More Dawn “I don’t think the 13th Amendment Is Relevant At All” Johnsen on Pregnancy & Involuntary Servitude

In my column today, I examine DOJ Office of Legal Council nominee Dawn Johnsen’s claim to have been shocked, shocked to read my article (in the current edition of NR), discussing the 1989 Supreme Court brief in which she argued that abortion funding restrictions lead to unwanted pregnancies which are analogous to involuntary servitude.

I’m now informed that she really should not have been that shocked, since that was not the only time that she made those claims.  In an interview with Glamour magazine in 1989 reported in PR Newswire, Johnsen said the following: “Our position is that there is no ‘father’ and no ‘child’—just a fetus.”  She continued, “Any move by the courts to force a woman to have a child amounts to involuntary servitude.” 

This makes her statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee that “I can state categorically: I do not believe the Thirteenth Amendment is relevant at all” even more puzzling.  Not only did she cite the 13th Amendment in her brief; it is the amendment that prohibits involuntary servitude.  She may attempt to parse words, but this statement makes clear her position: Any restriction on abortions amounts to involuntary servitude.  She can analogize all she wants, but that is extreme.