Obama nominee: Taxpayer-funded abortion is a free speech right
GOP Sen. Jim DeMint flags the testimony of deputy Secretary of State nominee James Steinberg, who believes that abortion subsidies are constitutionally protected.
From Sen. DeMint’s blog:
James B. Steinberg, President Obama’s nominee to be the next Deputy Secretary of State, claimed in written testimony to the Foreign Relations Committee that Congress cannot constitutionally restrict taxpayer funding to perform or promote abortions. Mr. Steinberg stated that the Mexico City policy, which bars taxpayer funding of abortions overseas, “is an unnecessary restriction that, if applied to organizations based in this country, would be an unconstitutional limitation on free speech.”
Steinberg’s opinion is in direct contradiction to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has already definitively decided the matter in Rust v. Sullivan in 1991. The court’s majority opinion 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.”
Hey, maybe Nancy Pelosi should bring Steinberg’s view to the attention of President Obama — who just threw her family planning cash under the stimulus bus.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Jim DeMint Announces His Candidacy for…Something « JoHNBRoDiGaNDoTCoM
- Shut Up Hippy » Blog Archive » Obama nominee: Taxpayer-funded abortion is a free speech right
- Shut Up Hippy » Blog Archive » Obama nominee: Taxpayer-funded abortion is a free speech right
- Have the Republicans Grown Spines? - adamsweb’s blog - RedState
- Have the Republicans Grown Spines? - adamsweb’s blog - RedState
- Are Republicans Growing Spines?
- ChooseTheHero.com » Blog Archive » Have the Republicans Grown Spines?
- ChooseTheHero.com » Blog Archive » Have the Republicans Grown Spines?
- Pro-Lifers Rallying Cry « The Pugnacious Irishman
- Steynian 317 « Free Canuckistan!
- digg » Blog Archive » Roundup: US Funding of UNFPA Could Represent Ten Percent of Agency Budget
- Badger Blogger » Blog Archive » Obama nominee says taxpayer-funded abortion is a 1st Amendment right
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Abortion
Power Line
» More From the East Anglia Archives
TigerHawk
» Negative equityAmerican Thinker
» Sarah Palin and the low ebb of the cultural leftRedstate
» Morning Briefing for November 24, 2009Doug Ross @ Journal
» ACORN pwnage part II: Breitbart's BigGovt Lowers the BoomBig Government
» BREAKING: San Diego ACORN Document Dump ScandalVillainous Company
» Amateur Hour in the Oval Office Continues....
BABY KILLER!
Under the first you have every right to support abortion. True. But the 1st says NOTHING about funding them.
Another idiot nominated by obama.
Exhibit #250,968,407 (did not want to use 30 Z’s) illustrating the danger of giving the exclusive power to “interpret” the Constitution to courts, i.e., lawyers, who have to be the bul*s**tters of bul*s**tters.
“BS” that only a liberal could generate. Taxpayer funded abortion is wholesale human slaughter by the state. Suicide bombers have nothing on this sick country.
What was the old comment, “only an intellectual could believe that”? (Meaning that it is so stupid that nobody should believe it.)
James Steinberg has reached new lows in twisting word meanings and logic to bad ends.
So using Steinberg’s logic the government is required fund my gun purchaes under the 2nd Amendment? Sweet!
The Obamaniacs are going to have much to answer for on Judgement Day.
Ah – but he is a nominee of The One, therefore he automatically knows better than the Supremes.
Boy, the First Amendment sure protects a whole lotta stuff….except for freedom of religion, or free speech for conservatives, of course.
Those things are just too dangerous to allow.
Didn’t Obama say in his inagurual address it was time to leave “childish” things behind?
Nothing is more childish than punishing another person for your poor choices (in this case, an unborn child being punished for the irresponsibility of her parents).
And didn’t liberals want to withhold their tax dollars because they morally objected to the war in Iraq?
When can I withhold my taxes, which are going to fund something inherently evil…abortion?
“Another idiot nominated by obama.”
I see a trend…
Federally subsidized murder? I don’t think I wish to support that.
To all those women who scream “keep your hands off of my body”… I say this “keep your hands off of my taxes”!
Keep your laws off my
bodywallet!Words, just words, are not to interfere with the agenda of the Left. Constitutionally protected was the first lie on the issue by the Supreme Court. As the Court ignored the Constitution when it suited them so shall and does the Left ignore the Court when it suits them.
The long march into the Nightmare of Fascism is picking up speed. Mr. James B. Steinberg might be upset when THIS country decided he and his are the Life Not Worthy of Life.
William Ayres was more Prophet then fool wasn’t he? President Obama may have put Speaker Pelosi’s plan on the shelf for now–but the knives are being sharpened, the 21st Century Kristalnaught is being planned. But THESE PEOPLE will not go quietly into the Camps and Gas Chambers. The Slippery Slope leads to Hell.
—
That everyman be armed–you too ladies.
We LUV you DamnCat!
A year ago if someone claimed an Obama nominee would say something as stupid as that, that someone would have been laughed out of the room by every left wing blogger, pundit, analyst out there as being an idiot.
Yet here it happens….yet again.
Come on Michelle, Where’s the story about Obummer saying I’m sorry islame, can we talk?
So is MURDER a free speech right?
Show me in the Constitution where it says I won’t go to HELL for funding baby killing factories against my will.
TAX REVOLT
Apparently. We owe a lot of prisoners big apologies, don’t we.
Child molestation is also a free speech right, which is why the ACLU defends NAMBLA.
Since 99.5% of abortions are elective surgery and are hardly ever done in the case of rape, incest, or if the mothers life is in danger…
and since these elective surgerys are supposedly constitutionally protected ‘free speech’ (good Lord)…
and since James Steinberg believes that government should fund elective surgery with tax payer money… (you’re gonna love this)
this OBVIOUSLY means that he’s in favor of taxpayer funded boob-jobs and liposuction.
Right?
prove me wrong.
Why, yes it is. It’s a “conversation” or “debate” where the last one standing has the last word.
So when can I expect my M$ with laser sight and case of ammo?
M$ = M4. ugh.
It is always amusing to read the justifications for the termination of life based on the rationalization that the Constitution is a “living” document.
“It all depends on what the meaning of ‘is,’ is.”
James B. Steinberg’s next prostate exam is Constitutionally protected free speech! It has to be! How else is he going to be able to keep talking out of his arse?
If that’s free speech, then Leon Czolgosz was just stating an opinion.
ArizonaNeanderthal: I second the love to DamnCat! (By the way, I’m partial to Colts.)
Drudge Report this morning, top left.
President Obama chooses Arab network for first TV interview…
‘All too often the United States starts by dictating’…
Ask and ye shall receive Auggie Dog for Obummer strives to please. Dress warm in case you have to report to the camp early.
—
That every man be armed-you to ladies.
Just another “right” our new president will fund for his supporters. You know, the right to a car, a house, gas for the car and now, abortions.
Ditto, although I’m partial to Ruger.
But a .454 Taurus and a case of ammo wouldn’t be ignored.
And abortion interferes with a woman’s rights to privacy.
GEEES!
Have these people ever read the constitution?
So I can sign the little woman up for a taxpayer funded boob job and get my Socom M1? This is the best…new toys to play with and all for free!
Funding abortion is now “free speech.”
Good God. These people are monsters.
wingleader
You made me smile, thanks.
Nancy Pelosi is a taxpayer funded boob job so wingleader I would have to say yes you may.
Socom M1? Good choice.
Last time I checked, birth control wasn’t mentioned in the Constitution – and last time I checked, reproductive organs weren’t capable of speech…
(sigh)
Nobody in government gives a cramp what is in the constitution. Only those of us who want less government care.
You know, in the three years I spent in law school, I never heard of the 1st Amendment being related to abortion.
Maybe that’s just me.
I believe it has something to do with prohibiting the free exercise of religion, but I’m no constitutional scholar.
No, no, you’ve got it all wrong. It’s not in the 1st, it’s in the 14th, or maybe the 9th.
“right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”
See? OK, maybe it’s not exactly in the Constitution, but several unelected men in robes felt that it should have been.
the black robed gods have deemed it so, so quit questioning their authority. even 60% votes of the people can’t over rule the opinion of a few unelected idiots. this is why i advise everyone to always vote against any judge on any ballot you see.
Elections have consequences, folks. For the next two to four years, and maybe longer, we’re going to be paying for our stupidity in giving Democrats power and putting a far left activist in the White House.
Try not to play with all three toys at the same time, someone could lose an eye.
So when they try to tax my ammo purchases, they’re obstructing free speech?! Call the ACLU!
The motion of Love for DamnCat passes unanimously! I’ll take one of each already mentioned.
(Hey, I can triple quote!)
Dittos from me, too. I have my eye on one of STI’s pistols.
Is there, or could there be, a country song about the pistol that got away?
Just when you think you have heard everything…
UGH
Where are the trolls and chappy? I sure would like to hear from Rusty who thought he wrote the constitution. Opinions guys?
.oO(this should be good)
#14:
My 2008 ’stimulus’ check from the Bush administration financed about half of the cost of my Kimber Custom CDP II.
Now I guess I should lobby for the constitutionally mandated share of the public trough to pay off my .50 cal.
On-my-soap-box:
I’ll bite. Although Steinberg probably should have explained himself better, I think the part of the Mexican City policy he was referring to is the part prohibiting organizations from speaking in favor of abortions. If he was referring to the withholding of funding from organizations that promote abortions, then he is flat out wrong (Rust v. Sullivan clearly says the government can choose to do so). However, fully restricting someone’s ability to speak about abortion likely would raise some free speech concerns–the Court in Rust was careful to note that doctors receiving federal funding could still speak about abortion on their own time and with their own money, they just couldn’t use any federal funds for it.
Everyday something from the lunatic left comes to light, that makes we fall into Will Ferrell’s character in “Zoolander”.
” I FEEL LIKE I’M TAKING CRAZY PILLS!!!!”
I guess my IQ is too high to understand the mindset of ignorant people on the left.
On January 27th, 2009 at 1:51 pm, vargas said:
I think it is pretty clear he is talking about restricting funding of abortions overseas (what the HELL are we doing funding abortions overseas) and how, if said restrictions were applied in the USA it would be a breach of the 1st Amendment which is just BULLCHPS.
How are you reading it differently?
I’m reading it differently b/c his quote is in reference to the Mexico City policy as a whole. Sen. DeMint, in his blog entry, only included a partial description of the Mexico City policy.
You and I (and the Supreme Court) all agree that the government can restrict government funding of abortions, either here on abroad.
vargas,
I looked at Rust and it is pretty much right on point with respect to the Mexico City Policy. It says that the government can refuse funding to any entity that not only provides abortion services, but also to those that advocate it as an option.
I was surprised. Reading the quotes above, I thought DeMint was trying to pull a fast one, because the quote he pulls from Rust focuses on providing direct funding for abortions, and does not speak to mere advocation.
DeMint is right on this. I don’t think this is necessarily a case someone in Steinberg’s position should know off the top of their head, but these answers should have been vetted better by someone over there.
Right.
The second part of the argument is:
This is really what this thread is about and what I was looking for comment on.
Better. Using his logic, the government should issue us Rifles, M16; Carbines, M4; Pistols, M9; or SAWs, M249; since they are all individual weapons “of a type in common use at the time*.”
ECS
*(See Miller Decision 1939)
Well, if I’m going to believe that BS, how about the right to “LIFE, liberty and pursuit of happiness.”? There is also the amendment prohibiting “cruel and unusual punishment” and trial by peers before execution. But, according to many, a baby isn’t really alive or a person…just an inconvenient “growth”. I still say that the day will come when this country will see mandatory abortions, holding a couple to 1 child(I was going to say “marriage” but who knows what that is today), just like China.
How does Obama have the gall to talk about “the least of these” and then turn around and force us to pay for abortions in other countries? DOES THIS GUY HAVE SCALES ON HIS EYES OR WHAT????
Free SPEECH – HUH?!?!?!?!?
Chap/On-My-Soap-Box:
The regulation upheld in Rust allowed doctors to speak freely about abortion, as long as they kept that activity separate from their receipt of federal funds. For example, a doctor receiving money under the program couldn’t do abortion counseling in the practice he used the money for. But, he could maintain a separate practice, fully unfunded by the government, where he could give abortion counseling.
My understanding of the Mexico City policy is that it doesn’t draw this distinction–any organization that receives US funds can’t do abortion counseling period, whether or not they keep it separate from the US funds. This is why I think Steinberg said the policy might violate the First Amendment.
If my understanding of the Mexico City policy is wrong, and Steinberg actually was just referring to US funding of abortions, then he’s wrong and should have known better.
I believe the Mexico City Policy, or the matter in Rust (as it stood whne that case was decided), look at the entity as a whole. If the organization counsels abortion, it is cut off, even if none of the money goes directly toward funding such services (which is probably the correct thing to do. it is dumb to partition money like this). Similarly, I don’t think anything in the Mexico City policy prevents a doctor who works in a clinic from counselling abortion in his own private practice, so long as s/he does not do so within the context of the clinic.
In other words, from what I have read the gag rule in Rust seems identical to the global gag rule.
Say What? How could anyone know more than Diana, Mary and Flo??? I mean, come on, The Supremes….oh, not THOSE Supremes? Let me consult wit’ Sekrterry Kanye ’bout dat.
Chap:
I think you’re mistaken about the matter in Rust. From the Court’s opinion:
The Secretary’s regulations do not force the Title X grantee to give up abortion-related speech; they merely require that the grantee keep such activities separate and distinct from Title X activities. Title X expressly distinguishes between a Title X grantee and a Title X project. The grantee, which normally is a health-care organization, may receive funds from a variety of sources for a variety of purposes. The grantee receives Title X funds, however, for the specific and limited purpose of establishing and operating a Title X project. The regulations govern the scope of the Title X project’s activities, and leave the grantee unfettered in its other activities. The Title X grantee can continue to perform abortions, provide abortion-related services, and engage in abortion advocacy; it simply is required to conduct those activities through programs that are separate and independent from the project that receives Title X funds.
The organization can still counsel abortion or talk about it–they just actually do have to partition their funds. In the opinion there is also some discussion of various factors the Secretary of Health and Human Services can look at to see if the activities actually are separate.
I think if it hadn’t been narrowed in this way, the case may have come out differently–the government can’t condition a benefit on someone fully giving up a constitutional right.
vargas…
Okay. I have looked at this more closely and…
You are right.
DeMint, MM and me are wrong. Rust is easily distinguishable here.
That is not to say the Supreme Court would rule that such restrictions ARE a violation of free speech, just that Rust does not in anyway “definitively decide” the issue.
The Supreme Court invariably refuses to ” definitively decide ” anything; thus, allowing continuing confusion and litigation. Full employment for lawyers.