Because the Supreme Court has “court” in its name, most people understand that it is an institution tasked with addressing legal issues, but MSNBC’s Ali Velshi and The New Yorker’s Sheelah Kolhatkar are not most people. On Velshi’s Saturday show, they condemned the Court for “talking about the Constitution” and “the right to life” while ignoring economic statistics.
Coming out of commercial, Velshi played an exchange between Sen. Tim Scott and Janet Yellen with Scott arguing that Yellen justifying abortion on the grounds of increased labor force participation is “callous.”
Velshi was unconvinced, “But I thought Janet Yellen made the argument that may seem callous to you but it’s an element of what we have taken as freedom for this country. That a woman gets to, sort of, decide when she starts the career, when she ends the career, and how her career advances. That's not callous, that’s--that’s-- just fact.”
Velshi didn’t play the part of Scott rebuking Yellen for saying abortion is better than having babies grow up poor, which was even more callous. Instead, Kolhatkar also hyped the impersonal data, “Well, as the economist interviewed said, the data is the data. And, of course, you can have moral differences about abortion. We all understand that, but the justices who signed this draft opinion and obviously some members of Congress did not even consider or acknowledge the data that reveals how this will affect women.”
Kolhatkar then condemned the draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade, “You know, they spend 98 pages of their draft opinion talking about the Constitution, they talk about conception, and the right to life but there's almost nothing about what this will look like in society other than a very cursory throwaway line about how there is widespread access to childcare, contraception, and paid family leave.”
After condemning the Court for doing its job and putting life before money, Kolhatkar added, “And, of course, those, as we know, are simply false assertions.”
Speaking of false assertions, she added, “Contraception is a target now of abortion forces.”
After again lamenting the justices didn’t pretend to be economists, Velshi returned to repeat the falsehood about pro-lifers coming after contraception, “You make, an interesting point, that it does become about a control as opposed to abortion because you might argue ‘well there’s contraception that people can use that would also reduce teenage pregnancy and things like that,’ but—but-- as you said, those are also being targeted. So, at some point, one has to wonder what's is about.”
It's about life. It really is not that complicated.
This segment was sponsored by Volvo.
Here is a transcript for the May 14 show:
MSNBC Velshi
5/14/2022
8:55 AM ET
ALI VELSHI: I thought that was a useful exchange during an oversight hearing earlier this week between the Republican congressman Tim Scott of South Carolina and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, about the economic effects of abortion rights.
Joining me to continue that discussion is Sheelah Kolhatkar, a staff writer for The New Yorker, author of the book Black Edge. Sheelah, I mean, I get where Tim Scott was coming from, talking about abortion in terms of labor force participation for women. Lot of things in economics seem callous to put it way.
But I thought Janet Yellen made the argument that may seem callous to you but it’s an element of what we have taken as freedom for this country. That a woman gets to, sort of, decide when she starts the career, when she ends the career, and how her career advances. That's not callous, that’s--that’s-- just fact.
SHEELAH KOLHATKAR: Well, as the economist interviewed said, the data is the data. And, of course, you can have moral differences about abortion. We all understand that, but the justices who signed this draft opinion and obviously some members of Congress did not even consider or acknowledge the data that reveals how this will affect women.
And the data is really disturbing. You know, they spend 98 pages of their draft opinion talking about the Constitution, they talk about conception, and the right to life but there's almost nothing about what this will look like in society other than a very cursory throwaway line about how there is widespread access to childcare, contraception, and paid family leave.
So, the matter is not relevant. And, of course, those, as we know, are simply false—
VELSHI: Yes.
KOLHATKAR: -- assertions.
VELSHI: Let me ask you--
KOLHATKAR: There’s no affordable chair childcare prices in this country.
VELSHI: Right
KOLHATKAR: Contraception is a target now of abortion forces. They want to restrict access and this—this-- country is the lowest out of all industrialized nations, in terms of providing paid family leave, but for —
VELSHI: Yeah.
KOLHATKAR: -- whatever reason, they just decided that none of this matters and it’s just not even worth acknowledging—
VELSHI: Yeah.
KOLHATKAR:-- in this discussion.
VELSHI: Childcare and paid family leave are taken for granted in other developed countries. You make, an interesting point, that it does become about a control as opposed to abortion because you might argue “well there’s contraception that people can use that would also reduce teenage pregnancy and things like that,” but—but-- as you said, those are also being targeted. So, at some point, one has to wonder what's is about.
