Democrats want to do all they can to make abortion an issue that they think helps them in the upcoming election by fearmongering about the positions of Republicans, but what they don’t want to do is be honest about the facts or their radical positions when it comes to being for abortion up to the moment of birth.

They know that most Americans are not supportive of abortion to the moment of birth and that’s why they don’t want to be straight when they are confronted on that question because they are indeed the radicals on this issue.

But during a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee related to the Dobbs decision, Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) exposed that effort and completely decimated one of the witnesses in that polite, but devastating way that he has.

Kennedy asked Professor Michele Goodwin if she supports it “being legal to abort an unborn child up to the moment of birth.” An uncomplicated question. She’s a Chancellor’s Professor at the University of California, Irvine where she teaches constitutional law and directs the Center for Biotechnology and Global Health Policy. So one would think that’s a question that she could answer. But she didn’t want to go there, insisting it was “not a yes or no question.” Kennedy explained that it was. Kennedy said he was just trying to understand her “perspective,” that “people sort of talk around this issue.” “If there were a bill that said that a woman has an unfettered right to abort an unborn baby for any reason up to the moment of birth, do you vote yes or would you vote no?” Kennedy asked. That’s when the witness began to implode with what has to be the strangest tantrum response from a liberal witness I’ve heard in a while.

This exchange is UNBELIEVABLE.

KENNEDY: "If there were a bill that said that a woman has an unfettered right to abort an unborn baby for any reason up to the moment of birth, would you vote yes or would you vote no?"

DEM WITNESS: "I refuse to be shackled by your question!" pic.twitter.com/NAKH8rRbob

— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) April 26, 2023

“Senator Kennedy, I refuse to be shackled by your question,” Goodwin said, in a huffy, put-upon voice. What she’s refusing to be “shackled” by is facts. Either you are or you are not for it.

Kennedy pushed her again, but she still refused to give a yes or no answer saying there were “conditions in pregnancy” that might support a woman getting a late-term abortion. “I would support her life, I would support her personhood,” she said angrily. No one is denying a woman’s “personhood.” In other words, her answer to the continuing question is yes, but she just doesn’t want to say so. This exposes this whole effort by the Democrats.

Kennedy made that point, “You’re advocating a law that says that an unborn baby can be aborted up to the moment of birth for any reason, are you not?”

Then Goodwin tried to accuse him of not supporting the Constitution. “Let me clarify what the 14th amendment says in the first sentence,” Goodwin said, asking Kennedy, “Do you support our Constitution?”

While she was melting down, Kennedy did not — showing the fundamental difference that she couldn’t support her position and wasn’t being straightforward about it. “I just want to understand what your position is,” he said. “I think you’re afraid to say that you do support that. If you do support it, I think–just for the purposes of an intellectual discussion–you ought to just say so.”

After she said that she would have that discussion with him, he asked the question again and she avoided it again. “We could start if you answered that question,” he said. “I can’t go to my next question ’til you answer that question.”

Ultimately, Kennedy moved on, but he proved his point about the Democrats on this whole issue. As Rebecca Downs at our sister site Townhall observes, they want to claim they just want to codify Roe v. Wade, when what they are truly pushing with their Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA) is abortion without limit, something with which the majority of Americans do not agree.

While the Democratic witness refused to be straight, the Republicans had no trouble with that question. One witness even skewered Goodwin’s “conditions” of the pregnancy argument.

One such witness, Dr. Ingrid Skop, offered a particularly telling point about how abortion up until birth is not even needed. “I do not support unfettered abortion, and I would like to point out that, if a woman did have a life-threatening condition in pregnancy past approximately 22-weeks, that baby can be delivered alive by induction or C-section, and we can try to save that baby. The intent of abortion is a dead baby, and that is not necessary in that situation,” she shared.

But some Democrats don’t even want care for babies born alive after failed abortions, as we’ve reported.

Talk about truly twisted positions.