Both patronizing and wrong, Cuomo perfectly demonstrates how bad the media are at covering abortion.
By Mollie Hemingway
AUGUST 10, 2015
Chris Cuomo is a broadcast journalist, currently anchoring at CNN. He previously was the ABC News chief law and justice correspondent, and co-anchor for ABC’s 20/20. He’s also the brother of the current governor of New York and the son of a previous governor of New York.
Oh, and he has no idea where babies come from.
He interviewed Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) the day after the first GOP presidential primary debate last week. And Cuomo came out hard in support of abortion. That’s not particularly noteworthy in the current media environment, where journalists openly advocate for abortion.
But it is worth noting that he did it in a mind-numbingly idiotic manner.
Chris Cuomo Does Not Understand Politics. At All
First he tried to play gotcha by replaying a clip where Fox News’ Megyn Kelly wondered how Rubio justified ending lives just because they began “violently through no fault of the baby.” He had responded that he didn’t believe such terminations of lives were justified. A-ha! says Cuomo:
CUOMO: All right. The first situation, as you know now, 2013, you were on that bill 1617 that did have a carve-out for rape and incest. So, it seems that you had your own record wrong. Is that something you want to correct this morning?
Apparently Cuomo, who, again, is a major journalist, has never heard of politicians working to pass any piece of legislation other than pieces of legislation that could only be passed in the perfect dream world of the legislator. Rubio explained, calmly, that all pro-life politicians and groups, including the Catholic Conference of Bishops, support such pieces of legislation, because if passed they help protect some unborn children.
The arrogance, by the way, of not understanding how politics works and posing the question, “Is that something you want to correct this morning?” is too much, no? By the way, S. 1617—the “If You Like Your Health Care Plan, You Can Keep It Act“—was introduced in 2013 and was cosponsored by Rubio, but doesn’t mention abortion, rape, or incest. So Cuomo must have been confused about the legislation under discussion.
Also worth noting is that Rubio tried to help Cuomo understand this basic political process by noting that he supports a 20-week abortion ban but that such support does not mean he is in favor of abortions at 19 weeks.
Cuomo said he didn’t think that was a fitting analogy. He also claimed to understand Rubio’s argument but insist that some imagined inconsistency was still problematic. Rubio remained shockingly calm.
We’re not even close to the stupidest part of the interview. Before we get there, let’s note that when Rubio said he believed all human life is valuable and deserving of protection of the law, Cuomo responded
CUOMO: It’s interesting that draw distinctions about the old and the new in certain regards. But on this one, you say it’s timeless because as you know, our cultural mores in this country, certainly the opinions of women are not in step with what you’re saying right now. You’re comfortable with that?
The opinions of women are not pro-life? I know this is a common trope pulled out by radical abortion extremists such as Planned Parenthood, but in fact one’s sex does not explain one’s view on abortion. Men and women in America’s newsrooms might be uniform in their support of abortion, but the actual country is about as divided as can be. And depending on the questions you ask and the polling samples, the majority position swings back and forth. A recent Gallup poll showed 50 percent of Americans saying they were pro-choice—the first time it had been that high in seven years—but three years ago women were more likely to self-affiliate as pro-life than pro-choice.
It’s beyond time for the media to stop carrying water for the abortion industry by claiming that legalized killing of unborn children is something women all favor. We don’t. And we’re sick of the media spreading falsehoods that claim otherwise.
Besides, if we’re talking about unpopular abortion views, how about CNN start harassing abortion extremists about how their support for killing late-term unborn children is a view huge majorities of Americans oppose?
OK, here’s where the interview really gets good though. You can watch some of it here:
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/politics/2015/08/07/marco-rubio-abortion-faith-cuomo-newday.cnn.html
CUOMO: I know, but you’re deciding when it is human life…
RUBIO: No, science has decided when it is human life.
CUOMO: Science has not decided it’s at conception.
RUBIO: No, let me correct you. Science has—absolutely it has.
CUOMO: Not at conception.
Did Chris Cuomo go to the Philip Bump school of obstetrics?
Let me explain. This is not the first time that Marco Rubio has had to explain the most basic science to our mainstream media. And I hope he does it again, because it’s absolutely hilarious to watch our media attempt to claim that “science” (invocation of which is best understood as an incantation of a beloved deity) hasn’t issued its ruling on the matter.
Over a year ago, Rubio said:
The science is settled, it’s not even a consensus, it is a unanimity, that human life begins at conception. So I hope the next time that someone wags their finger about science, they’ll ask one of these leaders on the left: ‘Do you agree with the consensus of scientists that say that human life begins at conception?’ I’d like to see someone ask that question.
The Washington Post‘s Philip Bump wrote a piece headlined, “Marco Rubio demanded people look at the science on abortion. So we did.” Except they didn’t.
Bump wrote a smug piece about how a pro-abortion doctors group says pregnancybegins when the human embryo implants in the lining of a woman’s uterus. He thought that this (recently changed) definition of pregnancy meant that implantation was when human life began, instead of when it actually begins, which is at conception.
If you are in any way confused about this process, here’s a very helpful and easy to understand animated video about it:
The video begins:
Fertilization is the epic story of a single sperm facing incredible odds to unite with an egg and form a new human life.
It is the story of all of us.
Emphasis mine. The animation explains the process of how a single sperm attaches to the egg cell membrane and how their outer membranes fuse. You can watch for the details, but note this from late in the video:
At this moment, a unique genetic code arises, instantly determining gender, hair color, eye color and hundreds of other characteristics.
This new single cell, the zygote, is the beginning of a new human being.
Here are many more examples of what “science” has to say about the fairly simple and obvious fact that human life begins at conception.
So I have this friend who is simultaneously very bad with directions but also adamant that she knows where she’s going. Thankfully this trait works out to be somehow charming. But on Cuomo, the combination of having no idea what he’s talking about and arrogance about same isn’t nearly so cute. Here’s a sample:
CUOMO: This is not my argument. This is a presented argument of science. It having a DNA map. So does a plant. It’s about when it becomes a human being. I’m not saying what I think in answer to that question. That’s not my position. But don’t you think, if you want to be a leader of the future, that’s a question that deserves an answers that is definitive beyond your faith, when does life begin. None of you are calling for any type at panel—
RUBIO: At conception. At conception.
CUOMO: That’s your faith. That’s your faith. That’s not science.
RUBIO: No, it isn’t. That’s science.
CUOMO: It is not definitive science.
RUBIO: Absolutely it is.
CUOMO: I will have scientists on this show all morning—
RUBIO: It absolutely is.
CUOMO: From all walks of life who will say, we cannot say it is definitely human life at conception.
In fact, no. All scientists know that life begins at conception. It’s so bleeding obvious and basic that it’s sort of like saying “things begin at the beginning!” No scientist will argue that human life does not begin when, well, it begins. Which is at conception.
Also, you’ll have to read the full transcript and make up your own mind, but I think Cuomo was kind of trying to argue that while something begins at conception, we don’t even know if it will or won’t be human as opposed to something else.
Chris Cuomo Has Vocational Confusion
Cuomo hilariously, if completely unconvincingly, tried to say that his lengthy and oddly focused rant against scientific basics (albeit while invoking science) was not a reflection of his own views (heh). He mentioned that he self-identifies as a Catholic, something also mentioned by abortion radicals such as Rep. Nancy Pelosi.
But the job of a mainstream journalist is not to lecture a politician, particularly if said lecture is riddled with scientific inaccuracies. It’s also not to give concern-trolling campaign advice, as he does here:
CUOMO: I’m saying, if you’re going to be a leader of the future, this is something that deserves an answer that goes beyond faith. That’s all I’m saying as a suggestion, not as an answer—not as a suggestion to the answer to the question.
Let’s leave apart the fact that Rubio repeatedly and accurately conveyed scientific arguments, as opposed to made a case from religion. Why is a CNN anchor giving a politician suggestions, based in completely and utter ignorance of science, anyway?
Listen, we all get that the media are all in on Team Abortion. It’s beyond obvious. But that they have to massacre science in the service of that campaign is certainly telling.
Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter at@mzhemingway
No comments:
Post a Comment