NRL News

The latest from MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry: abortion can be like a treatment for cancer or hand amputation

by | Jan 26, 2015


By Dave Andrusko

Melissa Harris-Perry

Melissa Harris-Perry

To be honest, since I would never watch MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry, I am especially indebted to CNS News which ran a post this afternoon under the 100% accurate headline, “Melissa Harris Perry Compares Abortion to Cancer Treatment, Hand Amputation.”

If you’ve watched the “Melissa Harris-Perry” show or read any of NRL News Today’s posts on her, you know that she is so committed to abortion advocacy that she says things that are not only unintelligent but often unintelligible.

Some background. Last Saturday, two days after the 42nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Harris-Perry interviewed Julian McPhillips, who is (according to Melanie Hunter), “a civil rights attorney who represents the rights of the unborn as a guardian ad litem in Alabama court because of a state law (HB 494)) that allows juveniles who don’t have parental permission to petition the court for an abortion.”

Here’s what Harris-Perry said (thanks to the transcript from; I added a couple of words that had been overlooked):

“But I want to ask one final question though: Are you at all distressed in the ways that I am about the idea that there is a separate interest between an individual and something that is happening in her body that cannot at that moment exist outside of her body? So, the idea, for example, that I would need a court’s permission for cancer treatment or the court’s permission for a surgery that would remove my hand. Like, if it’s my body, I guess I can’t understand why the state would have to give me permission.”

At first blush, you might simply say, What?!” But remember this is the same woman who argued that superstar singer Beyonce could [should?] have promoted abortion at the 2014 MTV Video Music Awards program where she spoke at length; who, in the context of Kate Middleton’s first pregnancy opined, “When does life begin? I submit the answer depends an awful lot on the feeling of the parents. A powerful feeling – but not science”; and who spoke of the unborn child as a “thing” that “might turn into a human”—to name just three examples.

Mr. McPhillips demolished the rickety underpinnings of her faulty logic but to his credit, did so in a respectful manner. He said

“Well, you wouldn’t have to, because I presume you’re well over 17, but someone 17 or younger, especially 16, 15, 14, having an abortion or having a baby could have great consequences. And at their age and stage, they can’t enter into any contract legally in any state anyway, and the rules of civil procedure in Alabama and in most states allow for the appointment of a guardian ad litem to protect the property interests of an unborn child. And we reason if the property interests of an unborn child can be protected, why not the life interests, because without the life, you can’t have property. …

“But I will say this: I want to raise the consciousness of people out there that there’s much at stake, great life itself. The only problem with pro-choice is it’s absolutely no choice for the one life that’s really at stake.”

What will Harris-Perry say next?

Categories: Media Bias