The Corner

Today’s Questions for the President

You have consistently opposed any limitations on abortion rights, including parental-notification laws, waiting periods and restrictions on partial-birth abortion. You even opposed the Illinois state version of the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, requiring that babies who survive botched abortions be provided care and sustenance as any other baby born alive.

Last week, the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (“PRENDA”) was defeated in the House. White House spokesman Jay Carney said, “The administration opposed gender discrimination in all forms. But the end result of this legislation would be to subject doctors to criminal prosecution if they fail to determine the motivations behind a very personal and private decision.” Mr. Carney went on to emphasize, “I think we, again, oppose gender discrimination in all cases. I think our record on that is very clear. The president’s record on that is very clear. But the purpose of the legislation — or the result of the legislation would be to subject doctors to criminal prosecution for failing to divine the motivations of their patients when it comes to a very personal and medical decision.”

Would you support PRENDA if, rather than subjecting doctors to criminal prosecution, the penalties for performing sex-selective abortions were limited to civil fines and/or professional sanctions? If not (and given your opposition to gender discrimination in all forms), what language would you propose that would both prohibit such discrimination and satisfy your concern that doctors not be subject to criminal prosecution?

Mr. Carney’s emphasis on your opposition to gender discrimination in all forms suggests that, but for PRENDA’s criminal sanctions (and perhaps matters pertaining to proof), you would oppose using abortion for choosing the sex of a born child. If this is correct, how is your position consistent with being truly pro-choice? If it is not correct, how can Mr. Carney claim you’re opposed to gender discrimination in all forms? 

Peter Kirsanow — Peter N. Kirsanow is an attorney and a member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights.

Most Popular


G-File Mailbag: The Results of a Bad Idea

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is Jonah Goldberg’s weekly “news”letter, the G-File. Subscribe here to get the G-File delivered to your inbox on Fridays. Dear Reader (Including those of you just standing there eating Zarg nuts), I had a bad idea. It wasn’t a terrible idea, like asking a meth addict ... Read More
Politics & Policy

How Democrats Can Blow It in 2020

Donald Trump probably can’t win the 2020 presidential election, but the Democrats can lose it. What I mean is that in a contest between Trump and a generic Democrat, Trump would almost surely lose if the current political climate holds through 2020. According to a Fox News poll this week, 38 percent of ... Read More
Politics & Policy

The Collusion Scenario

It has become an article of faith in some quarters on the right -- well, most -- that the Mueller investigation has found no evidence of collusion with Russia and has accordingly shifted gears to process crimes like lying to the FBI or obstruction of justice. Having decided that this must be true, many have ... Read More

Democrats’ Border-Barrier Flip-Flop

Is steel more moral than concrete? House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California said last week that she and other Democrats consider a border wall “immoral.” But some of the same Democrats who decry President Donald J. Trump’s proposed concrete wall as a 30-foot-tall human-rights violation actually ... Read More