The question Rep. Pelosi won’t answer

John McCormack is reporting at The Weekly Standard about a question about abortion that he recently posed to Rep. Nancy Pelosi. It was very simple:

So the question I have for you is what is the moral difference between what Dr. Gosnell did to a baby born alive at 23 weeks and aborting her moments before birth?

You can watch her response and the exchange that follows above. The most telling thing about Pelosi’s answer is that she never answers his question. She chides him for asking the question, and she lashes out when he follows-up with her. She has a great deal of bluster, but no answer to his question.

The reason for her non-answer is very simple. There is no moral difference between the baby born alive at 23 weeks and a baby of the same age that is killed just moments before birth. But she can’t admit that in public. Why? Because for her to recognize the humanity of the unborn at any stage of development puts abortion rights at risk. Roe v. Wade has presided over the deaths of over 50 million babies since 1973, and Pelosi won’t do anything to jeopardize the right of a woman to have her baby killed at any stage of development. Roe v. Wade makes it legal to kill these babies up and until birth, and she doesn’t want that to change.

The vast majority of Americans disagree with Pelosi on this. But Pelosi says that this is “sacred ground,” and she won’t even discuss it.

My view is that no reporter should allow any politician to hold forth on abortion who cannot answer that simple question.

(HT: Jim Smith)


  • Lucas Knisely

    Ask about murdered babies by Gosnell and you hear about “women’s reproductive health”.

    Ask what the difference is between a baby born alive and killed and a baby aborted in the womb, and you’re chided for “making it political”.

    When pro-choice advocates are unable to invoke emotionally charged rhetoric about rape and incest, and are asked pointed questions, they retreat. Why? Because they have no scientific or factual defense for their position.

  • Ian Shaw

    Rather than give a honest logical response, she gets angry, skirts the question and chides the reporter. You work for us ma’am, we ask questions and we’d like intellectually honest answers. But we know you won’t give an honest moral answer.

  • James Hammack

    Wow, it is sad that she still tries to stand where there is obviously none to do so on. She gets angry, spouts religious rhetoric, and ignores the glaring truth.

  • Paul Reed

    I love to see pro-aborts put on the spot. I’m trying to think of what would be a good answer for her. How about: This represents the small minority of abortion cases, most of which are early-term. Saying that Gosnell is typical of abortion cases instead of the exception is very intellectually dishonest (and that part if true — most killings are done “cleanly”). I’d also point out that many late-term abortions are done for the woman’s health and even life, which even many pro-lifers will support. This is the kind of BS that the general public will just eat up.

  • Andrew Orlovsky

    Wow this women is evil. And what a double standard. Richard Murdouk says a child concieved in rape is still a gift from God who should not be killed and he’s made out to be the devil by a media frenzy, while Pelosi can say the right to kill an unborn child is “sacred ground” and the media will completely ignore this.

  • buddyglass

    She must be getting lazy not to have anticipated that question and to have prepared some sort of answer. Not one that would satisfy anyone who opposes abortion, mind, but something she could rattle off without looking flustered like she did here.

  • Chris Ryan

    Whether or not abortion is murder really depends on your answer to the question, “When does life begin?”

    And the answer to that question is almost entirely metaphysical, which is to say, religious.

    And religious questions, under the First Amendment properly belong to the individual.

    As such there is no reason why government should be involved in abortion. Abortion should be left up to women and their religious convictions.

    And while many Christians believe that life begins at conception, because the Bible is circumspect on the question, many other Christians–and Jews–disagree that life begins at conception. There simply is no Bible-centered basis for the belief that life begins at conception.

    • J O E B L A C K M O N

      many other pretend Christians–and unbelieving Jews–disagree that life begins at conception.

      Sorry Chris. You had some typos in there so I thought I’d help you out.

      The fact is, all real Christians know for a fact that life begins at conception. If you don’t or you even question that fact, you are not a Christian. You would, however, be welcome at pretend seminaries like Wake Forrest or Truett…you know, where people who don’t matter go to school.

      • Chris Ryan

        Only God gets to judge us, Joe, I’m a Bible-believing literalist & have been my entire life. But if you have any scripture to back up your contention, please point it out.

        If anything, the weight of Scripture suggests that life does not begin at conception. It is for this reason that the OT punishment for killing an unborn child was a fine. It is not treated as murder.

        But, again, if I’m wrong then please do as the Bible enjoins us & point out the Scriptural basis for my misunderstanding. There’s not one Scripture that says life begins at conception.

  • Brett Cody

    You have poor theology if you believe the Bible is not clear on the issue of when life begins. You were “fearfully and wonderfully made.” You were “knit together in [your] mother’s womb.” Be encouraged, you were created in a masterful way and even while you were in your mother’s womb God was thinking of and caring for you. On this the Bible is clear.

    • Chris Ryan

      God is the creator of ALL, Brett. Just because God created us no more means we have a soul, than the fact that God created talking asses means that they have a soul (Num 22:28). God created mountains, and rivers, and trees, and yet the only ones who believe those things have souls are animists.

      He also knows the number of hairs on my head (truth be told I have few 🙂 even as he knows the sparrows (Luke 12:6). But even knowing the sparrows does not mean they have souls (Luke 12:7).

      So simply creating and knowing us does not indicate when our souls came to inhabit our bodies. God is omniscient. He knows all that ever was & all that ever will be. He is the creator of all that ever was & all that ever will be. So Psalms 139 does not establish when Life comes to exist. Again, any contention that Life begins at conception is a wonderfully poetic religious belief, but it is an extra-Biblical religious belief. There is simply nothing in the Word which says that.

  • Martin Strother

    Chris, you’ve been had by the pro-choice movement. Your “logic” may help you sleep at night but you still can’t answer this one simple question honestly: So what is a one day old “fetus” then? Thanks to science we now know that it is not an extension of the mother’s body or anything other than another human being. The baby’s unique DNA is clear. Scripture commands all believers to speak for the voiceless. Who better defines voiceless and defenseless than a baby in utero?

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.