On Thursday's Amanpour & Co. on PBS and CNN International, as she spoke with veteran liberal activist Gloria Steinem, host Christiane Amanpour fretted that the confirmation of U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett would mean a "setback on women's rights" and hinted that her Catholic faith is an indication she might undermine such rights.
Setting up a segment focused on a new film about Steinem's life, titled The Glorias, Amanpour noted the presidential election as she warned:
There is much at stake, of course, in this year's election from the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, which could bring potential setbacks on women's rights, to a pandemic that has disproportionately effected women's livelihoods and the mental health, especially amongst women of color.
She then added:
And my first guest tonight has spent her life fighting for women's rights in the workplace, at home, and over our own bodies. Gloria Steinem is the most famous face and the mother of American feminism today. And her amazing story has been turned into a biopic called The Glorias. She was the first to champion intersectional feminism -- the inextricable link between black and other women and color, systemic racism and misogyny.
As she spoke with Steinem and the film's director, Julie Taymor, Amanpour brought up the nomination of Judge Barrett and asked Steinem for her reaction:
It is political, it is about President Trump, and it is also ... about the Supreme Court nominating a woman, and yet a woman who appears to be -- well, she is Roman Catholic, but she says she will deal with precedent and not allow her faith to interfere with her judicial jurisprudence, but she's also -- apparently have ties with something called the People of Praise, which is a Christian group which holds that "men are divinely ordained as the head of the family and faith." What's your reaction to her nomination? And I really mean in terms of the rights that you've spent your life lobbying and acting for, Gloria.
Steinem complained that Judge Barrett reminds her of conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly and fretted that abortions would become more dangerous to get:
It's like having Phyllis Schlafly put on the Supreme Court. I mean, that's who she is. It's very discouraging. But before abortion was legal, one in three women had an abortion. Now, one in four women have had an abortion. It's something that is a needed part of many women's reproductive lives. It's not going to stop -- it may become more dangerous as it has already in some states. But the swell of public opinion and public practice is just going to overcome anything that happens on the Court. It'll be difficult -- it'll be painful -- but it'll happen.
Amanpour then misleadingly claimed Roe v. Wade is more popular with the public than it actually is as she followed up by asking if it would have been better if state legislatures had legalized abortion instead of pro-abortion activists relying on a Supreme Court ruling.
This episode of Amanpour & Co. was sponsored by the Anderson Family Fund and the Straus Family Foundation. You can fight back by letting advertisers know how you feel about them sponsoring such content.
Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Thursday, October 1, Amanpour & Co. on PBS and CNN International:
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: There is much at stake, of course, in this year's election from the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, which could bring potential setbacks on women's rights, to a pandemic that has disproportionately effected women's livelihoods and the mental health, especially amongst women of color.
And my first guest tonight has spent her life fighting for women's rights in the workplace, at home, and over our own bodies. Gloria Steinem is the most famous face and the mother of American feminism today. And her amazing story has been turned into a biopic called The Glorias. She was the first to champion intersectional feminism -- the inextricable link between black and other women and color, systemic racism and misogyny.
(...)
It is political, it is about President Trump, and it is also about nominating -- and he was asked about this on stage -- about the Supreme Court nominating a woman, and yet a woman who appears to be -- well, she is Roman Catholic, but she says she will deal with precedent and not allow her faith to interfere with her judicial jurisprudence, but she's also -- apparently have ties with something called the People of Praise, which is a Christian group which holds that "men are divinely ordained as the head of the family and faith." What's your reaction to her nomination? And I really mean in terms of the rights that you've spent your life lobbying and acting for, Gloria.
GLORIA STEINEM, FEMINIST: It's like having Phyllis Schlafly put on the Supreme Court. I mean, that's who she is. It's very discouraging. But before abortion was legal, one in three women had an abortion. Now, one in four women have had an abortion. It's something that is a needed part of many women's reproductive lives. It's not going to stop -- it may become more dangerous as it has already in some states. But the swell of public opinion and public practice is just going to overcome anything that happens on the Court. It'll be difficult -- it'll be painful -- but it'll happen.
AMANPOUR: So I want to ask you because, again, it's clearly a big issue for many women, and, frankly, more than 60 percent of the American people do not believe that Roe versus Wade should be overturned, but I want to ask you because it's really interesting this, given, as you've talked about, activism, winning rights, and then seeing backlashes. There's a recent article that I saw that reminded that even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, back in 1992, gave a lecture in which she suggested that perhaps Roe was a mistake. She basically said it happened, you know, when it was a very narrow decision, opened up a dialogue -- she said that state legislatures were, in any event, moving towards more liberal statutes on the issue of choice.
And she said Roe halted a political process that was moving in a reform direction, and thereby, I believe, prolonged divisiveness and deferred stable settlement of the issue. So, just a last word on the issue, Gloria: Do you think that it will go back to the states, and people will then democratically have their word on it -- it will be solidified rather than a potential court case that can, you know, be challenged?
