I was listening to the Holder hearings yesterday afternoon.......

[Proud Liberal Dem]

on the radio (NPR) and I believe that Sen. Brownback (R-KS) was starting to ask Holder a question about possibly extending the Americans with Disabilities Act to unborn children whom are identified as being at risk for Down Syndrome and other birth defects? He mentioned that he and Senator Kennedy (?) had prepared some legislation creating some kind of "adoption registry" for children identified prenatally at high risk for such disorders I guess so that they might not be aborted but rather put on some kind of adoption registry? Does anybody remember this and could somebody tell me what Holder said in response and whatever the heck point Brownback was trying to make because I had to leave my car and go back to my office. Did I hear everything correctly?

:wtf:

Thanks!

[s-cubed]

1. Holder recognized the trap, and refused to be drawn in.

I can't remember exactly what he said, but he clearly understood what Brownback was trying to do, and refused to answer in any way that would recognized fetuses as persons.

[TheKentuckian]

2. Not sure but I don't believe robust alternatives to abortions and saftey nets

infringe on a woman's right to choose but rather give her more options to choose from. Maybe there are a group of women that would carry the fetus to term, if they would not have to take on the role of rearing such children.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

4. If they want to give prospective parents of children.....

whom have been determined to be at risk for severe developmental disabilities more CHOICES then I guess that's not a bad thing but I don't know about the idea of extending the Americans with Disabilities Act to fetuses, particularly since that could theoretically lead to a prohibition on women terminating a pregnancy if it is (prenatally) determined that their child is likely to suffer from a disbility. I do not believe that a baby must be born at all costs and that parents should be free to choose NOT to bring a disabled child into this world if it is beyond their ability and/or willingness to do so. They should certainly be free to go ahead and have the baby of course but IMHO it should ALWAYS be a CHOICE. Try as I might, I simply can't grasp the concept of applying personhood status (and all of the applicable laws, protections, etc.) to an entity that exists inside somebody else's body, particularly since it could lead to all kinds of unwarranted legal invasions into a woman's privacy and control of her body (although I know that anti-choicers don't care about this since control IS the point but still)

[Thrill]

3. They tried to trap Holder several times. On this, the 2nd Amendment, FISA, etc

He wouldn't fall for any of it.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

5. What other "traps" did they lay for him on these issues

That would've been interesting to hear. I was pretty impressed by what I did hear from him.