« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Obama Nominee Says First Amendment Protects Taxpayer-Funded Abortions

President Barack Obama’s nominee for deputy secretary of state said in written congressional testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that taxpayer funding of abortions is constitutionally protected under the First Amendment in the United States.

The nominee, James B. Steinberg, was defending Obama’s repeal of the Mexico City Policy in response to a question from Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). The answer, which DeMint posted on his blog, is fresh evidence that Obama is stocking his administration with left-wing ideologues whose views contrast with the tone Obama has sought to portray during his first week in office.

Here’s a transcript of the written exchange (emphasis added):

Question from Senator DeMint: For more than 30 years the Hyde amendments, which prohibit federal funding for abortion services, have been supported by Republican and Democrat administrations and Congresses. Unfortunately, while this is the domestic policy of the United States, President Obama has vowed to reverse our foreign policy by repealing the Mexico City policy and use the federal taxpayer dollars to fund abortion services overseas. Do you support President Obama’s efforts to lift the Mexico City restrictions? Do you believe our foreign policy should contradict long held domestic policies?

Answer from James Steinberg: President Obama has supported repeal of the Mexico City policy, as has Secretary Clinton. Longstanding law, authored by Senator Jesse Helms, expressly prohibits the use of U.S. funds of abortion. The Mexico City policy is an unnecessary restriction that, if applied to organizations based in this country, would be an unconstitutional limitation on free speech.

DeMint maintains that Steinberg’s stance conflicts with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Rust v. Sullivan in 1991, which concluded: “The Government has no constitutional duty to subsidize an activity merely because it is constitutionally protected, and may validly choose to allocate public funds for medical services relating to childbirth but not to abortion.”

COMMENTS

  • USNJIMRET

    The idea that there is some fundamental requirement for Federal Funding of otherwise Constitutionally Protected “Rights” (Even when the ‘right’ is one manufactured out of whole cloth, like the specific womans privacy right to murder an unborn, or just born, child.)
    So should I demand that the Federal Government fund my acquiring of a better firearm, you know to help with my enjoyment of Second Amendment Rights?
    After all, the Supreme Court has, just this last year, opined that I have a Constitutional Right to a handgun!!

  • http://www.scottbomb.com scottbomb

    Under the Mexico City policy, the baby killers can do or say what they want, just not with taxpayer money.

    Applying Steinberg’s logic, one could say that prohibiting political campaigning by non-profit churches is also a restriction on free speech. (Unless of course when the church is pushing a Democrat, then everyone seems to look the other way).

  • devCharles

    but I find the aspect of making people who are pro-life pay for it (albeit, through taxes, but still) to be incredibly immoral. Further, as a kind of socialist bonus package, this isn’t even for our country. To recap:

    Many Americans are Pro-Life
    Many of those pro-life Americans pay taxes to the Federal Government
    Federal funds don’t fund abortion in the US
    Obama would allow the same Federal Funds to go abroad to fund abortion clinics given the choice.

    Consider me flabbergasted.

    • David123

      “don’t like abortions – don’t pay for them”

      Obama’s making that impossible though

    • JustLeaveMeAlone

      I’m not asking you to share my views on abortion. I’m asking you not to make me pay for your views.

  • gekster

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Some how I just can’t see where it says it allows a mother to murder her unborn child.
    If you can find it, please let me know.