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

AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana

I have had the opportunity to meet Fox LA anchor and The Issue Is host Elex Michaelson. He is a genuinely nice man, and he spotlights local politics on his show in ways that others do not. The majority of corporate media is 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.

I was first taken aback because as a journalist who has featured pro-life people and organizations on his show, he knows the answer to the first two. And if he didn’t, a cursory internet search would have answered them.

Here’s the tweet:

Elex Michaelson Key Questions for Pro-Lifers


I have no idea where Michaelson stands on the issue of Life, and it really doesn’t matter to me. However, as a journalist, his premise is flawed. As one commenter said, it’s like asking when was the last time you beat your wife. The questions presume thought and behavior from the pro-life side that lacks basis.

Maybe he was building toward a segment on his Issues Is program, maybe he was just playing devil’s advocate, but I decided to join the conversation. His flawed premises could not go unchallenged, especially since we exist in a state that is 1) staunchly pro-abortion in its stance and laws, and 2) openly hostile to any pro-life organization in existence. I’ll unpack this later.

In a nutshell, there have been organizations around for decades in California and throughout the nation that have already answered the questions he was asking.

In my reply, I directed Michaelson to Elizabeth House in Pasadena, California. 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 also has a transition home where, once the woman has given birth, they are further assisted with finding work and places to live. But the care does not stop there. Once the women transition back into life outside the homes, they become a part of an alumni network. Elizabeth House stays in contact with these women and still offers help, resources, and community for decades.

Elizabeth House is only one of thousands of organizations across the nation that strive to support Life at all stages. No woman or child is abandoned, despite the lies that the Democrats and pro-abortion allies like to peddle.

An easy way for anyone to find out about these organizations is to go to the Heartbeat International website. Its mission is to connect pregnant women with resources so they can make choices that do not include taking the life of their child.

Heartbeat International also filed an amicus brief in support of the Mississippi law in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, incorporating individual testimony of women who were assisted by pro-life pregnancy resource organizations.

Other commenters also challenged Michaelson’s premise behind his questions

@Elex_Michaelson also your 3rd question is irrelevant. You are asking if government should pay to support children. A better question might be should government discourage child bearing for those who cannot afford it? Did your parents ask for subsidized child care?
why do you think people are advocating for ending abortion rights? Are you also on the side of unfettered, unregulated abortion at any and all stages of pregnancy for reasons of convenience? That’s what people aren’t thrilled with. Why don’t you ask the real ??

This commenter makes a valid point. Much of the rejection of the pro-abortion argument is that unfettered, unregulated abortion and infanticide should never be a thing. They may not want abortions gone completely, but if a child is able to live outside the womb, that child should have a right to live. 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. And further newsflash, not all of us are religious, Republican, or straight. Will our government betters find a way to a middle ground with us?

It doesn’t appear to be the case.

Perhaps had Michaelson framed a few questions like this for the pro-abortion side, his questions would appear less targeted against the pro-life argument.

It was not long before Michaelson deleted the tweet, offering this reasoning:

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. How can we help those kids?


Michaelson revealed another flawed premise—that the overturn of Roe will create more unwanted children. Categorically false.

We have had children born to parents who felt inconvenienced and who didn’t want them with Roe in place. As a news person, I am sure Michaelson has seen and probably reported on the subtle and extreme carnage that was borne out of this. 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 Roe has been overturned?

It’s not, but as a fellow journalist, I find this shutting off the conversation a bit suspect. I get that Michaelson is contracted with the corporate behemoth of the Fox corporation, which like any news organization, has 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.

Actually, the California government has gone beyond making these organizations invisible; they want them to be erased.

Which brings us to NIFLA v. Becerra. In 2015, the Reproductive FACT Act was signed into law by former California Governor Jerry Brown. It required licensed and unlicensed reproductive health clinics to add abortion options into their resources and referrals. This was a clear targeting of pro-life pregnancy resource centers and a violation of their First Amendment rights. Soon after, The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) challenged the constitutionality of the 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. In 2018, NIFLA petitioned the United States Supreme Court to hear the case, and the court agreed.


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?

With California leaders declaring the state a sanctuary for abortion rights, it would have been a good conversation to continue. States are now the proving ground for either the validity of abortion rights or the credence of the pro-life cause. Journalists who posit questions that have a concrete basis can outline truth and present stories that allow the citizens to decide. The same can be said for states that are sanctuary pro-life. Let the voices be heard, and see what best supports the cause of Life in all its forms.


Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos