Select Page

Liberal News Anchor Unhappy with the Term ‘Pro-Life’

Liberal News Anchor Unhappy with the Term ‘Pro-Life’

The abortion advocates are not happy with the pro-life movement and ideology, which speaks for for the life of the unborn. But some of them are also ticked by the term ‘pro-life.’ A case in view is Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC.

Andrea Mitchell, the 76-year-old Democrat, was having NBC reporter Garrett Haake on her news show talking about the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act that recently passed in the new Republican-led Congress.

Haake mentioned that Congresswoman Nancy Mace of South Carolina describes herself as pro-life. As Haake continued to talk about Congresswoman Mace’s vote in favor of the Act, Mitchell interrupted him to share her disapproval of the term ‘pro-life’:

“Let me just interrupt and say that pro-life is a term that they—an entire group wants to use, but that’s not an accurate description.” 

Haake then reminded Mitchell that he was just reciting Congresswoman Mace’s use of the term to describe herself. Conservative news site Washington Free Beacon shared the video of this exchange on their Twitter feed, saying that Mitchell chided the reporter for using the word ‘pro-life.’

Conservative responses to the video slammed Mitchell for hypocrisy as well as inaccuracy of her side, the political left, in describing and promoting abortion. One comment pointed that she comes from the side that “also thinks they can tell you what pronouns you must use when talking about others.” 

A Christian person’s account by the name Nico the Free responded to the video saying that ‘pro-choice’ is also not an accurate description; instead, it should be replaced with ‘pro-abortion.’

Andrea Mitchell has been slammed many times in her long journalism career for controversial and ignorant remarks, ranging from calling Virginians “rednecks” to confusing William Faulkner’s book title The Sound and the Fury with Shakespeare’s famous line from Macbeth: “It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.” 

But Andrea Mitchell is not the first source of opposition to the term ‘pro-life’ that is used as the opposite to ‘pro-choice’ – the term liberals use to describe the ideology that pregnant women have the exclusive right to decide whether and when they want to terminate their pregnancy.

Last month, the left-leaning Associated Press told its reporters not to use the word ‘pro-life’ but use ‘anti-abortion’ instead to describe those who advocate the right of the unborn baby to be allowed to live and be delivered.

Earlier this month, the Republican-led House passed the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which recognizes any infant born alive after an attempted abortion as a “legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States.”

The bill, therefore, bans any further attempts to kill the infant once it comes out of the womb alive. But abortionists disagree and out of 212 Democrats in the House, 210 voted against the Act. Only one Democrat – Henry Cuellar of Texas – voted for it. In early 2019, Virginia’s then-Democratic Governor Ralph Northam went on live radio to suggest that the mother should have the right to let a newborn baby die if she decides not to keep the baby.

The comment sparked a nationwide outrage among pro-life people.

About The Author

12 Comments

  1. Sam

    Fuck em

    Reply
    • mark

      yet it’s alright for Queers to say or do what they want to kids and the media says nothing.

      Reply
      • frank stetson

        And you know this to be true because of facts or because you hate the media and the gay community equally?

        I would love to see your proof of the media allowing, by saying nothing, to gay people doing things to kids.

        Reply
        • Mark

          Stay gay Frank.

          Reply
          • frank stetson

            Get proof Mark

        • Oscar Williams

          I assume the term “gay” applies to persons having a penis (naturally) and testes? I would sincerely like a definition of the concept of “gay” in this context, with accompanying examples and contrasts. For example, is a “person” gay if he (I guess) is attracted to another male human for sexual gratification? Or is another type of gratification sufficient? Does the person have to actually consummate the “fornication”, or is the desire to do so — day-dreaming about it — sufficient?
          Second: What, exactly, is objectionable about the term “pro life?” It appears that Mitchell is guilty of some serious violation of conscience, and would like any reminder or reference to just disappear. It further appears that she is beholden to the political media’s “hold” on her and refuses to face the fact that her biological life will end at some point in time, and she will face a reckoning of her said life’s affect on herself and others. (It is anecdotally, traditionally and logical that “life” continues in a mental and spiritual context after death.) “Reality” is truly complicated. We “began” our eternity when we were conceived.

          Reply
  2. Rat Wrangler

    An opposite of ‘choice’ is ‘mandated’. A pro-choice person does not insist that all abortions should be mandated, but neither does a pro-life person. They could use ‘anti-choice’ instead, but that’s the same thing. The big problem with ‘pro-life’ is that its opposite is ‘pro-death’, which has serious negative connotations. Sadly, the unborn are in the same situation as Schrodinger’s cat, neither dead nor alive in the eyes of the law until they are born. We need our scientific and medical communities to step up, grab the bull by its horns, and declare, based on science alone, just when life begins. Over 90% of polled biologists have declared that life begins at conception in every other animal on the planet, but they remain strangely silent about their own species. Once the science has determined that life, a separate but not yet viable one, does indeed begin at conception or very shortly thereafter, then all the abortion laws as well as all the child endangering laws, will have to be revisited based on the facts, rather than some political or religious opinion.

    Reply
  3. LMS

    It appears old windbag Mitchell needs to retire like Pelosi, Feinstein, Billary, and a few others. The squad needs their a—s just flat out kicked out of this country good and hard. Let them live in some third world country like their mentality. This country has been lead by the gutter trash of this current administration. Time to force them back under their rocks or holes where they belong so the intelligent, reasonable, and moral decency can govern this country again!

    Reply
  4. Kevin

    Say all you want this lady ain’t nothing but a FREAK OF NATURE!!!!
    When this FREAK dies she will be in a very HOT place.
    212°

    Reply
  5. ernest tracy

    I used to respect Andrea but she has become woke, which to connotes lack of honesty and common sense.

    Reply
  6. frank stetson

    More garbage from the Dempsey Dumpster. This guy seems a pretty good writer, just a terrible journalist. This is a good story ruined as an out-of-context (again) hit piece, incomplete therefore, and then wanders way off topic to pander to the Dumpster’s favorite cause: stereotypical slamming of liberals.

    What’s really sad is that it’s a good story covering a very awkward moment from one of the country’s most seasoned and celebrated journalists that goes much deeper into the world of msm journalism, wokism, and bias. If the Dumpster had stepped back from partisan reporting, he had a hot one because the lead is really not Andrea, but the AP Stylebook, completely missed by the Dumpster even though he had it top-dead-center.

    First, he obliterated the end of Andera’s uncomfortable chat where she admits she’s wrong with a “I understand, I understand” followed by a painful silent pause, followed by: ““Anyway, that was her explanation,” and let’s talk about Santos….” Very uncomfortable and yet, not newsworthy of the Dumpster….. I don’t know why he choose to be out-of-context instead.

    Second, he completely left out the journalistic rationale showing that Andrea was spot on as to approved terminology, just totally wrong about this case which is as good a battering ram against wokism as any I have seen. The AP Stylebook is clear as saying not to use this term UNLESS the subjects say it, which is what the reporter replied to Andrea eliciting the “I understand, I understand.” Of course, the Dumpster has no place for understanding a stylebook. Funny thing, he just missed it…..when he said: “Last month, the left-leaning Associated Press told its reporters not to use the word ‘pro-life’ but use ‘anti-abortion’ instead to describe those who advocate the right of the unborn baby to be allowed to live and be delivered.” This WAS the AP Stylebook change, enacted in 12/22, and that’s some tangible news, especially with the trickle down to Andera followed by the Andrea meltdown where the teacher gets corrected by the student. Missed it by that much Dempsey…… And then the follow up on how it got there, how liberal is that stylebook, etc. etc. all the way to “mainstream media bad.” That’s a lot bigger than Mitchell.

    Third, what the fuck does any of this have to do with:

    The Dumpster’s feeling that Andrea is the standard bearer for the entire liberal race and agenda? She’s not even hard left much less a liberal thought leader.

    The side that “also thinks they can tell you what pronouns you must use when talking about others” neither of which has anything to do with Andrea or this story…..

    “Andrea Mitchell has been slammed many times in her long journalism career for controversial and ignorant remarks, ranging from calling Virginians “rednecks” to confusing William Faulkner’s book title The Sound and the Fury with Shakespeare’s famous line from Macbeth: “It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.” Since Andrea really did nothing wrong here except be corrected on usage and to accept said correction, not sure this pile of Dumpster can stick anymore than tossing a burger at the Whitehouse wall. It just has nothing to do with misreading the AP Stylebook and accepting the truth in real time.

    IMO, this was a great story covering a very awkward moment by our most seasoned journalist caught on tape that a deeper dive displays the dichotomy of a free, fair, and balanced Press as defined by the AP Stylebook, the journalistic bible so to speak. Instead Dempsey had to forgo any journalistic professionalism in lieu of dragging Andrea and the entire liberal half of America through mud totally missing his real story in his personal pursuit of partisan punditry. IOW, it was shoddy shit and didn’t have to be: the real story was great without Dumpster embellishments. He is not a professional journalist. At least not in this case.

    Reply
  7. Dave

    Does anyone care what Andrea Mitchell thinks about anything? She is not a reporter. She is an opinion entertainer. It is sad that people who are trying to save lives should be chastised for using the term “pro life”. That term describes them perfectly. This is another example of the insanity we read everyday. It’s good thing that Andrea Mitchell doesn’t get to make the decision. If the name offends her she should leave the area or stop reading the article or watching the television. Leave these “PRO LIFE” people alone. They are not doing anything wrong.

    Reply

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *