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


Cold Brew’s Insidious Hegemony

Soon, many parts of the United States will be unbearably hot. Texans and Arizonans will be able to bake cookies on their car dashboards; the garbage on the streets of New York will be especially pungent; Washington will not only figuratively be a swamp. And all across America, coffee consumers will turn their ... Read More
National Security & Defense

The Warmonger Canard

Whatever the opposite of a rush to war is — a crawl to peace, maybe — America is in the middle of one. Since May 5, when John Bolton announced the accelerated deployment of the Abraham Lincoln carrier group to the Persian Gulf in response to intelligence of a possible Iranian attack, the press has been aflame ... Read More

Australia’s Voters Reject Leftist Ideas

Hell hath no fury greater than left-wingers who lose an election in a surprise upset. Think Brexit in 2016. Think Trump’s victory the same year. Now add Australia. Conservative prime minister Scott Morrison shocked pollsters and pundits alike with his victory on Saturday, and the reaction has been brutal ... Read More
NR Webathon

We’ve Had Bill Barr’s Back

One of the more dismaying features of the national political debate lately is how casually and cynically Attorney General Bill Barr has been smeared. He is routinely compared to Roy Cohn on a cable-TV program that prides itself on assembling the most thoughtful and plugged-in political analysts and ... Read More