Quantcast
Connect with us

Tom Cotton says he can freely oppose abortion rights for rape victims because ‘we live in a democratic society’

Published

on

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) on Sunday suggested that women who become pregnant through rape or incest should not have the right to abortions.

In an interview on Meet the Press, host Chuck Todd noted that Cotton’s state of Arkansas and several others are passing draconian restrictions that effectively outlaw abortions in many cases.

“When do you think the fetus has constitutional rights?” Todd asked.

ADVERTISEMENT

Cotton declined to directly answer the question although he is on record voting for a bill that would force judges to treat fetuses like people.

“When does a fetus have constitutional rights in your mind?” Todd asked again.

“Chuck, what I want to find in this debate is area where we can agree on what we should do if a civil society,” Cotton replied. “If a baby can survive outside of its mother’s womb in a NICU as the amazing doctors are able to do at 22, 20 weeks, then we should protect that life.”

Todd pressed Cotton about why he has not supported an anti-abortion bill that protect a woman’s right to have the procedure if she is the victim of rape or incest.

ADVERTISEMENT

“I personally believe that life does begin at conception,” Cotton insisted. “That’s the standard that most Republicans who have held the presidency in modern times held as well. They understand there are certain tragic cases like rape or incest or when a mother’s life is in danger that we ought to an account for. That was the position that Ronald Reagan has as well.”

“But I personally believe life begins at conception,” he added. “As long as we have unelected judges making rules, we should find ways that we can protect the most innocent lives.”

“If you believe that life begins at conception then how do you justify an exception for rape and incest?” Todd wondered.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Because we live in a democratic society,” Cotton said, suggesting that other politicians would fight for exceptions to rape and incest. “I recognize not everyone shares my views… I say that one of the major problems of having unelected judges make these kind of decisions, we don’t have the ability to have those democratic debates.”

Watch the video below from NBC.

ADVERTISEMENT


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Facebook

Zuckerberg: new Facebook panel can overrule him

Published

on

Facebook said Tuesday it has finalized its charter for its "independent oversight board," giving the panel the authority to overrule chief executive Mark Zuckerberg on questions of appropriate content.

The new entity, based on Zuckerberg's call for a "supreme court" that would make difficult calls on what is suitable content for Facebook, is moving closer to reality with the charter released by the social network.

Zuckerberg said in a statement the independent panel would have the final say on these matters of what belongs on the social platform.

"If someone disagrees with a decision we've made, they can appeal to us first, and soon they will be able to further appeal to this independent board," he said.

Continue Reading

Facebook

Human Rights Watch accuses Brazil’s Bolsonaro of giving a ‘green light’ to illegal loggers to destroy the Amazon

Published

on

Human Rights Watch on Tuesday accused Brazil's President Jair Bolsonaro of giving a "green light" to illegal loggers to destroy the Amazon and failing to protect those defending the world's largest rain forest.

Bolsonaro, whose anti-environment rhetoric and policies have been widely blamed for a spike in fires and land clearing in the Amazon this year, has promised to open up the remote region to more development even as he faces growing international criticism.

Official figures show Amazon deforestation nearly doubled in the first eight months of this year, compared with the same period in 2018, to 6,404 square kilometers (2,472 square miles) -- more than twice the size of Luxembourg.

Continue Reading
 

Facebook

So-called ‘limited’ nuclear war would actually be very bad and kill tens of millions, warns new report

Published

on

"We urgently need sensible action to reduce and eliminate nuclear risk."

Even a limited nuclear war would be catastrophic and kill millions, a new study finds, despite the belief of the Pentagon that the U.S. military could effectively and safely use nuclear weapons in a conflict.

The report, which Princeton University's Science and Global Security Lab presents in video form, affirms the position of anti-nuclear war activists that no use of nuclear weapons is sensible—or safe.

Continue Reading
 
 
Help Raw Story Uncover Injustice. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1. Go ad-free.
close-image