Giving Pelosi a Mulligan–Again

By Dave Andrusko

Editor’s note. While my family and I are on vacation, we are running some of our favorite NRL News Today stories from the last four months, entries from our “Roe at 40″ series, and an occasional update.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi

This is the last post for today, and it is last for a reason. It annoys me even to have to deal with it.

A writer for the Washington Post this morning went out of his way in his ‘Fact Checking” to excuse away what House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) said in a scolding, schoolmarmish dismissal of a series of questions posed at a press conference last week.

In a nutshell, Glenn Kessler says Pelosi should be given the benefit of the doubt, at least on the item he addressed: complaints (100% accurate, by the way) that in Pelosi’s unladylike attacks on John McCormack of the Weekly Standard she had flat out misstated what the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 1797) would do, if it became law.

Pelosi said unequivocally, “They are saying that there’s no abortion. They want to make it a federal law that there be no abortion in our country,” which was understood to refer to H.R. 1797. As we pointed out last week, the bill would do nothing of the sort, which even Pelosi’s spokesman apparently conceded in a discussion with Kessler.

So how do we explain Kessler’s give-her-a-mulligan conclusion. It took two-steps.

According to her spokesman, “Pelosi was referring not to the bill, but to what she believes is the ultimate goal of Republicans — to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion.” Why should anyone believe that? Because “Pelosi had correctly described the bill earlier in the news conference.”

But if you go to C-Span, you see Pelosi did nothing of the sort. She vaguely talked about legislation that had been passed the day before (by the House Judiciary Committee) that was “disrespectful of women”—nothing, for example, about the fact that the bill that would provide nationwide protection for unborn children who are capable of feeling pain, beginning at 20 weeks fetal age (equivalent to “22 weeks of pregnancy”), the beginning of the sixth month.


Two quick points. Even if you were to concede that Pelosi was talking globally—which I don’t understand why anyone would—what does it say that as soon as McCormack asked her to explain what is the “moral difference then between 26 weeks elective abortion [what a Maryland abortionist does] and the killing of that same infant born alive [Kermit Gosnell],” Pelosi instantly grabs for her “no abortion” defense?

It says (a) that’s the way all pro-abortionists think—ANY limitation is the same as “no abortion”; and (b) these same pro-abortionists will do anything to turn the discussion away from the Gosnells and the Carharts and “late” abortion in general.

Second, there was a lot more than that single comment where Pelosi went off the rails. They may not grist for the Washington Post’s Fact Checker, but they were for us. (See “Pelosi’s bizarre defense of late abortion”)