By Dave Andrusko

I would strongly encourage you to read NRLC’s press release headlined “HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra’s Disingenuous Response to the Question of the Legality of the 2003 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.” The post, which addresses what he said Wednesday before the House Energy & Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Health, speaks volumes about Secretary Becerra and the gobbledygook we can expect from the Biden administration to disguise its strident pro-abortion posture.

If you didn’t know (a) about Secretary Becerra’s decades-long support of abortion on demand or (b) that he is pro-abortion Joe Biden’s HHS Secretary, your first response might be “huh?” 

How could anyone not say clearly and unambiguously yes to this question from Rep. Dan Crenshaw, “Do you recognize the statute that outlaws partial-birth abortion?”

After all, the name of the law, passed after years of diligent work,  led by NRLC, is “Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.” That same law was upheld in 2007 by the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Carhart. 

But such minor considerations carried no weight with Secretary Becerra. He simply slip-slided around very, very, very specific questions from Rep. Crenshaw (R-Tx.), Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-Fla.), and Rep. John Joyce, MD (R-Pa.)

For example, in response to Rep. Crenshaw’s query, Secretary Becerra started with a defense of a woman’s right to abortion (i.e., “healthcare”) at which point, Rep. Crenshaw pointed out, “This is a very clear statute, Mr. Secretary, please don’t waver on this. The Supreme Court has already spoken on this particular statute. Do you recognize it, yes or no?”

Becerra answered, “I certainly recognize what the Supreme Court has said and we will abide by what the Supreme Court required” [what else could he say? No?] before adding “and we are going to make sure we protect women’s rights to health care.

Becerra was more disingenuous (some might say he was increasingly less truthful) with Rep. Bilirakis who asked, “Do you agree partial-birth abortion is illegal?” Becerra countered with an evasive response that goes back over 20 years: There is no “medical term” like partial-birth abortion whereas Roe v. Wade is clear.

After another exchange, Rep. Bilirakis tried again. “And you agree with this particular law…the law concerning partial-birth abortion?”

To which Becerra answered, ”Again, as I said, there is no law that deals specifically with the term partial-birth abortion,” which, as noted above, is flatly untrue. Becerra then again contrasted this with Roe which, he stated, clearly says that “a woman has a right to make decisions about her reproductive health.”

The exchange with Rep. Joyce, a medical doctor, was the most intriguing of all. Secretary Becerra was all over the place, tacking on misleading and inaccurate pro-abortion talking points from the 1990s one after another.

From the beginning, Rep. Joyce was very generous. He offered him an out—that it didn’t seem clear Becerra understood what the term “partial-birth abortion” means– and that the statute very clearly defined what it was prohibiting when it outlawed partial-birth abortion. 

“With that clarification, could you please recognize that that does exist in statute, and I would ask you do you agree that this law is correct?”

Becerra’s answer? The term may be “recognized in politics by politicians” but is “not a medically recognized term,” a canard that has been rebutted umpteen times. 

Becerra then talked about a different abortion procedure and how that was used when there is “a chance that the fetus may not survive” and is “often used [in] late- stage abortions for women to protect the health and life of a woman,” which is misleading twice over.

Dr. Joyce tried again. “So just for further clarification, partial-birth abortions are prohibited right now under current statute and that is something that you recognize, correct Mr. Secretary?” Again, Becerra skipped the question and talked about enforcing the law which, he said, provides that a woman has a right to an abortion

Speaking of enforcement, Dr. Joyce then asked, “And that does include enforcing this statute, correct?” Becerra again evaded the question: “I will make sure that we are providing women with the protections they need on their reproductive rights.

And on and on and on.

NRLC President  Carol Tobias put it succinctly. “We thank Rep. Bilirakis, Rep. Crenshaw, and Rep. Joyce for their courageous support of the right to life and this revealing questioning of Secretary Becerra,” adding, “Secretary Becerra’s answers were disingenuous, evasive at best.”