As a society, every day we stray further from God’s Light, but few are wandering aimlessly in pitch blackness the way that the hosts at CNN are doing.
CNN host Alisyn Camerota is very confused.
She says so repeatedly in a recent exchange with Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill when discussing a state law prohibiting discriminatory abortions based on an unborn baby’s sex, race, or a disability such as Down syndrome.
The Supreme Court just allowed a lower court ruling blocking the law to stand, but upheld a state law requiring abortion providers to bury or cremate fetal remains.
The treatment of fetal remains didn’t seem to bother her, but Camerota just can’t understand why it’s not acceptable to abort a child with disabilities if the family doesn’t want to care for that child.
She was aggressive in asking the Republican AG about the law.
CAMEROTA: So, it sounds like you got this mixed decision, and 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. I’m just curious about that one. Why would you want a family to have to have a child with a severe disability?
HILL: Well, the issue that the General Assembly faced was not with regard to the question you posed. 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’s what the General Assembly chose to do in its ban.
CAMEROTA: 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. And so, why would you take away that choice from a family?
HILL: Well, it’s not a matter of taking away that choice, it’s a matter of making that decision solely on the basis of not wanting a child because the child doesn’t have a particular characteristic. We have certainly examples every day of children who appear to have disabilities or concerns or problems, prenatal, that are born and live very productive lives and families who support those children. So, it’s a matter of whether or not it’s appropriate to use that as sole basis.
Camerota and Hill continued in this back and forth for the entire six-minute segment.
The interesting point to note here is that Camerota initially referred to the baby as a “child” before correcting herself and saying “fetus.” She clearly recognizes that is a child and not a “choice.”
This view of life is the same as eugenicists like Margaret Sanger who wanted to rid the world of the “inferior” specimens of humanity. It’s absolutely disgusting and should be condemned totally by anyone who has any humanity at all.
Parents are often pressured to abort their child because of a disability detected in utero telling them that it’s the “compassionate” thing to do.
Remember the story of Charlie Gard in the U.K.? His parents fought their own government healthcare system to keep him alive until he died of natural causes.
Back in 2019, Justice Clarence Thomas condemned abortion and said that it is “rife with potential for eugenic manipulation.”
The use of abortion to achieve eugenic goals is not merely hypothetical. The foundations for legalizing abortion in America were laid during the early 20th-century birth-control movement. That movement developed alongside the American eugenics movement. And significantly, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger recognized the eugenic potential of her cause. She emphasized and embraced the notion that birth control “opens the way to the eugenist.”
But now it’s not just the fringe wingnuts who want to cleanse the world from the imperfect — corporate journalists are advocating for the practice.
If it were up to the corporate media and leftists, then children with disabilities would be aborted and Margaret Sanger’s eugenics goals would be partially achieved.