WTTW's Chicago Tonight hosted a debate between Sen. Dick Durbin and GOP challenger Steve Sauerberg last night. When the topic turned to social issues, Sauerberg focused primarily on his "personal involvement in crisis pregnancy centers." But not before dropping this little ditty: "[A] U.S. senator doesn't have any impact on any issues in regards to choice versus -- any legislation in that area to speak of."
Well, that's ... just ... not true at all.
Watch it:
If the Senate really has no "impact" on reproductive choice, why would pro-life groups have contributed nearly $6 million to congressional candidates since 1990?
It's certainly true that -- when it comes to overturning Roe v. Wade -- the make-up of the Supreme Court is paramount (though the Senate plays an integral role in determining that composition). But beyond that, Congress can still take legislative action to restrict abortion rights. In the extreme, they can pass a constitutional amendment banning abortion. They can also pass measures in an attempt to force the Supreme Court's hand. As Allison Stevens explains in an article on the competing Partial Birth Abortion Act and Freedom of Choice Act, a battle over choice is indeed being waged on Capitol Hill:
The legislative counteroffensive marks a new era in Congress in which pro-choice lawmakers are taking the offensive, a contrast to the past dozen years, when Republicans held the reigns of power and presided over a series of legislative efforts to restrict access to abortion.
The ban upheld by the court on Wednesday sailed through Congress in October 2003. With the court ruling to uphold it, the law is expected to take effect within the next month.
The House backed the measure 281-142; the Senate 64-34. In both chambers a considerable number of Democrats voted for the bill and Bush signed it into law that November. Until Wednesday, it was held back by legal challenges to its lack of a health exception for the woman.
Under the law, a woman would still be able to access certain kinds of second trimester abortions but would not necessarily be able to have the banned procedure, even if her doctor considered it the safest and best for her individual circumstances. Doctors found guilty of breaking the law could face up to two years in prison.
For more on the debate, check out Rick Pearson's report in the Tribune.
Phil Collins (not verified) on Wed, 10/08/2008 - 12:57
The 10th Amendment states that all powers that aren't reserved for the federal government, in the Constitution, are reserved for the states. I read every word of the Constitution, and I didn't see the word "abortion." Therefore, Roe vs. Wade was unconstitutional. Each state legislature should pass a law which states that abortion is homicide, except to save the mother's life.
Post new comment