The Family Research Council, a religious right powerhouse spun off from Dobson’s Focus on the Family, hosted a “Blog for Life” event yesterday on the national Mall, marking the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. There were plenty of odd moments, including a speaker who displayed an article titled “Abortionist Accused of Eating Fetuses.” Another participant distributed cards saying “Birth Control Is Harmful.”
But if we just stick to the Republican presidential candidates who were on hand for the event, it’s a tough call which of the two offered the more breathtaking comment. Candidate #1: Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.).
Brownback … was in his element. He announced his introduction of the “Unborn Pain Awareness Act” and vowed to protect all “children of a living God.” Asking why disabled Americans are protected but not fetuses with abnormalities, he demanded: “What’s the difference — location?” For emphasis, he introduced a 4-year-old girl with Down syndrome. He urged the listeners to speak to abortion-rights supporters with “truth encased in love.”
“Roe v. Wade is going to be overturned,” he told the cheering crowd. Brownback predicted that would happen “a few years from now,” and abortion will be illegal unless a mother’s life is at risk, he said.
[George] Isajiw of the Catholic Medical Association rose to argue that even an exception to protect a mother’s life is unnecessary. “That’s a good point,” Brownback responded. “Well said.”
It’s a “good point” to deny an exception for pregnant women who would likely die during delivery? That’s Brownback’s position on the issue?
Next up is Candidate #2: Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.)
Appearing at yesterday’s rally, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) delivered a speech declaring that judicial nominees should be given a ‘sonogram test’ before being confirmed. “If we have a judicial applicant…who can look at a sonogram of an unborn child and not see the value of human life,” then “he will not receive a judicial appointment,” Hunter announced. “I tell you what you he will receive, he will get an appointment with an optometrist so he can get a pair of eye glasses.”
For all the talk about the perils of litmus tests, Hunter said every federal judicial nominee — Supreme Court on down — should apparently face a “sonogram test” as a precursor to a nomination. That ought to go over well in a country that a) has a pro-choice majority; and b) likes to at least strive for an impartial, objective judiciary.
I’m trying to decide which of the two was more offensive. On the one hand, Brownback suggested women whose lives are in danger still shouldn’t be able to get an abortion, but he applauded someone else making the comment; he didn’t say it on his own. On the other hand, Hunter seriously argued that we should judge judicial nominees based on how they view a sonogram.
Let’s open the floor — which of these two were more over the top?