John Kennedy Gets Into Tense Debate With Witnesses Over Question About Abortion At 34 Weeks

turn row thank you I yield back thank you Senator our ranking member has returned from the vote and I turn to him I apologize to some of our Witnesses I had to leave to to go vote um Professor sne um I I find your area of uh expertise and research to be very interesting um it's seems to me there there are two options and if there are others I hope you will you will school me uh with respect to abortion one option is to have a federal rule that applies to every American um under the current status of the law in order to have a federal rule more like than not Congress would have to pass it uh or we would have to amend the Constitution since United States Supreme Court has ruled that abortion is not addressed in our constitution the second option of course is to let the American people decide on a state-by-state basis there are at least two ways that people in a state can decide one is through their elected representatives the state legislature the other is through a public referendum are there any other options other than those well I uh not if the people are the ones doing the deciding we saw for almost 50 years what happens when a Court decides to constitutionalize the question and takes the matter away from the the political sphere in which one has to live with whatever that Court decides you could roie Wade's one model you could imagine another model in which a court imposes uh restrictions on abortion by virtue of interpreting whatever the constitution of that state H or or or sovereign country happens to be um but if the people are to decide um it could either occur in the ways that you describe namely through the federal uh political branches now there's an interesting question about what the scope of congress's authority is to regulate the practice of medicine in the states you'd have to find an enumerated power maybe it's the commerce power something like that but it is it's not an obvious um source of authority in the Constitution to regulate the plenary authority of the states and override their decisions to regulate the practice of medicine so what we see most often is the states themselves pursuing as what's been described as a patchwork whatever is consistent with the the values and of the people of that state whether it be through their representatives or through by direct refer let me ask you this because I'm particularly interested in in your your your analysis of this tough issue from an Ethics perspective some of my colleagues believe and indeed in my opening statement I alluded to some legislation that some of my colleagues are supporting they believe that U um we should have a federal rule that applies to every American that says it is solely the right of a of the mother the mother has the unfettered discretion to decide when if ever to uh to undergo an abortion um what what ethical considerations does that present well the principal ethical question that is that is under consideration in this whole context is how do you how do the various competing Goods relate to one another I've heard a lot of folks talk about the goods of autonomy and freedom and the pursuit of of well being in healthcare on the one hand others let me let me put it another way excuse me interrupting I I was maybe a little abstract let's suppose that that a mother presents at um 34 weeks and says I mean clearly past the point of viability for the child and says I have decided I don't want to have this baby baby if I'm being honest I don't want to have this baby and it is going to cause me enormous emotional distress to have this child I'm just not ready um and she sincere she she's really thought about it and said I'm just not prepared to have this child and it it will affect me emotionally and I want an abortion what are the ethical considerations presented by that situation as opposed to the ethical considerations uh uh if any presented by U an abortion within the first six weeks of a well I would say that the principal ethical question when you're talking about what it sounds like you're describing legally speaking be DET termed an elective abortion not an abortion necessary to preserve woman's life or health that principally incidentally that is principally what the social science evidence suggests late term abortions are principally for situational circumstantial reasons not for instances of health and safety or even fetal abnormality according to experts like Warren Hearn and other social science studies that have been undertaken but the the principle ethical question in any of these instances is what are the what is what is the moral ontological and legal status of The Unborn Child what you're talking about is the proposal to take the life of an independent human being for the sake of the goods that you are describing that to preserve emotional well-being to preserve a woman's mental peace or or her socioeconomic uh peace that's that's the ethical question that's what's so in some ways impoverished about our public debate we hear one side talking about one aspect of the issue the the the goods of autonomy and health care and so on and the other side talking about the the ontological biological and moral status of the unborn child but the talking is going past one another no no one is as far as I can tell engaging all of the different dimensions of the debate which I think is essential for wise and Humane self-governance no matter what your position on abortion is you should at least take seriously the other side's perspective and that's what's missing I think from our public debate and I'm not talking about my colleagues here on the dis but our public debate would benefit from a more comprehensive conversation about what the competing goods are with my chair's permission I want to see if anyone else wants to lay on this let let me present the situation G because this is a tough case a situation where 34th week the mother says I've decided I don't want to have this baby and um it it will affect me emotionally I just don't want the child should the mother at that juncture have the right clearly a viable child to to abort the child and who who should make that decision and how do you represent the child 's interest at that point who represents the child's interest at that point point now that's a tough question would anybody else like to weigh into that on that Mr mat I can't I'm my eyes are terrible Mr mimit um Mr mat with all due respect I don't think these kinds of hypotheticals really reflect don't tell me that I don't think they reflect the reality dodg question you just dodg the question I don't think that there's a point that's what this is actually good to answer the question that's what your side always says now I I'm that's not my my my example is not unrealistic I think if your qu if your answer I'm going to save my time if your answer is going to be that never happens let me go to miss fry what do you think well Senator first of all if you don't ask a question if you don't want to know the answer and I think one but I'm saying to you Senator 1% 1% of abortions happen at 21 weeks or later so I think the premise of your question sets up a conversation about abortion that is unfair it is rarely is that ever the instance most the vast majority of pregnancies and abortions that are considered late in a pregnancy have to do with severe devastating medical circumstances and I understand your point Senator I understand your point but with all due respect I also think the chances of people sort of getting all the way through a pregnancy and just sort of saying I don't want it is disrespectful to women the majority the majority of women who are getting abortions are already mothers senator they respect kid I'm really trying to have a discussion but that is a very the alternative I presented is very realistic I'm not saying it happens a thousand times today but that's where the rubber meets the road and the answer I always get is well that never happens well you don't know that and I don't know that but I think the difference what I would say senator is making a rule my thought what I'm saying is if it's not if it's not a problem then why wouldn't we make everybody happy by I'm not recommending this I'm asking the question then why wouldn't we just say okay if you say it's not a problem then what's the problem with saying after a certain number weeks you can't have an abortion let me talk to Dr scop what you heard my example okaywell and Senator blumenthal's times oh I'm sorry can I get uh the doctor's answer I didn't see dick come in I'm sorry well I would just say that um we don't keep we don't keep very close eye on what's going on in the abortion industry in this country there are at least five abortion facilities that have no gestational limits on the abortions that they will do so they will do an abortion on request um the woman that you described clearly needs mental health counseling she clearly needs support it is highly likely she's being coerced into that decision the data that we have on late abortion but what if she's not what if she is honestly you're really into Senator blumenthal's time now you can have the witness answer the question but then it's not your time any longer what if she's not what if she had been any longer let her finish and I'll recognize Senator Blumenthal this is a quite a dangerous abortion for her and that child is definitely capable of feeling pain as he is dismembered so as a moral Society we should absolutely say no we're not going to let that opportunity for that late abortion to happen and we should be willing to set some limits senator

Channel: Forbes Breaking News

Views: 98,937

Keywords:

Id: Mhej-Kfyf4s

Length: 11min 15sec (675 seconds)

Published: Wed Jun 12 2024