Last week, during an airing of his radio program, Glenn Beck poignantly compared the liberal stance that aborting babies who may have disabilities is the compassionate choice to make with pamphlets from Nazi Germany that pushed the same ideology.
To make his argument, Beck played a recent video clip of left-leaning CNN’s Alisyn Camerota interviewing Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill, Republican, about The Hoosier State’s proposed pro-life measure, which would ban abortions based on disability, race, or sex.
According to LifeNews.com, Camerota remarked, “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. I’m just curious about that one. Why would you want a family to have a child with a severe disability?”
TheBlaze reported that Beck compared the CNN Host’s comments to two Nazi propaganda pamphlets he discovered.
Beck stated, “They’re both from Germany. And the first one is [about] children with disabilities. And it says, translated, ‘Sterilization is not a punishment, but liberation. What parents would like to wish their children such a horrible wish. Who wants to be guilty of this?’ That’s exactly what Alison was saying. Who wants to be guilty of this? Who wants to put the child or parent through this?”
Translating the second pamphlet, the conservative political Commentator said, “You also carry the burden. Someone with a disease will cost the average 50,000 Reich marks before he reaches 60 years.” The poster depicted a German worker holding up two disabled individuals. During the broadcast, Beck stated, “We’re going to find out that those with disabilities are the ones who are far greater than we are.”
In the interview with Camerota, Hill also made a compelling argument against aborting unborn babies who are believed to have disabilities. The Indiana Attorney General proclaimed, “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.”
After making this statement, Camerota insisted she was confused by it. She maintained that numerous women choose abortion due to their babies having severe fetal abnormalities. The CNN Host inquired as to why The Hoosier State would take away that “choice.”
Hill contended that the proposed pro-life law wasn’t about removing a choice. Rather, it was about making a decision because a baby didn’t have a “particular characteristic.”
The Indiana Attorney General commented, “We have certain 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. It’s a matter of whether or not it’s appropriate to use that as the sole basis.”
Camerota fired back that she again wasn’t receiving an answer to her original question. So, she framed it by asking why The Hoosier State’s lawmakers would force families to “have a child with severe disabilities” including the rare chromosomal defects Trisomy 13 or Trisomy 18.
Camerota inquired, “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?”
Hill replied, “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.”
Despite her bluster about the Indiana law that would prevent women from aborting babies based on a disability, the Daily Caller reported that she made slip-up during the interview, which she quickly corrected.
She reportedly used the word “children” to describe unborn babies before swiftly reversing course and referring to them as a “fetus.”
The CNN Host said, “Lots of families do have to make that decision based on the single characteristic of finding out that their children, that their fetus has a severe abnormality.”
The Daily Caller reported that the Indiana pro-life law “was struck down by a federal court last year. The Supreme Court declined to take up that part of the bill earlier this week but upheld another part of the law signed by then-Gov. Mike Pence, which requires the burial or cremation of fetal remains.”
During the sit-down with Camerota, Hill remained confident that the U.S. Supreme Court would have another look at a similar measure in the future.
The Indiana Attorney General said, “The reality is the court will look this matter over in the future. I think the door is now open and if states are paying attention, there is an avenue in which to move forward.”
Pro-life advocates can only hope Hill’s assertion is correct.