By Dave Andrusko
To be honest, I was flabbergasted when I watched Face the Nation’s Margaret Brennan grill pro-abortion Vice President Kamala Harriss, challenging her to put an upper limit on far into pregnancy she and the President would allow abortion.
Needless to say, but I will say it anyway, she replied robotically, “We need to put into law the protections of Roe v. Wade. And that is about going back to where we were before the Dobbs decision.” But to her everlasting credit, Brennan asked (and asked and asked), for precision.
Here’s a portion of their back and forth as transcribed by Caleb Howe:
Brennan asked Harris first on Sunday whether Democrats should be more “realistic” in making campaign promises about new laws to restore what Roe v. Wade protected because “the math doesn’t add up” on the ability to pass such a law.
“Don’t you need to level with the American people and say this is not a realistic promise to make for 2024?” asked Brennan.
“Congress has the ability to put back in place the rights that the Supreme Court took from the women of America,” Harris replied, the first of several times she would repeat that comment.
When Brennan pointed out that Democrats don’t have the votes, Harris responded that that is what elections are for, and the topic moved to the vice president’s views.
“What is it that you believe? I mean, what week of pregnancy should abortion access be cut off?” asked Brennan.
“We need to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade,” answered Harris.
Four more times Brennan persisted. Four more times Harris repeated her mantra.
For the record, Doe V. Bolton, Roe v. Wade’s companion decision, introduced exceptions wide enough to drive a truck through. Abortion was limited only by an abortionist’s willingness to commit what amounted to infanticide. Which is why Harris was particularly unwilling to specify a date after which abortion should not be permitted.
Finally, there was an exchange which Harris, as she did repeatedly during the interview, interrupted Brennan. Harris was bragging about how a majority of women being behind Democrats when Brennan said “What is it that you believe? I mean, what week of pregnancy should abortion access be cut off?”
A moment later Brennan introduced “viability.” Harris wanted no part of that. Brennan keened noted “That’s, that was in the Women’s Health Protection Act that the White House also endorsed.” Bingo!
The last thing Harris wanted to be pinned down on was that piece of legislation. Why?
As Ramesh Ponnuru explained
Nearly all Democrats in Congress, along with the Biden administration, support the Women’s Health Protection Act, which engages in the same bait-and-switch as Roe. Abortion can be forbidden after viability, it says, unless “the treating health care provider” considers it necessary to protect a patient’s “health.” If that weren’t enough, the proposed law says courts should “liberally construe” its terms.
A very instructive exchange which highlights as few other exchanges have how thoroughly pro-abortion Democrats count on the media to hide their radically anti-life position.