As part of the surplus of Students for Life Action (SFLAction) and Students for Life of America (SFLA) media coverage following the Dobbs v. Jackson Supreme Court decision which reversed Roe v. Wade, SFLAction and SFLA President Kristan Hawkins went head-to-head with CNN anchor Pamela Brown on the scientific facts of abortion. Read a rundown of their conversation below, and click HERE to watch the video:
Brown began the interview by asking Hawkins how the pro-life movement plans on helping impoverished women in unplanned pregnancies and their children—and if Brown intended this to be a “gotcha, I knew pro-lifers didn’t care about women and children after they’re born” moment, she was sorely disappointed. Helping families in unplanned pregnancies and their children is the pro-life movement’s bread and butter; we’ve been doing that since way before Roe was reversed.
Hawkins responded, “We’ve been fighting for these women and families for 50 years. In fact, it’s the abortion industry—and we hear this on campus all the time—that tells women that abortion is the simple solution to all their problems when we believe in helping those who suffer, not eliminating somebody who may potentially suffer.
“Abortion doesn’t end poverty. Abortion doesn’t take her out of that abusive relationship that she finds herself in. That’s harder work; that’s walking alongside someone and seeking social justice with them. That’s what we have been doing with the pregnancy center movement for nearly 50 years.”
Clearly uncomfortable with portraying the pro-life movement as having the corner on helping women (which we do), Brown switched tactics and jumped to another favorite of the abortion lobby line: kids in foster care should have been aborted. She responded,
“The reality is that you say you’re working on this, but so many kids still end up abused and neglected in the broken foster care system, and the reality is that the governments in these states do not have the resources on the books…to help with these situations.”
(Click HERE to find out why the link between babies saved from abortion and kids in foster care is false.)
As a defender of all lives, Hawkins wasn’t about to let the lives of children in foster care be invalidated in such a manner. After all, the pro-life movement stands for one and all—no matter your home situation or how you were conceived. She refuted,
“The question is, is the solution to children in foster care to kill them? No one would argue in our society that because a child is in foster care, therefore their life is unworthy of living. That’s the point that we’re making in the pro-life movement every single day when we argue for protection at conception. Just because someone may suffer in their life, it doesn’t mean that we should snuff them out of existence.”
Cornered again, Brown shifted the conversation to rape and incest exceptions of pro-life laws, giving Hawkins a popular, pro-abortion analogy and hoping for her to stumble (spoiler alert: she didn’t). Maybe Brown would have reconsidered her question if she had known SFLA was the key leader in our movement to insisting that rape and incest exceptions are philosophically inconsistent. Brown said,
“Under those laws [laws without rape and incest exceptions], a twelve-year old could be raped and still be forced to carry that baby to term. Is that what you want? Is that the kind of thing you support?”
Hawkins artfully answered:
“I absolutely don’t want twelve-year-old’s to be raped…We do need to do a better job of enforcing penalties on those who commit these heinous crimes, but I don’t believe in discrimination against a human being based on the circumstances of their conception because we don’t issue birth certificates in our nation and give gold or silver stars based on how you were conceived. When we talk about abortion in America, we bring these human beings up as if their lives don’t have value, and I simply reject that.”
(Click HERE to read Hawkins’ op-ed at Fox News entitled, “Pro-Lifers Must Protect All Children—Including Those Conceived in Rape.”)
A rattled Brown moved on to another subject to question Hawkins on the validity of science (how pro-abortion of her) by stating the fact that life begins at conception is a religious belief. When Hawkins disagreed, saying it was indeed a scientific fact and 96% of American biologists agreed, Brown refused to listen and continuously interrupted her (how pro-abortion of her), saying:
“I don’t believe that. Where are you getting this? Where are you getting 96%? I’ll have my producer look that up. I’ve read many opinions preparing for this segment.”
Don’t worry about making your producer look it up, Brown; Hawkins cited the study in the interview, and here it is again: 96% of American biologists agree that life begins at conception. That is an overwhelmingly majority; sorry you missed it in your research preparing for the segment. The fact remains though—life does begin at conception. The question is, will you choose to protect it or not?
Share this post