Politics

Why did an avowed pro-life congressman vote against banning sex-selective abortion?

The failed House vote on the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA) mostly fell along party lines, with only a handful of Republicans voting with the Democrats to reject the bill. While some of them surely did so because they’re unscrupulous political cowards, at least one congressman is defending his vote as the principled pro-life decision.

Michigan Rep. Justin Amash has released a statement affirming his allegiance to the pro-life cause yet insisting that this bill was the wrong way to go about it; in fact, he’s “appalled and outraged” that Republicans “would take an issue as sacred as life and use it so cynically as a political weapon”:

Republicans, and especially conservatives, should oppose abortion. Period. H R 3541 criminalizes the MOTIVE for getting an abortion. In other words, it keeps all abortions legal except those obtained for the “wrong” reasons. But ALL abortions are wrong. And criminalizing motive makes this simply another hate crime. Literally the only difference between a legal and an illegal abortion under the bill is whether the “abortion is sought based on the sex or gender of the child.”

If nothing else, Rep. Amash’s intentions deserve the benefit of the doubt – as he points out, he has voted for, authored, and cosponsored numerous pieces of solid pro-life legislation. Amash has not disputed the value of the unborn or the urgency of protecting them, but he has raised a legitimate question about what other principles should limit pro-life efforts.

As a conservative, I sympathize with the roots of Amash’s objection: I want laws to regulate actions, not thoughts, and I don’t want to send the message that abortions not motivated by sexism are any more tolerable than ones that are. But ultimately, I think his decision to oppose the law is mistaken for two reasons.

First, his comparison to hate crime legislation – laws that increase the penalty for a crime if it was motivated by the victim’s race, orientation, sex, religion, etc. – isn’t entirely accurate. One of the reasons hate crime laws are so ridiculous is because the offenses they regulate are already illegal. Regardless of whether Smith kills Jones because Jones was black or because Jones had money, Smith will still go to jail for a long time for the deed.

PRENDA, by contrast, sought to end a discriminatory practice that currently is legal, by establishing that gender is not an acceptable basis for depriving someone of her right to life. In this respect, it would be more akin to the constitutional amendments guaranteeing that the right to vote cannot be denied on the basis of race or sex.

Second, Amash fails to recognize something we’ve discussed before: that perfect theoretical purity isn’t always the highest good statesmen should pursue. In this case, protecting the rights of whomever we can at the moment is a higher concern. Yes, theoretically we should just ban abortion outright, rather than piecemeal protections for this or that subset of babies on the basis of gender, development, etc. But that option, not currently being on the table, is no argument against trying for more modest goals that are within short-term reach.

I believe that the Fourteenth Amendment’s federal guarantee of “equal protection of the laws” gives Congress sufficient authority to forbid abortion, making PRENDA a perfectly legitimate pro-life tool from a constitutional conservative perspective. Admittedly, PRENDA wouldn’t have achieved full equal protection because it forbade only some abortions, but it would have moved the law in the right direction. Further, the national debate over the bill reminded America that the unborn have human characteristics like gender, which can only help in the long term.

Even to save babies, the ends don’t justify all possible means. Pro-lifers have a moral duty to limit themselves to moral, civil, and constitutional means to achieve our goals, and we need leaders willing to subject us to such scrutiny. But in asking the right questions, Rep. Justin Amash ultimately came to the wrong answer. He should have voted yes on PRENDA.

   
Live Action on Facebook
  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=152001104 Benjamin L. Reisterer

    Why is there no mention of the Republican leadership putting this on the suspension calender, thus ensuring it’s failure?  Isn’t it kind of sick that they would use this as a political football?  If going for “modest goals that are within short-term reach” are possible, then why didn’t the Republicans do it?  They had the votes to pass this under normal rules, they chose to put them under tougher rules that they knew would not allow it to pass.  So instead of making that “modest goal” a reality, they decided that the goal of “eliminating gendercide” was less important than making the Dems look bad.  THAT is what is truly despicable about this vote.  Where is your post about that?  Instead you focus on ONE principled “NO” vote, while totally ignoring that the “pro-life” parties priorities are all out of whack.  For shame…

    • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

      The rule choice is definitely worth investigating, but isn’t the validity of the bill itself ultimately the main issue? Why is it illegitimate to focus on specific aspects of multifaceted issues in individual posts?

      Also, I can’t help but wonder why you’re reacting so angrily when, not only did I claim Amash’s vote wasn’t “principled,” but in fact I went out of my way to credit his sincerity and pro-life works.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=152001104 Benjamin L. Reisterer

        As Amash
        also pointed out in his statement, women “seeking an abortion simply will
        sign a form stating her motive is not the sex of the baby.” It’s a law
        that tries to criminalize motive while also being easily circumvented. If it
        would have passed, at best it does nothing
        to curb abortion and at worse it sets precedent for criminalizing motive.

        I have several issues with this. First the Republican leadership in an effort
        to whip up their base chose to use the lives of the unborn to score points
        against the Dems, that’s despicable. Second, the Republicans are pretending to
        be serious about abortion while they know this bill does nothing substantive as
        it is easily circumvented, they are misleading their base. Finally, when a principled
        pro-life congressman takes a stand against this despicable form of politics the
        base devours him because they believe this bill to be more than it is, and you
        are perpetuating that. Why not call out the Republicans as a whole for trying
        to dress a toothless bill up as a great pro-life cause? Holding their feet to
        the fire in that way is going to lead to much greater victories than their
        current games.  I am angry that the
        Republicans are more concerned about political gamesmanship than saving the lives
        of the unborn.

        • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

          I do have my doubts as to how effective the law would have been, but that’s not a good enough reason to reject the underlying principle that the law should declare gendercide intolerable. Besides, like I said, it achieved a legitimate purpose: drawing the nation’s attention to a particularly ugly use for abortion and highlighting the humanity of the unborn in an intuitive way. However flawed the bill was, your reaction – “despicable” – isn’t at all proportionate.

          You seem to want to discuss everything except the subject of the article. But Amash wrote the quoted paragraph too; aren’t ideas he himself puts forth fair game?

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=152001104 Benjamin L. Reisterer

            Absolutely,
            they are fair game and I am discussing them. I don’t see how my word choice is
            not proportionate. The Republican leadership in the House are more concerned
            with using this issue to score political points than taking substantial action
            on abortion. It IS despicable to tell your base that this law is much more than
            it is. It IS despicable to put this on the suspension calendar and then claim
            it failed because of Dems when you had the ability and the numbers to pass it
            under normal rules.

            I agree with Amash’s vote because I believe a “yes” vote on a
            “pro-life” bill that does nothing of substance to reduce abortion in
            this country is a bad trade off for setting precedent for criminalizing motive.

            You wrote,
            “…but that option not currently being on the table is no argument
            against trying for more modest goals that are within short-term reach.”
            You have already expressed your doubts as to how effective this would have been
            if passed, so your argument that Amash should have voted yes boils down to
            . How do you square that with your later
            line, “even to save babies, the ends don’t justify all possible means.
            Pro-lifers have a moral duty to limit themselves to moral, civil, and
            constitutional means to achieve our goals, and we need leaders willing to subject
            us to such scrutiny.”

            I think
            Amash made the right call, we are giving up a lot for something that does not
            (as Amash pointed out) reduce abortion in the country.

            I also feel
            that calling into question  to your readers his vote and ignoring the actions of the House Republican
            Leadership is “missing the forest for the tree”. Focus your readers on the larger
            problem of the Republicans apparent unwillingness to do something of substance
            on this issue.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            To say this sets some kind of dangerous precedent is absurd. In fact, it’s the sort of reasoning I normally find among libertarian fundamentalists like Ron Pa- wait, what’s this?

            http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/09/20/u-s-rep-justin-amash-of-michigan-endorses-ron-paul-for-the-presidency/

            Well, that explains a few things……

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=152001104 Benjamin L. Reisterer

            Now who “wants to discuss everything but the article” .   ;-)

            Yup, precedent is absurd…who goes by that anyway? 

            This country does not criminilized motive, if we want to take a step in changing that then we better get something more than a toothless unenforcable bill in trade.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            “Now who ‘wants to discuss everything but the article.’”

            Amash’s endorsement of Paul is relevant because Ron Paul is a world-class demagogue whose politics are defined by (among other despicable things) dishonestly casting himself as a lone, courageous savior in a simplistic world of bipartisan corruption.

            If Amash supports him, that raises the question of whether Amash practices a similar style of politics. His and your insistence that PRENDA’s pushers were fundamentally insincere fits the Paulite profile.

            The bill no more sets a precedent for criminalizing thought or motive than the 19th Amendment did by excluding sex as a valid criteria for denying voting rights to someone.

            As for the bill’s ineffectiveness: I agree it would probably be pretty easy to circumvent. But that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t save anyone, and that doesn’t invalidate the purpose of getting our leaders on the record on the issue, or of raising awareness.

          • Oedipa

            While you guys go back and forth about how the House handled it, you avoid going 2 branches of government into the future and the fact that it had no chance in the Senate nor on the President’s desk. So, Mr. Reisterer, I’d have to say you’re correct when you describe this action as red meat for the base, and little more.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            By that logic, one party should almost never propose legislation when the Senate or the presidency is in the hands of the other party.

          • Oedipa

            That’s not what I said, but it’s an interesting idea. A party should never propose legislation that’s not meant to pass, but meant solely to or rouse or ameliorate a fringe of their base?

            It could lead to (gasp!) compromise. And maybe Congress’s approval ratings would move a couple ticks above having a fungal infection.

            But, alas, that’s not why the tea-partiers are there. They’re there to tackle the debt with all those tax break proposals and abortion bills.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            Even when a bill won’t pass, forcing politicians to vote on legislation – to publicly take a stand on hot-button issues – is a perfectly legitimate purpose. It’s clarity and accountability, not gotcah politics.

            And I doubt that lack of compromise is the primary culprit in Congress’s low ratings, but it it is, it shouldn’t be. Compromise for its own sake is not a terribly compelling good.

        • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

          After a little digging, it turns out that there WAS a legitimate reason for proceeding under suspension of the rules: http://www.jillstanek.com/2012/06/why-prenda-won-but-lost-but-won/

          Now, you can disagree with that logic. But if anything is morally objectionable here, I’d say it’s you and Rep. Amash slamming the intentions and integrity of other pro-life lawmakers without even acknowledging that they HAVE a reason, much less addressing it.

          Sounds to me like SOMEONE in Congress is grandstanding for his audience, all right….

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=152001104 Benjamin L. Reisterer

            This explanation still boils down to playing games.  Yes, the other side would have gotten to submit amendments…but they would have failed.  Yes, the other side may have gotten to take some political cover…but the bill would have passed.  So it boils down to the Republican leadership was more concerned with scoring points and “exposing the dems” than passing a bill to “end” gendercide. 

            I’m not questioning if they are pro-life…I’m questioning their priorities.  I acknowledge their reason for 2/3 majority, and it is still pretty sad.  They care more about making the dems look bad than passing a bill to try to combat abortion (even though we both know this bill would do nothing to reduce it).

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            Preventing the enemy from deceiving the American people and derailing the issue with fake alternatives are not “games.” The decision deserves a fuller, more honest debate than Rep. Amash’s grandstanding.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=152001104 Benjamin L. Reisterer

            Yeah, you’re right, when the “enemy” decieves the American people it’s bad.  When the “good guys” do it, it’s just good principled politics.  (I find it funny that you label my use of the word “despicable” refering to the (R)’s misleading their base on their seriousness about this bill as not “proportionate”…but then you have no problem calling fellow Americans “the enemy” because they have a different view on abortion).Again, you are refusing to acknowledge that this COULD have passed but the (R)’s were more interested in scoring political points. 

            Your article suggests that the bill passing is most important, but your previous comment suggests that the bill’s passage is secondary to exposing “the enemy”.  Which is it, would you rather have a bill pass the house that would “end” gendercide, or would you rather deny the Dems political cover?

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            So now I see we’ve devolved into playing word games about “enemy” and “deceive”?

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=152001104 Benjamin L. Reisterer

            And you’re not answering the question.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            The only question I see is a recycling of stuff that’s already been addressed.

  • Matthias

    Ron Paul also voted against it. 

  • Pingback: Why Did an Avowed Pro-Life Congressman Vote Against Banning Sex-Selective Abortion? | Foundation Life

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steve-Ensley/794072695 Steve Ensley

    Excellent analysis Calvin and dead on too!

    • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

      Thanks, Steve!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=152001104 Benjamin L. Reisterer

    Agreed, if you can get something passed at one level…DO IT!

  • Rebecca Downs

    I was having a similar conversation with someone about this pro-life issue. I too wish we could save all babies from abortion. But right now, we must save the ones that we can. And unfortunately, the rest of the country does not think like us and does not wish to abolish all abortion. Much of Congress is too radically pro-choice and filled with allies of Planned Parenthood to outright abolish abortion… 

  • Dale

    Amash is right.  This is another bill intended to do little or nothing in the way of actually protecting unborn children while embarrassing abortion proponents on a narrow issue (sex selection).

    The partial birth abortion ban was another such effort. There was no reason not to simply ban all late term abortions.  Instead, “pro-lifers” were essentially arguing that they would not oppose killing of late term children if they were dismembered while fully within the womb, but only wanted to prevent the partial extraction of the baby before it was killed.  They were arguing about technique, simply to horrify the public about what the technique was, rather than passing a bill that would actually stop abortionists from using ANY technique to kill viable children.

    Similarly, PRENDA is long on being able to trying to force pro-abortionists to talk about the problem of sex selection abortions, but it is worded in such a way that it would do little or nothing to actually stop such abortions.  WORSE, it implicitly suggests that it okay to pressure women into an unwanted abortion EXCEPT when the “force or the threat of force to intentionally injure or intimidate” the woman is “for the purpose of coercing a sex-selection or race-selection abortion.”

    This bill lacks a clear moral vision.  All coerced abortions should be banned, not just those motivated by sex selection or racial bias!

    The problem is that political capital is being wasted on bills that will achieve little or nothing if passed.  Meanwhile, far better model legislation, such as the Stop Forced Abortions bill (at http://www.stopforcedabortions.com) is being ignored because pro-lifers will not be able to raise money if they actually passed legislation which really would stop unwanted and unsafe abortions.

    • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

      I get the concerns over enforcement, but I’ve never found these suggestions that banning some abortions implies a tacit endorsement of other abortions to be particularly compelling. They don’t boost abortion. It narrows the range of legally tolerable rationales for abortion, winning the public over to different aspects of the fetus’s humanity, until the entire baby is recognized and protected.

  • Pingback: Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory