Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) has been making the rounds on conservative talk radio to promote his new anti-choice legislation that would ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. On Friday, the congressman spoke to Janet Mefferd about the bill’s chances of passing and about the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, which failed last year.
Franks warned that “truth [is] totally disinvited from the debate” over abortion rights in Congress and seemed baffled as to why anyone could disagree with him: “The fact that it’s even debated here is beyond my comprehension.” Franks blamed opposition to his legislation on “evil” forces and warned that if his bills don’t succeed then “we may never find or regain the will and the courage to protect any kind of liberty for anyone.”
The fact that it’s even debated here is beyond my comprehension. Sometimes the hardest thing for me in Congress is to see truth totally disinvited from the debate and see some of the boldness that evil seems to have gained in our discourse. If we after seeing Gosnell cannot find the will and the courage as a people to protect these innocent babies, I am afraid we may never find or regain the will and the courage to protect any kind of liberty for anyone.
Franks didn’t stop there, arguing that banning abortion “is central to the survival of our country and the civility of mankind.” He told Mefferd that his strategy to overturn Roe v. Wade includes ignoring the courts and doing what “Ronald Reagan did to the Soviet Union, he said we don’t have to defeat them, we will just transcend them.”
Franks: This issue as you know is one that I believe is central to the survival of our country and the civility of mankind. The other [bill] is the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act and between these two bills, one of them a legal conundrum and the other on just the human side, the notion that we make these little babies suffer this way, I believe that these two bills together, they have now made it into the Republican party platform, I introduced both of them some time back and a long time before Mr. Gosnell came along, but I believe that the two together have the most profound implications for Roe v. Wade. I’ll put it that way and drop it at that point.
Mefferd: Good, I’m glad to hear that. Of course, that’s a question on everybody’s mind, with Roe v. Wade in place as the law of the land, as the left always likes to remind us, how is it possible if you do pass this legislation, I’m sure you will get legal pushback, but a lot of people will be saying how could you even get this legislation passed if Roe v. Wade is the law of the land? How do you respond to that?
Franks: Well the same way I do as to how Roe v. Wade got to be the so-called law of the land. Someone passed a bill and it went to the courts and the courts made a decision. Unfortunately we put far too much focus on the courts. I raised my hand and swore to uphold the Constitution, I didn’t say ‘as long as the Supreme Court allows me to.’ The reality is that if this is upheld, if either of these are upheld, it presents an almost impossible conundrum for Roe v. Wade. We don’t know if they would overturn Roe or not and that’s true, but we can also do essentially like Ronald Reagan did to the Soviet Union, he said we don’t have to defeat them, we will just transcend them. They will fall on their own, you know, pressure themselves with their own weight.