Donnelly’s view of the Constitution

(The following was submitted by a DW reader):

Rep. Donnelly spoke yesterday at Notre Dame on “pro-life” issues, full story available here:

Donnelly, the Democratic representative of Indiana’s second district said despite people’s impressions of the Democratic Party, the party is not inherently pro-choice.

He told a story of a question he received during a candidate night in his 2006 campaign. A woman asked why it was his business if she and her pregnant daughter decided an abortion was the best option for the child and family.

Donnelly responded that the issue became one of what is necessary to define human life. Since he defines an unborn baby as a human, he said, he is constitutionally required to protect it.

“That was the end of questioning on that subject for the night,” he said. “The point is to protect that child.”


The problem with Donnelly’s approach is that the Supreme Court doesn’t support HIS interpretation of the Constitution. He may have his views on the Constitution and its protections, should he be voting to restrict rights that have been repeatedly upheld by several Supreme Court decisions?


Tags: , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: