Review: Lila Rose wins debate with NARAL President on CNN’s Crossfire

lila cnn

Considering that over three thousand unborn babies are killed in America every day, and that the mainstream media says virtually nothing about it, we can say the media is largely silent on the issue. When a media outlet like CNN is silent on abortion for so long, it is tempting to say their silence is unbiased. It’s not. 

Silence helps the status quo, and since Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton are the law of the land, and they are pro-choice rulings, silence supports pro-choicers. Silence also helps the side that would lose in a fair debate, and since Roe and Doe make for a nine-month, unconditional abortion law, and most Americans are revolted by such extremism, silence helps nine-month pro-choicers again (a nine-month pro-choicer is someone who supports unconditional abortion).

Television is a visual medium, and if CNN were honest, it would show graphic footage of abortion, as shown in the short documentary Eclipse of Reason. I strongly urge the reader to view minutes ten to fifteen of this film on YouTube to really understand prenatal homicide.

But on the forty-first anniversary of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, right after the March for Life, CNN invited Lila Rose, president of the pro-life youth group Live Action, to debate Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. The episode of “Crossfire” that featured the debate was hosted by Sally Kohn on the left and Newt Gingrich on the right. Ms. Rose seemed to this writer to be the winner, but the pro-choicers were successful in employing dishonest arguments that there was no time to rebut.

The show began as Ms. Kohn asked Ms. Rose about her “extremism” in opposing prenatal homicide. Lila Rose, who is a feminist pro-lifer, pointed out that pro-choicers are reactionaries and that abortion does not go to the root of the problems, the reasons women feel they have to abort:

We shouldn’t believe and have to think that women need abortion and that we have to kill our children to achieve the dreams and careers and families that we want….  I think women deserve better…. we should improve the foster care system [and the] adoption system… Why are [women considering abortion] in that position, Sally … to feel that abortion is their only option? Could it be because a boss didn’t want to promote them?  Because a boyfriend was going to leave them?  A university professor said we’re not going to be flexible with our class schedule?  Let’s look at the reasons, let’s address the reasons, but let’s not turn to killing, dismembering, poisoning [unborn babies]… let’s not turn to killing our littlest Americans as a solution to these problems.

When the pro-choicers on the show brought up sex education and birth control, Rose said, “I think it’s been … really insulting to see all this political discussion about women reduced to birth control … mostly hormonal drugs, synthetic hormones that are pumped in women’s bodies.” She mentioned the Yaz lawsuit and the problems with the NuvaRing, which is promoted by Planned Parenthood. Rose said, “I’m suggesting that our [women’s] fertility is not a sickness we need to medicate.”

Perhaps the pro-choicers on the program support Planned Parenthood’s “Healthy, Happy and Hot” sex education material. The brochure, which is available on the internet, says that if a person with an HIV infection wants to have sex with you, he or she doesn’t have to warn you of the virus first.

The pro-choicers’ arguments were old, evasive, and cynical, and it is only a matter of time until America learns the vocabulary of both sides of the issue and sees through nine-month pro-choice lies. Lila Rose’s arguments were honest, fresh, and optimistic, and she won the debate hands down. She had an advantage over the baby-killers: she had the truth on her side.

To Top

Send this to friend