One thing you get used to as a pro-life writer is the near-daily influx of pro-choice talking points that are regurgitated by mainstream media news anchors.
The instances are are too numerous to document in one post, but the latest example comes from CNN “New Day” co-host Alisyn Camerota. On Wednesday, she
grilled interviewed state Attorney General Curtis Hill, a Republican, on the recent Supreme Court decision to sidestep the most controversial aspects of a 2016 pro-life bill Mike Pence signed into law when he was governor.
A quick recap:
But the court declined to take up a challenge to a provision blocking abortions on the basis of sex, race or disability, avoiding a major ruling on abortion for the time being.
The court’s order also means that the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that blocked the second Indiana abortion law stands. That law stopped abortions on the basis of the fetuses’ sex, gender or disability. The court stated that it will let lower courts continue to weigh in on that provision.
The fetal remains portion of the law was allowed to stand.
As the Free Beacon‘s David Rutz documented, Camerota went straight for the jugular in her interview with Hill. By the time it was all said and done her line of questioning sounded like it came straight of the Planned Parenthood handbook (or maybe NPR‘s abortion-reporting guidelines?).
Here’s how it went down (bolded emphasis added by me)
“What I want to focus in on is the first part we just described, where Indiana had tried to block women from getting abortions if it were based on a disability,” Camerota said. “I’m just curious about that one. Why would you want a family to have to have a child with a severe disability?”
“Well, the issue that the General Assembly faced was not with regard to the question you posed,” Hill said. “It’s the question of the rights and consideration of the unborn child in terms of discriminatory actions of eliminating that opportunity at life. Making a decision based solely on race or disability certainly is a discriminatory practice, and no decision in terms of whether or not to have a child should be based on that solely.”
“That confuses me, because as you know there are lots of terminations of pregnancies based on the fact that there are severe abnormalities of a fetus. Why would you take away that choice from a family?” Camerota asked.
Hill said it wasn’t about taking away a choice but rather making a decision because the child didn’t have a “particular characteristic.”
Later, Camerota quickly backtracked after she called unborn babies “children”, as Townhall‘s Leah Barkoukis notes:
“The law doesn’t address issues with respect to severe abnormalities that would make a child un-viable,” Hill said to a still-unsatisfied Camerota.
While she already had acknowledged at several points that the end result of a pregnancy is, indeed, a child, she catches herself referring to it as such in the womb.
“Yeah but lots of families make that decision based on — Hold on a second. Lots of families do have to make that decision based on the single characteristic of finding out their children, that their fetus, has a severe abnormality,” she said.
Watch the segments below:
CNN host Alisyn Camerota calls unborn babies "children." Then she corrects herself and calls a baby a "fetus."
— LifeNews.com (@LifeNewsHQ) May 29, 2019
Alisyn Camerota: “Why would you want a family to have to have a child with a severe disability?”
— New Day (@NewDay) May 29, 2019
Hillary Clinton came under fire from abortion advocates in 2016 after referring to an unborn child as an “unborn person” instead of a fetus.
Describing an unborn child using anything other than clinical terms like “fetus” is a big no-no in the pro-choice community. Insinuating that the compassionate thing to do in cases where an unborn child has a disability is to give parents the option to terminate the pregnancy is a common talking point for pro-choicers.
Instead of putting a qualifier of sorts in front of her questions like “abortion advocates say”, Camerota, in effect, came off as a ghoulish abortion advocate herself instead of a neutral anchor just asking questions.
—Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter.–