Featured Post

Illinois Federation for Right to Life Statement on the passage of SB25

The passage of SB25 is a wake-up call for all individuals in the State of Illinois who believe in the sanctity life.  This extreme legis...

June 26, 2019

Incredulous CNN host shocked on air that parents might not want to kill disabled children

Incredulous CNN host shocked on air that parents might not want to kill disabled children
A CNN host repeatedly questioned a guest in a recent on-air exchange on why families shouldn’t be allowed to abort their unborn children for being disabled.

Alisyn Camerota (pictured), anchor of CNN’s morning show New Day, seemed genuinely perplexed during her interview with Indiana attorney general Curtis Hill about why anyone would want a family to “have to have” a disabled child. The interview occurred one day after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned part of a 2016 Indiana law banning abortion based on a child’s race, sex, or disability in late May.

Specifically questioning the aspect of the law banning abortion based on an unborn child’s disability, Camerota pressed Hill in an emphatic, dramatic tone, seeming at a loss, as though such an abortion ban were inconceivable.

“I’m just curious about that one,” she said. “Why, why would you want a family to have to have a child with a severe disability?”

Indiana’s attorney general remained measured as he clarified that the matter at hand was the right of the unborn child not to be the object of discrimination based on his disability (or for race).

“Well, the issue that the general assembly faced was not with regard to the question you pose,” Hill replied. “It’s the question of the rights and consideration of the unborn child in terms of discriminatory actions of eliminating that opportunity at life.”

“Making a decision based solely on race or disability certainly is a discriminatory practice,” he said. “And no decision in terms of whether or not to have a child should be based on that solely. And that’s what the general assembly chose to do in its ban.”

Camerota responded to Hill with a quick and murmured “yeah,” then continued in the line of questioning with her seemingly baffled demeanor.

“But that confuses me,” she said. “Because as you know there are lots of terminations of pregnancies based on the fact that there are severe abnormalities of a fetus. And so why would you take away that choice from a family?”

Hill persisted steadily in explaining that the issue is the morality of aborting a child because the child has a disability.

“Well it’s not a matter of taking away that choice,” he told Camerota. “It’s a matter of making a decision solely on the basis of not wanting a child because the child doesn’t have a particular characteristic.”  Click here for more.