Discover more from The Transom
Kamala Harris Just Revealed How Extreme Democrats Are On Abortion
She can't answer the simplest question about limits, because she doesn't think there should be any
Credit where due to CBS’s Margaret Brennan for asking the question, then asking it again, then asking it again: Kamala Harris turns into a robotic talking point machine when it comes to the abortion issue, repeatedly refusing to answer where she thinks any limits on abortion should be.
Earlier this week, Tennessee Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn surprisingly claimed on Fox News that Democrats “have supported abortion up to the last minute before — and after — birth.” Many other Republican politicians and conservative pundits have argued that Democrats do not support any term restrictions on when an abortion can be performed before birth.
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.
As Brennan continued to seek an answer on the question, Harris repeated that answer four more times.
“We need to put back the protections that are in Roe v. Wade into law,” said Harris.
“We need to put back in place the protections of Roe v. Wade,” Harris said.
“We need to put into law the protections of Roe v. Wade,” Harris said.
“I believe that we should put the protections of Roe v. Wade into law,” Harris concluded.
The other part of her answer, on Congress having the ability to restore what the Court “took from the women of America” was repeated only two more times.
“Since the Supreme Court took it, Congress has the power and ability to pass legislation to put those protections back in law,” Harris said, and that it’s “about going back to where we were before the Dobbs decision.”
As the two went back and forth, Brennan brought up Republican claims about supporting abortion up until birth, which Harris called “ridiculous” and Brennan somewhat mysteriously said is “statistically not accurate” despite it being a question of policy not rate of incidence. Brennan then pressed again, saying that, considering the claims and the nature of the laws and the fact that Roe was “nebulous” about timeframes, then should Democrats be more precise on the issue.
“I am being precise,” said Harris without changing her answer to include any non-nebulous specific limits on abortion at any point during pregnancy.
More on the interview meltdown. The “level with the American people” entry point to this issue that Brennan just deployed was unintentionally more revealing and more damaging about Kamala’s position, and the position of the Democratic Party. Why does it fall to a CBS host, a liberal one at that, to ask a more pointed question of this administration or any Democrat for that matter than anyone has ever done on this issue? Why is something that is so definitionally at the core of the Democratic agenda allowed to remain so nebulous and poorly defined?
(Brennan also falsely says that the Republican talking point about allowing abortions up until birth is inaccurate, but what she really appears to mean by that is that it’s rare — which has nothing to do with whether it’s allowed under the preferred Democratic law or not.)
The ability of Democratic politicians to avoid any kind of questions about this is itself an indictment of the en masse support for killing babies among media figures with any ability to interact with these politicians on a regular basis.
The Electoral Picture Worsens for Trump
Together, the midterms, the state polling and the Times/Siena polls offer three serious if imperfect data points suggesting Mr. Trump isn’t faring much better in the battleground states compared with nationwide, at least for now.
But why? Broadly speaking, there are two major theories: the issues and demographics.
First, the issues. In the aftermath of the midterms, Democratic strength in key battleground states appeared attributable to specific issues on the ballot, like abortion, crime and democracy. This helped explain some aspects of the election, including the failures of anti-abortion referendums and stop-the-steal candidates — and perhaps New York Democrats.
It’s possible these new issues are helping to shift the electoral map heading into 2024 as well. New issues that have emerged since 2020 — abortion rights, trans rights, education, the “woke” left and crime — are primarily state and local issues where blue, red and purple state voters inhabit different political realities, with plausible consequences for electoral politics.
Moderate voters in a blue state — say around Portland, Ore. — have no need to fear whether their state’s conservatives will enact new restrictions on transgender rights or abortion rights, but they might wonder whether the left has gone too far pursuing equity in public schools. They might increasingly harbor doubts about progressive attitudes on drugs, the homeless and crime, as visible drug use among the homeless in Portland becomes national news.
But moderate voters in a purple state — say those who live around Grand Rapids, Mich. — might have a different set of concerns. The “woke” left could be a very distant worry, if they understand what it is at all. They’ve probably never heard of the gender unicorn. Their city’s crime, homelessness and drug problems don’t make national news.
What does make national news is the conduct of their state’s Republican Party, which not only tried to ban abortion last fall but also embraced the stop-the-steal movement. The “threat to democracy” is not an abstraction for Biden voters here: It was their votes that Mr. Trump and his allies tried to toss out.
This is a plausible explanation, if one that’s hard to put to the test. The apparent relationship between the midterms and presidential polling is perhaps the best piece of evidence, if we stipulate that the pattern in the midterms was indeed explained by the varying salience of these state and local issues.
Why Do Women Need to Feel Fear?
The message today’s young women are getting is that if their inner voice says it feels wrong when someone with a penis undresses in front of them, or is present when they undress, in a space designated for women, there is something wrong with them. Scanlan said in her testimony: “We, the women, were the problem, not the victims. We were expected to conform, to move over and shut up. Our feelings didn’t matter. The university was gaslighting and fearmongering women to validate the feelings and identity of a male.”
It appears that institutions, politicians and progressives are happy to sacrifice women at the altar of inclusivity. They demand we keep quiet when we feel uncomfortable or unsafe. Ironically, instead of teaching us to keep ourselves safe and fear violation, the women’s movement teaches us to fear being labelled as bigots. Paula Scanlan and collegiate swimmer Riley Gaines have been called transphobes for objecting to someone striding around with his penis on show in a locker room designated for women.
We are setting a dangerous precedent. Think about the young women watching the way that Scanlan and Gaines are being treated. They will surely conclude that they must suffer to accommodate the small handful of males that want to make everything about them. They are now being given access to female prisons, domestic abuse shelters, rape centres, locker rooms, spas and public toilets, as well as changing rooms.
The Trans Kids Madness
Slamming these bans histrionically as “genocide” (four in 15,000 patients of the Tavistock Clinic or on its waiting list committed suicide between 2010 and 2020, but according to propaganda it’s up to 50 percent of trans kids who try to kill themselves), the American left claims withdrawal of cross-sex hormones, puberty blockers and sex “reassignment” surgery for children violates the “rights” of trans kids. Yet progressives never seem indignant over the gross unfairness that children can’t buy alcohol, purchase cigarettes, join the army, get a tattoo, work in factories, marry or consent to sex with an adult. Why doesn’t being prevented from snagging a packet of Marlboros violate children’s rights?
Oh, no, we must protect minors from injuring their health when they’re too young to appreciate the threats of cancer and addiction. But according to the American left, which used to decry female genital mutilation, twelve-year-olds are mature enough to decide to halt the progress of puberty (potentially imperiling their brain and skeletal development), commit to a costly pharmaceutical regimen replete with irksome side effects for the rest of their lives, have healthy body parts hacked off, accept a future of sexual dysfunction and forgo parenthood altogether. In the frenzy of the culture wars, Republicans have passed some clumsy legislation, but these laws are spot on. Nevertheless, Canada has issued a comical travel advisory about the “risks” in certain US states for citizens who belong to that ever-extending string of upper case letters.
Gotta hand it to these doctors: “gender-affirming care” is genius branding. Usefully, “gender” has become a nonsense word. What could possibly be wrong with “affirming?” Why, the adjective exudes niceness, solace and esteem. And no physician or parent could oppose “care.” Yet the euphemism translates to “sex-denying medical experimentation.”
Items of Interest
Try to praise the mutilated world. Remember June's long days, and wild strawberries, drops of rosé wine. The nettles that methodically overgrow the abandoned homesteads of exiles. You must praise the mutilated world. You watched the stylish yachts and ships; one of them had a long trip ahead of it, while salty oblivion awaited others. You've seen the refugees going nowhere, you've heard the executioners sing joyfully. You should praise the mutilated world. Remember the moments when we were together in a white room and the curtain fluttered. Return in thought to the concert where music flared. You gathered acorns in the park in autumn and leaves eddied over the earth's scars. Praise the mutilated world and the gray feather a thrush lost, and the gentle light that strays and vanishes and returns.
— Adam Zagajewski