NRL News
202.626.8824
dadandrusk@aol.com

CNN’s Chris Cuomo’s latest incoherence pro-abortion diatribe

by | May 18, 2021

By Dave Andrusko

We’ve written (or reposted) a number of items on CNN’s insufferably smug, colossally self-important Chris Cuomo which brings to mind the old saw about breaking a butterfly on a wheel.  Isn’t it overkill times ten to parse the statements of a pro-abortion ideologue who is to vanity what Planned Parenthood is to abortion?

In a word, no. At least in the old, old days, Cuomo would at least pretend to be a man of “reason” and that he was criticizing pro-lifers, not out of a bottomless well of bile but because we are not so bright.

There was his 2016 back-and-forth with pro-life Sen. Marco Rubio where they sparred over Cuomo’s favorite stalking horse, the “debate” over “when life begins.”

Of course there is no debate. As Paul Stark explained, in deciphering Cuomo’s almost impenetrable linguistic shorthand, “Life in general is continuous (sperm and egg are alive), but the life of an individual human being is not continuous. It has a beginning and an end.”

Which is why Cuomo and others of his ilk mix categories like a baker mixes ingredients to make a cake. 

In his exchange with Sen. Cuomo, you heard Cuomo talk about beating hearts and brain waves and end of life and yada, yada, yada as reasons why we don’t really know when life begins. When people pointed out his confusion on Cuomo’s twitter page, Cuomo switched into evasive snark mode, the gist of which it was his respondents, not Cuomo, who don’t understand.

But he’s grown steadily worse. He is approaching, if not surpassing, incoherence, as Nicholas Fondacaro wrote about yesterday at Newsbusters. Bless them, Newsbusters includes the entire transcript of the relevant section at CNN’s Cuomo Prime Time.

Fondacaro’s initial summary is handy and accurate. Cuomo

flaunted his ignorance of the pro-life movement as he suggested they didn’t understand science while also being pro-racism and akin to Jim Crow. And like a dunce, he claimed it was the Fourth Amendment that addressed the right to privacy.

Cuomo (I kid you not) has this segment he calls “BOLO,” as in Be On The Lookout. But if you were on the Lookout for accuracy, in-depth analysis, fairness to people you oppose, or an ability to actually define anything accurately, the last place you would find it is at Cuomo Prime Time.

For one example (I could mention many), in one paragraph Cuomo mixes together fetal viability, personhood, a panel of experts, science, and the alleged absence of “intellectual curiosity about this issue.”

BTW, does Cuomo really believe that “You would think we would have a panel of experts on a special commission by now to see what the science says”? Would those experts tell Cuomo that abortion survivors aren’t real persons” or that viability isn’t a moving target?

As the Washington Post’s favorite pro-abortion professor, Mary Ziegler, wrote today

When she was on the Supreme Court, Sandra Day O’Connor mocked the court’s reliance on viability. Viability changed as technology shifted, O’Connor wrote, referencing scientific advancements that make it possible to save fetuses earlier and earlier. … It was unfair to make legislatures do the work of scientists, O’Connor wrote — and it was unreasonable to force the courts to act as “scientific review boards.”

But let’s not expect a mere television host to do the work of experts or a scientific review board. We can expect him, however, to refrain from gems such as this one from yesterday.

Because it’s not really about science. It has become a culture war. It’s a political lever to use a distraction from policy and solving problems. To allow people to get up in their religion and righteousness over any sense of what science suggests.

“Get up in their religion and righteousness?” Yowza. But Cuomo is just getting warmed up.

But again, it’s [presuming all pro-life legislation but in particular the Mississippi case the Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear] not about science or consensus. It’s about dividing lines, legislating to the far-right white-fright vote.

Let’s keep a running score. (1) Culture wars; (2) “religion and righteousness”; (3) “legislating to the far-right white-fright vote.” Anything else? Well, yes. 

“It’s just like voting rights in one way, you see? It seems like the far right only cares about protecting humans before they are born.”

(4) “Far right” who only care about “protecting humans before they are born.”

Ignorance, compounded by arrogance, and multiplied by mudslinging from the  master.

That, indeed, is Cuomo in his Prime.

Categories: Media Bias
Tags: