CNN Host Alisyn Camerota: Why Shouldn’t We Just Abort All Babies With Disabilities?

National   Micaiah Bilger   May 30, 2019   |   1:57PM    Washington, DC

CNN host Alisyn Camerota could not seem to understand why killing an unborn baby with disabilities is wrong if the baby’s parents do not want to take care of them.

On Wednesday, she repeatedly questioned Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill about a state law that prohibits discriminatory abortions based on an unborn baby’s sex, race or a disability such as Down syndrome, the Free Beacon reports.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently refused to hear Hill’s appeal after a lower court blocked the law.

“What I want to focus in on is … where Indiana had tried to block women from getting abortions if it were based on a disability,” Camerota said. “I’m just curious about that one. Why would you want a family to have to have a child with a severe disability?”

Hill responded that the law would protect babies in the womb from discrimination.

“Making a decision based solely on race or disability certainly is a discriminatory practice, and no decision in terms of whether or not to have a child should be based on that solely,” he responded.

But Camerota said she was confused by his answer. She said many women have abortions because their baby has severe fetal abnormalities, and questioned why Indiana would take away that “choice.”

Follow LifeNews.com on Instagram for pro-life pictures and videos.

Here’s more from the report:

Hill said it wasn’t about taking away a choice but rather making a decision because the child didn’t have a “particular characteristic.”

“We have certainly examples every day of children who appear to have disabilities or concerns or problems, prenatal, that are born and live very productive lives and families who support those children,” Hill said. “It’s a matter of whether or not it’s appropriate to use that as sole basis.”

Camerota protested she wasn’t getting an answer to her question, again framing her question as to why lawmakers in Indiana would make families “have a child with severe disabilities,” such as the rare chromosomal defects Trisomy 13 or Trisomy 18.

“That child will have so many problems and will most likely not live past their first birthday. Why would lawmakers force parents to bring that child to fruition?” Camerota asked.

“The law does not address issues with respect to severe abnormalities that would make a child unviable. That’s not the point of this particular statute,” Hill said.

The CNN host’s mindset basically is a eugenic one, and it’s something U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas warned about in his opinion in the Indiana case.

“So long as the Supreme Court forces a policy of unfettered elective abortion on the entire country, it ought to at least allow for states to protect babies from unjust discrimination,” Thomas wrote.

In his opinion, Thomas took readers through a history of eugenic abortions starting with Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood.

He wrote:

The use of abortion to achieve eugenic goals is not merely hypothetical. The foundations for legalizing abortion in America were laid during the early 20th-century birth-control movement. That movement developed alongside the American eugenics movement. And significantly, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger recognized the eugenic potential of her cause. She emphasized and embraced the notion that birth control “opens the way to the eugenist.”

Today, abortion is a modern method of eugenics. Parents often face a huge amount of pressure to abort unborn babies if a disability is detected. Some have reported feeling pressured to abort even because of minor problems such as a cleft lip. Many are told that killing their child is more compassionate and loving than giving the child a chance at life.

And now, mainstream media outlets are openly defending the practice.