As the States Grapple With a Post-Roe Electorate, Flawed Premises Do Nothing to Facilitate a Real Conversation – Opinion

It was a pleasure to have the chance to meet Fox LA’s anchor. This IssueElex Michaelson is the host. Elex Michaelson is an amiable man. He spotlights local politics in ways others don’t. The vast majority of corporate media comes from Gov. Hair Gel’s homegrown team, after all, so a journalist offering different perspectives is rare.

So, I was taken aback when Elex Michaelson posted some “key questions” that journalists need to ask pro-lifers.

First, I was taken aback by the fact that he is a journalist who regularly features pro-life individuals and groups on his television show. And if he didn’t, a cursory internet search would have answered them.

Here’s the tweet:

Elex Michaelson’s Key Questions to Pro-Lifers

 

I have no idea where Michaelson stands on the issue of Life, and it really doesn’t matter to me. His premise as a journalist is, however, flawed. As one commenter said, it’s like asking when was the last time you beat your wife. These questions assume pro-life behavior and thought that is not supported by evidence.

He might have been working toward his segment The Issues program, maybe he was just playing devil’s advocate, but I decided to join the conversation. It was obvious that his flawed assumptions could not be ignored, particularly since the state is 1) pro-abortion by its laws and stances, and 2) hostile to all pro-life organizations. I’ll unpack this later.

The bottom line is that there are many organizations throughout California and the United States that can answer the same questions as he did.

As a reply to Michaelson’s question, I directed him to Elizabeth House, Pasadena. This powerful ministry, who I have worked with in the past, supplies pregnant women and their children under 12 with a roof over their head, along with prenatal care and programs to get counseling and treatment should addiction be a part of the woman’s issues.

Elizabeth House has also a home for women who have given birth. This is where they can be assisted in finding employment and housing. The care doesn’t stop here. After the women have moved on to a new life, the alumni network is formed. Elizabeth House keeps in touch with them and offers support, resources, community, and help. decades.

Elizabeth House is just one of many organizations that support Life in all its stages. There is no child or woman left behind, regardless of the lies the Democrats and their pro-abortion allies may tell you.

The Heartbeat International website is a great place to start your search for information about these organisations. This website connects pregnant women to resources that will help them make informed decisions about their children’s lives.

Heartbeat International filed an amicus brief to support the Mississippi law. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health OrganizationThis includes the testimony of individual women who received assistance from pro-life pregnancy resources organizations.

Other commenters also challenged Michaelson’s premise behind his questions

@Elex_MichaelsonYour third question, however, is not relevant. The question you are asking is whether the government should support children. You might ask if government should pay to support child-bearing for people who can’t afford it. Do your parents request subsidized care for their children?
What is it that people want to end? abortion rights? Is it possible to support free, unregulated abortion at all stages of pregnancy just for convenience? That’s what people aren’t thrilled with. Why don’t you ask the real ??

The commenter has a point. A lot of people reject the pro-abortion argument because they believe that infanticide and unregulated abortion should be allowed. NeverIt should be something. Although they might not wish abortions to be eliminated completely, they should recognize that children who are able to survive outside of the womb have the right to life. This is not the stance of Gavin Newsom, or the climber Buffy Wicks, the assemblywoman who authored AB 2223, the “Infanticide Bill.” We know the pro-life presence in California does not agree with this, and we are strong. Another newsflash is that not everyone of us are straight or religious. Is there a compromise that our government can reach with us?

It doesn’t appear to be the case.

Michaelson might have asked questions similar to these for the prolife side. His questions may not have been as scathing against the prolife argument.

Michaelson soon deleted the tweet.

He later tweeted:

My previous tweet about ?’s to ask those who want to end abortion rights is being misinterpreted by some on both sides, so I deleted it.

My main point: this decision will almost certainly result in children being born to parents who don’t want them. What can we do to help these children?

Michaelson revealed another flawed premise—that the overturn of Roe This will result in more unwanted children. It is categorical false

We have had children born to parents who felt inconvenienced and who didn’t want them with RoeIt is in place. Michaelson was probably a reporter on this subtle, but also extreme violence. So, if we haven’t come up with answers on how to help these unwanted children with blanket enforcement of abortion nationally, how is it any different now that RoeIs it now overturned

It’s not, but as a fellow journalist, I find this shutting off the conversation a bit suspect. Michaelson has been contracted to the Fox Corporation, which, like all news organizations, is able to set its own agendas. So, I understand that Michaelson’s independence can only go so far while he is under someone else’s banner. However, even with this walk back, he could have taken the opportunity to post a few of those interviews he has done with pro-life people and organizations, to give them exposure—because in California, the powers that be want these people and organizations to be invisible in order to shore up their rabid support of abortion for any reason, without exception, even after birth.

In fact, California has made these agencies invisible. They want them to be visible. erased.

We are now at NIFLA v. Becerra.Former Governor Jerry Brown signed the 2015 Reproductive FACT Act into law. The law required both licensed and unlicensed clinics in reproductive health to include abortion options in their referrals and resources. It was clearly aimed at pro-life pregnancy resources centers, and violated their First Amendment rights. Soon thereafter, The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (“NIFLA”) challenged the constitutionality of Act. It wended through the U.S. District Court, which upheld the law, then to the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the district court’s ruling. NIFLA applied to the United States Supreme Court for review of the case in 2018. The court accepted.

SCOTUS upheld NIFLA’s first amendment rights and struck down the FACT Act, but the California government, now under Gavin Newsom, continues to find subtle and overt ways to tear down pro-life organizations within the state. As noted above, these organizations do incredible work to save mother and child, so why was this acknowledgment — and the fact that these organizations are perpetually under attack — not a part of Michaelson’s questions?

It would have been interesting to discuss the conversation with California leaders who declared California a sanctuary for abortion rights. States serve now as the basis for proving the existence of abortion rights, or that pro-life beliefs are valid. Journalismists can present truthful stories and answer questions with a solid basis. This is also true for sanctuary states pro-life. We need to hear all voices and find the best support for the cause of life in all forms.

About Post Author

Follow Us