PM

and especially cases where the candidate makes no exception for rape or incest

simple solution, require a police report for every claim of rape and incest. It’s been proposed and dems won’t allow it. They always claim its because of the potential further victimization by abusive fathers.

DanMan on June 19, 2013 at 5:27 PM

Ah yes, and there was my Congresswoman, Louise Slaughter, right behind her. No surprise there. Yay New York!

Fools all.

Pope Linus on June 19, 2013 at 5:40 PM

DeGette said, “Well, this is, this is. … We already have laws in many states of this country. This bill is blatantly unconstitutional.”

“And, and if you look at the perceived—if you look at the stated reason of doing this legislation the Kermit Gosnell case, that gentleman was convicted of murder and sentenced to life,” DeGette said. “Any other questions?”

Yeah, I do. How the hell did you get elected to Congress when you can’t form a coherent sentence you ignorant slut? And as a follow-up you partisan bitch- the only reason Gosnell was even on anybody’s radar was illegal scrips not the baby-killing thing. Shouldn’t more care be taken to protect the children?

Happy Nomad on June 19, 2013 at 5:49 PM

Democrats. The party of slavery, Jim Crow and baby murder. Coming soon: Euthanasia.

After all, we don’t want to be the only “civilized” country not killing the old, inform or disabled. How these awful, evil people get votes is beyond me.

MTF on June 19, 2013 at 5:52 PM

it’s almost funny how the abortion lovers always resort to saying things that don’t make sense-what they say doesn’t directly counter the argument. it always tiptoes around the argument.

but it’s not funny. people are being killed. abortion supporters have simply decided that certain people are not “lives” and therefore, it’s okay to kill destroy them. (can’t kill something that’s not alive) it’s very creepy how someone can just declare that someone else is not a life.

but the truth can’t be held back forever….

Sachiko on June 19, 2013 at 6:04 PM

“I can see from your line of questioning that goodbye.” *runs*

DarthBrooks on June 19, 2013 at 6:04 PM

…you want to run and hide simply because, let’s face it, the lib-dominated MSM might make fun of you.
ddrintn on June 19, 2013 at 5:17 PM

I was thinking not so much about the MSM per se, but the Democratic advertisements that play hard on the abortion issue, even against candidates that haven’t done anything as “egregious” as Akins or Murdoch in their clumsy voicing of their support for no exceptions for rape. The Dems can be effective in ads just by alluding to the abortion issue. That’s why even bringing up the issue for something like this could have negative repercussions.

anotherJoe on June 19, 2013 at 6:06 PM

when it gets to election time, and the press hits the GOP candidate with the rape/abortion question, the gun control/abortion question needs to get thrown at the democRAT candidate

burserker on June 19, 2013 at 6:08 PM

Diana Dontgetit….a Denver moron of epic proportion….Colorado, once a great state, now all Californicated up…glad I left.

hillsoftx on June 19, 2013 at 6:08 PM

We already have laws in many states of this country. This bill is blatantly unconstitutional.”

Two points…

1) It’s not “constitutional” it’s “defined by SCOTUS during Roe v Wade… slight difference.

2) More importantly Roe v Wade defends abortion of a fetus that is “not viable”… and they define “viable” clearly.

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Roe_v._Wade.html

The Roe decision defined “viable” as being “potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid,”

That is not “extremely likely to live” or “has a good chance to live” that is “potentially able to live”.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1380282/Earliest-surviving-premature-baby-goes-home-parents.html

21 weeks 5 days lived… are we certain that 20 weeks isn’t “potentially able to live”?

That’s the SCOTUS Roe v Wade criteria here… or if you’re DeGette the “Constitutional” criteria.

As it is written as science changes the “Constitutional” protection changes.

gekkobear on June 19, 2013 at 6:09 PM

but it’s not funny. people are being killed. abortion supporters have simply decided that certain people are not “lives” and therefore, it’s okay to kill destroy them. (can’t kill something that’s not alive) it’s very creepy how someone can just declare that someone else is not a life.

Sachiko on June 19, 2013 at 6:04 PM

Ooh, ooh! I’ve got a few groups of certain people that I’d like to decide are not ‘lives’ and therefore…

Libs ok with that? We could even call it ‘late term abortion’ if that’d help! I’ll bet I could get libtards on various college campii and protests to support it, while they’re also signing petitions banning H2O and such…

Midas on June 19, 2013 at 6:18 PM

55 million dead as the Dems smile and the unconnected still think they don’t do death panels?

Don L on June 19, 2013 at 6:19 PM

And what’s the question for those Republicans that want to deemphasize the abortion issue, that realize the issue in most cases and especially cases where the candidate makes no exception for rape or incest, works to lose us elections. It would seem to be reasonable to limit late term abortions, but by constantly bringing the abortion issue up again we serve to remind a huge number of independent voting women and even men that perhaps the false caricature of Republicans as being right wing religious nuts is true. Ok, I understand the strong feeling against abortion, but perhaps even for such an eminently reasonable prohibition on late term abortions, because of the sensitivity of the electorate to abortion and the effectiveness of Democratic appeals on the abortion issue, I wish we’d figure out how to lessen the visibility of that issue.

anotherJoe on June 19, 2013 at 5:10 PM

why would we want to lessen the visibility of this? innocent people are being killed. do you want it to stop, or not? we have to keep spreading the truth.

btw, how come people whose parents are rapists/incestuous do not count as human lives, just because of the bad things their parents did?

Sachiko on June 19, 2013 at 6:24 PM

When Senator Obama demanded the post-birth slaughter of failed abortion babies he used his Harvard Law (legal term) “Intent” meaning if a woman intended to slaughter her offspring then it didn’t matter to him if it was done after it was born. We elected him anyway–and he never did say how long that “intent” legal hook was valid, 3hrs, 3 days, 3 years, or 3 decades.

As Hillary would say in supporting such evil: “What difference does it make now?”

Don L on June 19, 2013 at 6:26 PM

Ooh, ooh! I’ve got a few groups of certain people that I’d like to decide are not ‘lives’ and therefore…

Libs ok with that? We could even call it ‘late term abortion’ if that’d help! I’ll bet I could get libtards on various college campii and protests to support it, while they’re also signing petitions banning H2O and such…

Midas on June 19, 2013 at 6:18 PM

haha, true…

Sachiko on June 19, 2013 at 6:29 PM

Speaking of war on women, how many late term abortions occur because the parents find out the baby will be a girl?
forest on June 19, 2013 at 4:59 PM

Past 20 weeks? A minute number compared to those late terminations performed for aneuploidy and congenital defects incompatible with life. Since you asked. Believe it or not a lot of those pregnancies are terminated in hospitals.

Marcus on June 19, 2013 at 6:39 PM

21 weeks 5 days lived… are we certain that 20 weeks isn’t “potentially able to live”?

That’s the SCOTUS Roe v Wade criteria here… or if you’re DeGette the “Constitutional” criteria.

As it is written as science changes the “Constitutional” protection changes.

gekkobear on June 19, 2013 at 6:09 PM

Exactly. Twenty years from now there will be kids born at 20 weeks and they’ll be saying 18 weeks. It’s completely arbitrary: kids at 20 weeks then will be no more or less developmentally progressed than they are today, just like they’re no different now at 25 weeks than they were 50 years ago, or at 30 weeks than they were a hundred years ago.

And of course, if you’re not within reach of the kind of medical care to sustain a baby that premature, then the fetus is not viable strictly on the basis of your location (in addition to the six inches of mommy between them and the outside world). So someone in Ghana would conceivably be perfectly justified having an abortion that is completely out of bounds here. Nothing racist about that, right? But then, this IS the party that defends the practice that killed 30 million women before they were even born, and says the OTHER party is conducting a War on Women.

congenital defects incompatible with life.

Marcus on June 19, 2013 at 6:39 PM

Like being female. Or if you’re talking the US instead of China, Down’s Syndrome.

The Schaef on June 19, 2013 at 7:05 PM

Speaking of war on women, how many late term abortions occur because the parents find out the baby will be a girl?

forest on June 19, 2013 at 4:59 PM

Here, millions.

Worldwide, hundreds of millions.

itsnotaboutme on June 19, 2013 at 7:08 PM

This woman is sick.

Anyone who supports this practice is trash.

bluegill on June 19, 2013 at 7:17 PM

itsnotaboutme on June 19, 2013 at 7:08 PM

Attributing even those abortions performed well before 20 weeks to sex-choice of the fetus in the United States to be in the millions is pure BS.

I see both sides of the argument lie with ease. And I’ve been a primary care women’s physician for going on 30 years.

Marcus on June 19, 2013 at 7:37 PM

Abortion on demand..even in the 9th month..why shouldn’t a mother have the right to murder her baby at the very end of labor? that’s her constitutional right! —— Democrats

sadsushi on June 19, 2013 at 7:47 PM

Allah, I have learned in my long life to never equate something you care for with something you don’t. When you equate abortion and saving one life you are then giving importance to the nonsense about “If gun control saves just one child’s life” you can expect your opponent to say “OK, let’s pass both” one day. And then you have to live with your poor equivalence of two very different issues, one of which is covered by the second amendment to our Constitution and the other is not.

inspectorudy on June 19, 2013 at 8:36 PM

Awesome.

Fire for effect, gang. The only way we’re going to rid ourselves of these asshats is by pouring massive amounts of sunlight on their every word and action. We have to drown them in their own rank stupidity and offensiveness.

nukemhill on June 19, 2013 at 10:24 PM

Attributing even those abortions performed well before 20 weeks to sex-choice of the fetus in the United States to be in the millions is pure BS.

I see both sides of the argument lie with ease. And I’ve been a primary care women’s physician for going on 30 years.

Marcus on June 19, 2013 at 7:37 PM

Sex choice is a red herring argument in any event. It does well to catch people short, and react by saying, oh, we don’t support abortion for petty reasons like that. But that just puts the lie to the whole argument. If it’s not a living human, it wouldn’t matter what the reasons are: genetic defect, or single parent status, or gender, or anything. It would just be the oft-referred “blob of cells”.

It’s the same false deference as in the phrase “safe, legal and rare”. If the procedure were both safe and legal, it shouldn’t matter if it’s rare.

The Schaef on June 19, 2013 at 10:27 PM

When you equate abortion and saving one life you are then giving importance to the nonsense about “If gun control saves just one child’s life” you can expect your opponent to say “OK, let’s pass both” one day. And then you have to live with your poor equivalence of two very different issues
inspectorudy on June 19, 2013 at 8:36 PM

No, I don’t, because it’s based on their reasoning, not mine. Saying they should pass both means nothing more than that they are forced to be consistent with their own reasons for seeking such legislation.

I support gun rights because people have an inherent right to defend themselves and their own. I support abortion legislation because people have an inherent right to life. The only thing required of me to remain consistent within my own rationale, is to support legislation that stops people from using guns to infringe on the rights of others (e.g. robbing or shooting them).

The Schaef on June 19, 2013 at 10:35 PM

Only a fanatic would refuse to draw any line at all. Guess whether she draws one.

Only a “pro-life” fanatic would call her fanatic for her answer. It was a reasonable answer.

thuja on June 20, 2013 at 12:16 AM

Attributing even those abortions performed well before 20 weeks to sex-choice of the fetus in the United States to be in the millions is pure BS.

Marcus on June 19, 2013 at 7:37 PM

Ayeah; maybe in China you might be able to get away with that argument. In the USA? Lol. Yeah right, umpty-million abortions in a mostly-free Western nation all because their DNA-donors (I refuse to call them parents) wanted a boy or girl and got the opposite.

Like every other piece of pro-murderdom, it’s absurdity at it’s worst.

MelonCollie on June 20, 2013 at 12:18 AM

Only a “pro-life” fanatic would call her fanatic for her answer. It was a reasonable answer.

thuja on June 20, 2013 at 12:16 AM

Only a walking argument for post-natal abortion like you would call that reasonable.

MelonCollie on June 20, 2013 at 12:18 AM

I was thinking not so much about the MSM per se, but the Democratic advertisements that play hard on the abortion issue, even against candidates that haven’t done anything as “egregious” as Akins or Murdoch in their clumsy voicing of their support for no exceptions for rape. The Dems can be effective in ads just by alluding to the abortion issue. That’s why even bringing up the issue for something like this could have negative repercussions.

anotherJoe on June 19, 2013 at 6:06 PM

What was so wrong about what Murdoch said?

cptacek on June 20, 2013 at 12:33 AM

Only a fanatic would refuse to draw any line at all. Guess whether she draws one.

Only a “pro-life” fanatic would call her fanatic for her answer. It was a reasonable answer.

thuja on June 20, 2013 at 12:16 AM

Pro-life fanatic is an oxymoron, much like Tea Party extremist. There is nothing fanatical about being opposed to death.

Being in favor of solving unwanted pregnancies by killing a baby is the radical and extremist position.

There Goes the Neighborhood on June 20, 2013 at 1:24 AM

…you want to run and hide simply because, let’s face it, the lib-dominated MSM might make fun of you.
ddrintn on June 19, 2013 at 5:17 PM

I was thinking not so much about the MSM per se, but the Democratic advertisements that play hard on the abortion issue, even against candidates that haven’t done anything as “egregious” as Akins or Murdoch in their clumsy voicing of their support for no exceptions for rape. The Dems can be effective in ads just by alluding to the abortion issue. That’s why even bringing up the issue for something like this could have negative repercussions.

anotherJoe on June 19, 2013 at 6:06 PM

I’m not sure which is more disgusting: the people who are willing to kill babies, or the people who would rather win an election than take a stand on principle.

But abortion exists as it does because of both groups.

There Goes the Neighborhood on June 20, 2013 at 1:28 AM

I think that part of any sex ed course they give at our educational training camps for life otherwise known as school…. should include abortion clinics and NIC-U / or Preemie units of area hospitals… you know to let them see for themselves what is really fact verses the BS sandwich the anti-life crowd is trying to force feed everyone.

I think most young girls would just stop long enough to think about someone else…ie their living developing baby once they can attach a reality that babies can and do survive at earlier stages than they are being told by the death camp counselors.

Evil wears Prada!

ActinUpinTexas on June 20, 2013 at 2:52 PM