Now an unborn child is not merely a "punishment"

It can be analogous to slavery.

In a famous clip, which I have linked to here, Barack Obama as a candidate said he would not want his daughters, if they "made a mistake" to be "punished with a baby". Now we have an official in the Justice Department who made an even more shocking claim, as detailed by National Review. This is from a amicus brief filed by Dawn Johnson for the Webster v. Reproductive Health Services case.

Statutes that curtail [a woman’s] abortion choice are disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude, prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment, in that forced pregnancy requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state’s asserted interest.

So a high ranking official in the Justice Department claimed in 1989 that anti-abortion legislation runs afoul of the 13th amendment to the United States Constitution and restrictions on abortion are similar to slavery because a pregnant mother is in forced servitude to another person, i.e. the child that she is carrying.

Despite the fact that National Review can provide documentation to back up this quote, a written quote, Ms. Johnson denies that she made a linkage between the 13th amendment and abortion laws. In response to questioning by pro-abortion "Republican" Senator Arlen Specter in her confirmation hearing (presumably under oath), she made the following statement:

Johnson: I did write the part that you quoted, absolutely. Um, I have never argued that there’s a Thirteenth Amendment violation um, when, um, the government restricts abortion. Uh, that — I was shocked when I saw that. It took me a while to search and find what they were referring to. They made other claims that were clearly false. Uh — Here they — I did write a brief 20 years ago. Uh — In footnote 23, I found, makes um, um, a suggestion that there may be an analogy, um, between, not what the article said, pregnancy, which I’ve been blessed with twice and have two wonderful sons, but forced childbirth. This is a brief that I filed arguing that the right to privacy protects, um, the right of women and their families to make these choices and that Roe v. Wade should be upheld, which is in 1989. I made no Thirteenth Amendment argument. I can state categorically: I do not believe the Thirteenth Amendment is relevant at all. It was a straight Fourteenth Amendment argument.

Now whole thing is a flat out lie. I made no Thirteenth Amendment argument? She specifically references the Thirteenth Amendment and contextually is referring to slavery!

So we have someone in the Justice Department who has a view of the Constitution that is so distorted that she equates a woman being restricted from getting an abortion with slavery to the state and servitude by being "forced" as a woman to care for a child in her womb that got there by almost any means with her willing participation. Plus she is lying and misrepresenting something she wrote in a Congressional hearing. At a minimum she should be disqualified from serving in the Justice Department and she really by rights ought to be on trial for perjury. But this is par for the course in the Obamanation. I guess my wife is due reparations from the kids for the servitude she was forced to endure.

This is the most anti-life administration in history. That is dismissed by some as merely empty rhetoric, but it is true. The new Secretary of Health & Human Services (a grimly ironic title) has been asked to refrain from taking communion by the Catholic archbishop of northeastern Kansas because she hosted an event for an abortionist, in the Governor's residence, who has been indicted on 19 charges of breaking the law in performing late term abortions. Adds a whole new spin on the title "Health and Human Services".

Welcome to "life" in the Obamanation.