CNN: Conservative Justices Anti-‘Science’ for Not Striking Down Abortion Ban

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.

On CNN Newsroom, the panel was reacting to the Supreme Court arguing over whether or not to uphold Mississippi’s proposed 15-week-abortion ban. Predictably, they attacked the right-leaning justices for expressing openness to upholding the law, while they proudly touted the dogmatic hyperbole from the left-wing 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]ome of the questions from the justices struck me how little they know about pregnancy. I mean, never mind 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. 

You get important information at week 20 that you didn’t know before that. But it didn’t sound like he understood that!” she further whined to her guest, Gloria Browne-Marshall. 

But if a baby survives past the first trimester around 13 weeks, the risk of spontaneous miscarriage is extremely low. 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. But even if you take her argument seriously, some women supposedly don’t even know they’re pregnant until birth, according to some reality television shows. But no one would advocate for “terminating” a baby, then.

Ironically, the CNN contributor undermines her own argument right after this.

Browne-Marshall bashed the conservatives on the court as going against “science” by touting a woman’s choice rather than relying on viability. She also compared it to covid:

I think it’s also a wrestling period of trying to just figure out how can someone feel a time period in which a woman’s choice should be made as opposed to having viability be that choice. And then that brings in science. It goes almost to what we’re dealing with right now with covid, a feeling versus science. And In this instance, that’s what we’re working with this court, is the sense that we want to give the states this power from the conservative standpoint, and that goes against science. So then just forget about science and make up standards as we go along.

She’s right in the sense that feelings shouldn’t be the deciding factor in abortion. 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 show, contact them at the Conservatives Fight Back page linked.

Read the transcript below:

CNN Newsroom

12/1/2021

2pm-3pm

ALISYN CAMEROTA: Gloria I just want to start with you, because some of the questions from the justices struck me how little they know about pregnancy. I mean, never mind 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 that decide the viability of your fetus. You get important information at week 20 that you didn’t know before that. But it didn’t sound like he understood that, so here is his question. 

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. But if it really is an issue about choice, why is 15 weeks not enough time? 

CAMEROTA: Okay, so what did you hear there Gloria?

GLORIA BROWNE-MARSHALL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR, AUTHOR: 

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. I think it’s also a wrestling period of trying to just figure out how can someone feel a time period in which a woman’s choice should be made as opposed to having viability be that choice. And then that brings in science. It goes almost to what we’re dealing with right now with covid, a feeling versus science. And In this instance, that’s what were’re working with this court, is the sense that we want to give the states this power from the conservative standpoint, and that goes against science. So then just forget about science and make up standards as we go along.

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. Usually, though, in the favor of expanded individual rights. Here we have a case where overruling precedent would be to take away rights that the court has recognized. We haven’t seen that kind of decision where the country is so evenly divided, where there’s so much reliance built into women assuming that they have the right to pursue a pre-viability 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.”

View Original Source Source