During abortion hearing, Cornish calls pastor, ACLU ‘disgusting’
Friday, April 22, 2011 at 2:43 pm
- 9 Comments
Last week’s House Judiciary Policy and Finance hearing on a bill that would ban taxpayer funding for abortion erupted into anger when Republican Rep. Tony Cornish of Good Thunder called a poem read by a United Church of Christ pastor “disgusting,” a term he also used for the American Civil Liberties Union.
The Rev. T. Michael Rock of Robbinsdale United Church of Christ read a poem called “No Small Thing,” which relayed the perspectives of a fetus, a woman and God in the difficult choice about whether to terminate a pregnancy. The poem spoke of a sac of limbs, referring to the fetus and the amniotic sac.
Rep. Tony Cornish (R)
“I’ve got to count to ten before I give my comment,” Cornish angrily told the committee. To Rev. Rock, he said, “I find your testimony particularly disgusting, to invoke the Lord’s word in support of abortion. That bag of limbs and bones you describe could be found outside an abortion clinic, sucked out of a mother’s womb.”
Minnesota ACLU head Chuck Samuelson testified before Rev. Rock spoke, stating that the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in 1995 that it is unconstitutional to deny women abortion services if the state also provides pregnancy services.
Cornish didn’t like that testimony either: “And I find the ACLU just about as disgusting. You attack peoples’ liberties more than you defend them in the cases I’ve seen this year.”
He added, “It’s unbelievable about invoking the Lord’s word. I wouldn’t do that in opposition to abortion, to bring the Lord’s word into this. Ew.”
But Cornish has come close. During the debate last year on whether to override Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s veto of cuts to health insurance for low-income Minnesotans, the DFL used religious arguments to defend the poor.
To that, Cornish said, “It gives me a tough feeling when you and your members mention God in the debate here and then trot out your Bible whenever it’s convenient. I urge you to trot that Bible out again when we talk about abortion. I urge you to trot that Bible out again when we talk about gay rights and what Christians feel about that, some Christians. Don’t do it just when it’s convenient and try to make us feel guilty.”
Hamline Prof. David Schultz said that Cornish’s words are par for the course in today’s political environment.
“We are at a point where each side demonizes the other, accusing its opponent as evil, calculating, as some type of low-life,” he wrote. “We make the other party or other side the enemy, and the purpose of doing that is to motivate the base. Make the battle one of good versus evil.”
He added, “This is what Tony Cornish did. The abortion hearing was televised and supporters of his position were in the audience. It was good copy to call names and demonize the opponents. I bet he runs the tape on You-Tube and for his next election. Again, it was a Jerry Springer moment.”
Follow Andy Birkey on Twitter9 Comments
Comment posted April 22, 2011 @ 4:29 pm
Dear Tony Cornish,
Jesus is an abortionist.
Yes, you read that correctly. As you may or may not know, 10-25% of pregnancies end in miscarriage–a natural abortion, if you will. If, however, you believe that your god is a protector of every life, then miscarriages raise the question of the culpability of your god in the process.
If you’re going to “trot” out religion with moral flashpoints like abortion and homosexuality, then be prepared to deal with the full implications of your stance.
And oh…the Bible says nothing about abortion being immoral or gay marriage for that matter.
Comment posted April 22, 2011 @ 7:27 pm
Eric, as much as I would love to say that “Jesus is an abortionist,” I think your argument is flawed. Any well-grounded Christian is just going to say that miscarriage is the result of sin, not God, the same way tornadoes and floods destroying people are a result of sin. Or, at the very least, they’ll argue that miscarriage is unintentional and abortion is intentional, similar to the difference between a person dying of “natural causes” compared to murder.
Food for thought.
Comment posted April 22, 2011 @ 11:13 pm
It’s amazing to me how well Rev. Rock handled the situation, a true man of grace, and class.
I, on the other hand, wanted to reach out and strangle the SOB. Cornish should be brought up on ethics charges on how he treated them, he is an embarrassment to the State.
Comment posted April 23, 2011 @ 1:58 am
P.Q.
I think that if a Christian were to say that a miscarriage were the result of sin, they’d find themselves in a contradiction. Many conservative Christians argue that the god they believe is anti-abortion, but if they then make the claim, as you suggest, that miscarriage is a result of sin, then they have to accept the simultaneous claim that their god supports the use of abortion for the offense of sin. They can’t have it both ways.
They do have one way out it seems to me. They would have to argue that if their god performs a supernatural abortion (miscarriage as a result of sin), then simply by virtue of the fact that their god performed the abortion makes it not a sin. But then they have to deal with this consequence: if they believe every act of their god is a holy act, then it follows that this godly abortion is also holy. Somehow I don’t think that would sit easily with them.
As to the argument that miscarriage is unintentional, one can always reply that their god created the universe in such a way that natural abortions (miscarriages) would happen with 10-25% of pregnancies. It’s possible that this god could NOT have created the universe in such a way as to have any miscarriages. But there are miscarriages. What is this god’s purpose with designing the universe in such a way that a certain percentage of all pregnancies will result in miscarriages?
Thoughts?
Comment posted April 23, 2011 @ 10:51 am
Eric – First – good thoughts BUT though we may think they can’t have it both ways, they DO have it both ways – and there is no argument under the sun that will convince them otherwise. PQ is right – they will continue to blame miscarriages on sin – or just plain old “God’s Will.”
Second – Supernatural Abortions. I like it – but if they believe that a miscarriage is just an example of God exerting his Will – having his Way – that he knows what is best in all situations – there is absolutely no arguing against the concept of God’s Will. Trust me. If absolutely everything happens according to his plans (and sickening enough – because he loves us and doesn’t want us to get too full of our Pride) then – miscarriages are merely an example of Daddy knowing Best. Furthermore – if someone as a result of a misscarriage hardens there heart against God or even starts doubting his wonderful, loving plans for us, then that person who loses faith in BigDaddy is merely evidence of the End Times – when people “fall away” from Truth/Love/BigDaddy. So – if you have the stomach for this – I can keep spinning until the cows come home – but the point being – there is no reasoning. In fact our attempts at logic are to many Christians like Cornish – proof of man’s prideful, sinful nature. And if the God’s Will argument isn’t used – then they can always fall back on miscarriages as a result of sin. Or both.
Happy Easter!
Comment posted April 23, 2011 @ 3:28 pm
Xtine,
Thank you for your thoughtful comments, and to PQ to for your own thoughts and for challenging me.
Numerous encounters with fundagelicals over the years convinces me that you’re both right.
Nevertheless, unless we push back with reasoned arguments…
Comment posted April 25, 2011 @ 7:42 am
Rep. Cornish discourse and name calling are a part of the problem. His type of leadership continues this inflammatory environment where no common ground is found, nothing is accomplished and the divisions grow deeper.
Comment posted April 25, 2011 @ 8:55 pm
Gods will? So its God’s will to make you pregnant and then to kill the child within? Punishment of ones sin? So God needs to make you pregnant and then Kill the child within for punishment? Since the Fundies think of abortion as murder, their God is then is killing or performing murder if those are the reasoning.
Just saying :)
Comment posted April 26, 2011 @ 7:34 pm
Here’s some lines from Exodus (21:22-23) “If some men are fighting and hurt a pregnant woman so that she loses her child, but she is not injured in any other way, the one who hurt her is to be fined whatever amount the woman’s husband demands, subject to the approval of the judges. But if the woman herself is injured, the punishment shall be life for life.”
Kill the fetus = a fine.
Injure the woman = death penalty.
Given this, I think it’s pretty darn obvious (if you take the bible at its word) that the Abrahamic god values a woman’s bodily integrity MUCH more than he values a fetus.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
