Stephanie Ruhle lost her grip on reality Tuesday morning when she attempted to draw a contrast between First Lady Melania Trump’s new “Be Best” initiative for children and President Trump’s policies. The MSNBC host’s diatribe featured the absurd claim that enforcing existing immigration laws and cutting taxpayer funding to Planned Parenthood would hurt children.
The aim of Ruhle’s presentation was to frame the President as a hypocrite for supposedly endangering the same kids whom his wife had pledged to help: “The First Lady’s plans to help children, they don’t gel with her husband’s policies. Policies that impact every child in this country.” However, a number of her claims amounted to nothing more than patisan talking points.
The show ran a clip of Attorney General Jeff Sessions warning that parents who attempted to sneak into the U.S. with their kids “might be separated” from them “as required by law.” Ruhle then spun this policy as “ripping babies from their mothers who have risked everything in search of a better life,” – a characterization jam-packed with the kind of emotionally manipulative verbiage one might expect to find in an open borders pamphlet.
“How exactly is that being best?” she demanded. Recall that Ruhle’s thesis was that the President’s policies were impacting “every child in this country.”
SIGN THE PETITION! Congress Must De-Fund Planned Parenthood Immediately
After decrying recent cuts to CHIP and the administration’s support for the school voucher program, Ruhle closed with an impressive display of mental gymnastics. “The administration appears to be attacking teen pregnancy prevention programs,” she worried. “It tried but was blocked from cutting grants to Planned Parenthood.”
Supporters of Planned Parenthood have rolled out a litany of creative arguments over the years in attempting to justify the organization’s continued federal funding. But Ruhle’s claim here – that an organization which largely exists to perform abortions is somehow “helping children” – may have topped them all. Presumably by “children,” she was referring to pregnant teenagers. Otherwise, she would have been attempting to argue that an end to taxpayer funding for abortions would somehow harm unborn babies.
“So again, I ask the question: How is this ‘Be Best,’ as in best for children?” she concluded triumphantly.
At this point, there are likely some readers who would like to ask Ruhle that same question.
LifeNews Note: Bill D’Agostino writes for Newsbusters, where this originally appeared.
