The left-wing media likes to obnoxiously tout how pro-science they are yet they abandon science when it comes to gender and when an unborn baby becomes “human.” So it’s remarkable that CNN today, still tried to characterize the conservative pro-life view as the “anti-science” side.
You can find more information here CNN Newsroom, the panel was reacting to the Supreme Court arguing over whether or not to uphold Mississippi’s proposed 15-week-abortion ban. They attacked right-leaning justices who expressed openness to the law’s upholding, and proudly praised the dogmatic hyperbole of the left-leaning justices.
CNN host Alisyn Camerota was particularly offended by Justice Roberts questioning why 15 weeks gestational age vs. 24 weeks mattered, if abortion was about a woman’s “choice.” A good question, but that honesty wasn’t appreciated by the CNN host.
“[S]It struck me that many of the justices’ questions were about abortion. It’s not even about abortion.,” she sneered. Camerota claimed that Roberts’ question revealed his ignorance about pregnancy screenings determining a baby’s viability:
“The question from John Roberts, he was basically asking ‘why isn’t 15 weeks fine?’ I mean as though he doesn’t know that there are all sorts of screening tests when you’re pregnant that happen at week 18, at week 20 that decide the viability of your fetus!” She argued.
“Important information is available at week 20, which you don’t have before. However, it did not sound as if he had any idea!” she further whined to her guest, Gloria Browne-Marshall.
However, spontaneous miscarriage risk is low for babies who survive beyond the 13-week mark of the first trimester. So the only thing Camerota could mean is that if a baby had a congenital disorder that was likely to be fatal, the mother should have the right to abort rather than going through the rest of pregnancy. However, even Camerota’s complaints aren’t valid, as the Mississippi law still allows abortions in cases of severe fetal abnormalities, which is what that would fall under.
Browne-Marshall, a constitutional law professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, also was flabbergasted by Roberts’ comments.
“I’m hearing somebody who doesn’t really understand that sometimes in the early stages, a woman might not even know she’s pregnant for some time, you know, depending on how her body changes or doesn’t change,” she stated. The notion that most women wouldn’t know they’re pregnant by four months along, is just far-fetched. However, even though you may take her argument seriously some reality TV shows have shown that some women don’t know until they give birth that they are pregnant. However, no one advocated “terminating” a child.
Ironically, this is exactly what the CNN contributor does: she undermines her argument.
Browne-Marshall bashed the conservatives on the court as going against “science” by touting a woman’s choice rather than relying on viability. It was also likened to covid.
This is also where you wrestle to find out how someone feels. It is important that a woman chooses her own path, rather than having viability. Then science comes in. The idea is very similar to the one we have right now regarding covid. Und In this instance, that’s what we’re working with this court, It is the idea that we would like to grant the state this power from a conservative viewpoint, which is against science. Also, we can forget all about science and create our standards.
In the sense that abortion should not be decided by feelings, she is correct. Thankfully science already reveals to us that an embryo is a human being with DNA from conception, so maybe the left-wing media shouldn’t be claiming science is on their side.
Carvana sponsored this program, please contact them through the Conservatives Fight Back webpage linked.
You can read the transcript here:
CNN Newsroom
12/1/2021
2pm-3pm
ALISYN CAMERO: Gloria, I want to begin with you because some questions from the justices made me realize how ignorant they are about the subject of pregnancy. You don’t have to worry about abortion. The question from John Roberts, he was basically asking ‘why isn’t 15 weeks fine,’ I mean as though he doesn’t know that there are all sorts of screening tests when you’re pregnant that happen at week 18, at week 20 These factors will determine the viability and health of your foetus. At week 20, you get vital information that was not available before. He didn’t understand it, so I asked him.
JUSTICE ROBERTS: If you think it that the issue is one of choice, that women should have a choice to terminate their pregnancy, that supposes that there is a point at which they’ve had the fair choice, opportunity to choice, and why would 15 weeks be an inappropriate line, so viability it seems to me doesn’t have anything to do with choice. However, if this is a matter of choice, is it not sufficient time to allow for 15 weeks?
CAMEROTA: OK, what was it Gloria?
GLORIA BROWNE–MARSHALL, CONSTITUTIONALLAW PROFESSOR, and AUTHOR
I’m hearing Someone who does not understand the concept of pregnancy might not realize that sometimes, in the beginning stages of a woman’s life, she may not be aware that she is pregnant.It all depends on what her body does or doesn’t do. This is a wrestling phase of trying to find out how to make someone feel. It is a time when a woman can choose to have viability, but not her choice. Then science comes in. The idea is very similar to the one we have right now regarding covid. Und In this instance, that’s what were’re working with this court, It is the idea that we would like to grant the states power from a conservative viewpoint, and this goes against science. Also, we can forget all about science and create our standards.
VICTOR BLACKWELL: And Steve, to the question of precedent, justice Sotomayor talked about or asked the question, ‘Will the institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception?’ of, this is all political!
STEVE VLADECK, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, LAW PROFESSOR: Yeah I think it’s the right question from Justice Sotomayor, and one of the things I think that really came through in the argument today is, yes, there have been bad precedents throughout the course of history, that the justices have overruled. But, it is usually in support of increased individual rights. In this case, the court would overrule precedent to remove rights already granted. This is the first time we have not seen such a decision in a country so divided. We don’t know of any other case where women are so reliant on the fact that they can have an abortion. And then Justice Sotomayor saying, ‘hey conservative colleagues, we’re not ready for this, if you actually take the step that it looks like you’re willing to take.”
About Post Author
