MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell or Planned Parenthood's Andrea Mitchell? It's hard to tell sometimes. On her Friday show on MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell welcomed California Rep. Jackie Speier to discuss the House passing a bill that would prohibit any restrictions on abortion. Speaking in a solemn tone the host declared that pro-lifers, especially men, just don't get it when it comes to the issue.
After lamenting that the bill will not pass the Senate, Mitchell observed how some laws that were once considered restrictive now look less so, "what you're now facing is a Mississippi argument that's been scheduled in the Supreme Court which is a 15 week, not the 6 weeks, but 15 weeks, and what had originally been thought by supporters of the right to choose as a very restrictive law before, of course, we saw the Texas law."
The journalist then condemned pro-lifers for not understanding what goes into the decision to get an abortion, 'So, the handwriting many feel for those who want the right to at least have an abortion, we know how, how difficult it is for women and it's poorly understood by a lot of people."
She then specifically targeted men, "We recently saw something in the press room when Jen Psaki was asked about it by a male reporter and said very tartly 'I know you've never had this experience but no woman who is going through this does it lightly.' But you're really facing a critical year in the Supreme Court."
Mitchell is referring to Owen Jensen, who is a reporter for the Catholic news agency EWTN, who asked Psaki why President Biden supports abortion, even though Catholicism says it is morally wrong. Mitchell ignored this context, perhaps because it showed Psaki dodged the question.
For her part, Speier declared "I will tell you that 25 percent of the women in this country have had an abortion. It is a medical process. It's a medical procedure. The American Medical Association says it is part of providing health to women. And I think that we're going to see an uprising like we've never seen before if we do not codify this law that has been passed in the House now. And we're going to call upon our Senate colleagues to do that. "
The AMA also thinks putting biological sex on birth certificates is bigoted because sex is merely something someone is "assigned." As for survey data, the language of the bill would suggest that it seeks to make abortions legal at all times, even nine months into the pregnancy, something 80% of Americans oppose, but Mitchell and her fellow journalists won't mention that the next time they try to portray abortion as universally popular.
This segment was sponsored by Liberty Mutual. Click on the link to let them know what you think.
Here is a transcript for the September 24 show:
MSNBC
Andrea Mitchell Reports
12:29 PM ET
ANDREA MITCHELL: And of course, I referred to the fact the Senate is unlikely to pass this. I know this is a real marker and it could be a rallying cry. Obviously it's a big midterm issue already, but what you’re now facing is a Mississippi argument that's been scheduled in the Supreme Court, which is a 15 week, not the six weeks, but 15 weeks, and what had originally been thought by supporters of the right to choose as a very restrictive law before, of course, we saw the Texas law.
So, the handwriting many feel, for those who want the right to at least have an abortion, we know how, how difficult it is for women and it's poorly understood by a lot of people. We recently saw something in the press room when Jen Psaki was asked about it by a male reporter and said very tartly "I know you've never had this experience but no woman who is going through this does it lightly.' But you're really facing a critical year in the Supreme Court.
JACKIE SPIER: We are indeed and it has been a litmus test certainly on, under Donald Trump to make sure that those that he appointed would be willing to overturn Roe v. Wade. But I will tell you that 25 percent of the women in this country have had an abortion. It is a medical process. It's a medical procedure. The American Medical Association says it is part of providing health to women. And I think that we're going to see an uprising like we've never seen before if we do not codify this law that has been passed in the House now. And we're going to call upon our Senate colleagues to do that. And they can do that by narrowing the filibuster so that, in fact, under circumstances that affect the health and welfare of women, that they could, in fact, get rid of the filibuster. That would put us in a position to pass it in the Senate.
