Does a Baby Have the Right to a Mother? Sen. Tuberville: ‘Yeah.' 'That's a Good Question’

Lauren Shank | November 30, 2022 | 2:18pm EST
Text Audio
00:00 00:00
Font Size
Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.)  (Getty Images)
Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) (Getty Images)

(CNS News) – When asked by  on Tuesday whether a baby has the right to a mother, Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) said: “Yeah, the baby has a right to a mother.”

At the Capitol on Nov. 29, CNS News asked Sen. Tuberville: “The Respect for Marriage Act recognizes a right to same-sex marriage. Does a baby have a right to a mother?” and, if yes, “How could this act prohibit that?”

Tuberville replied, “Yeah, the baby has a right to a mother–yeah.”

When questioned on how the Respect for Marriage Act could violate a baby’s right to a mother, Tuberville said, “I hadn’t thought about that. That’s interesting. I don’t know how to answer that. That’s a good question.”

Tuberville voted against passage of the bill, but the act passed the Senate Tuesday by a vote of 61-36. Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Penn.) and Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) were the only three members that did not vote.

Twelve Republicans joined with 49 Democrats to pass the Respect for Marriage Act. Those Republicans were Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Rob Portman (Ohio), Thom Tillis (N.C.), Mitt Romney (Utah), Roy Blunt (Mo.), Richard Burr (N.C.), Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.), Dan Sullivan (Alaska), Joni Ernst (Iowa) and Todd Young (Ind.).

As previously reported by CNS News, “If signed into law, which President Biden is expected to do, the Respect for Marriage Act would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and essentially codify ‘gay marriage’ into federal law. For federal purposes, marriage would no longer be defined as being between one man and one woman.”

(Getty Images)
(Getty Images)

A summary of the Respect for Marriage Act states, “This bill provides statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages. Specifically, the bill repeals and replaces provisions that define, for purposes of federal law, marriage as between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex with provisions that recognize any marriage that is valid under state law. (The Supreme Court held that the current provisions were unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor in 2013.)

“The bill also repeals and replaces provisions that do not require states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states with provisions that prohibit the denial of full faith and credit or any right or claim relating to out-of-state marriages on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin. (The Supreme Court held that state laws barring same-sex marriages were unconstitutional in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015; the Court held that state laws barring interracial marriages were unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.) The bill allows the Department of Justice to bring a civil action and establishes a private right of action for violations.”

mrc merch