The Corner

Eric Swalwell’s Mealy-Mouthing on Value of Human Life

https://youtube.com/watch?v=06hGGvcKKNk

Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA) is my Representative (for now, I am moving away from California very soon). He defeated the odious fellow Democrat, Pete Stark, for which I applaud him.

Nancy Pelosi, looking to reduce the average age of the her leadership team, has brought Swalwell in. He appeared on Tucker Carlson tonight, and frankly, was in over his head once Carlson began a line of inquiry that Democrats are never asked by the MSM about the inherent value of human life.

Here is a transcript of the pertinent section:

Carlson: He (Gorsuch) wrote in a book about ethics, “All human beings are intrinsically valuable and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.” Do you believe that?

Swalwell: All human beings are intrinsically valuable. However, Roe v. Wade says that a woman has a right to make a decision about her own healthcare.

Carlson: I’m not asking you about Roe v Wade. I’m asking you to assess what he said here…as a general statement. ”All human beings are intrinsically valuable,” you agree with that. The second part is, “The taking of human life by private persons is always wrong,” do you agree with that or not?

Swalwell: The most personal decision a person can make is a woman with her a doctor about her own body and a person who is terminally ill about whether they want to die in peace and he [Gorsuch] has chosen that the government should intervene.

Carlson: Will you answer my question? “The intentional taking of of human life by private persons is always wrong.” Now if you can’t agree on that…

Swalwell: The Constitution says…”

Carlson: I’m not talking about the Constitution. What do you think…I’m not talking about women’s rights. “The intentional taking of human life by private persons.” That’s what he said, and I want to know whether you agree with that statement or not.

Swalwell: What he has shown in his legal career…

Carlson: (Laughs) Are you really afraid to say that the intentional taking of life is wrong?

Swalwell: No, of course not. I was a prosecutor and I prosecuted people for intentionally taking life.

Carlson: But you won’t agree with this because you are afraid of the abortion lobby, like “Woo, you are anti-abortion if you are against the taking of human life.”  I mean, come on!

Swalwell: A woman has the right to make her own decision about her own healthcare.

Carlson: Do you think it is the taking of human life? Abortion?

Swalwell: I think that right now…before viability, a woman should be able to make her own decision. After viability, in the case of her own psychological health, in the case of rape or incest, she should also be able to make that decision.

Carlson: Okay, but is it the taking of human life?

Swalwell: That is a woman’s personal decision.

Carlson: But is it? I’m not asking about the decision, I mean is it human life or not. What do you think?  

Swalwell: She is terminating something she does not want and that’s her own choice.

Carlson: Okay, but do you think it is human life?

Swalwell: I think at viability it may be, you know, but it should be decided by the woman. She is the one who has to have it.

Carlson: You brought it up. Do you think before viability it is human life or something else?

Swalwell: I think if it is not viable yet Tucker, the courts have decided…

Carlson: You aren’t going to answer my question now or ever, I think. But you should because it’s a basic question.

Good grief.

Apparently Swalwell is unaware that the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in 1997 that there is no constitutional right to assisted suicide. And if he can’t or won’t answer the basic question Carlson posed about what exactly it is that abortion terminates, perhaps he should take some basic embryology and biology courses.

 Tucker Carlson is a terrific interviewer. Swalwell’s obsessive hugging of his media trainer’s talking points made him come across as a stunningly callow fellow.

 

Most Popular

Politics & Policy

ABC Chief Political Analyst: GOP Rep. Stefanik a ‘Perfect Example’ of the Failures of Electing Someone ‘Because They Are a Woman’

Matthew Dowd, chief political analyst for ABC News, suggested that Representative Elise Stefanik (R., N.Y.) was elected due to her gender after taking issue with Stefanik's line of questioning during the first public impeachment hearing on Wednesday. “Elise Stefanik is a perfect example of why just electing ... Read More
White House

Trump vs. the ‘Policy Community’

When it comes to Russia, I am with what Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman calls the American “policy community.” Vindman, of course, is one of the House Democrats’ star impeachment witnesses. His haughtiness in proclaiming the policy community and his membership in it grates, throughout his 340-page ... Read More
Law & the Courts

DACA’s Day in Court

When President Obama unilaterally changed immigration policy after repeatedly and correctly insisting that he lacked the constitutional power to do it, he said that congressional inaction had forced his hand. In the case of his first major unilateral move — “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals,” which ... Read More
Books

A Preposterous Review

A   Georgetown University professor named Charles King has reviewed my new book The Case for Nationalism for Foreign Affairs, and his review is a train wreck. It is worth dwelling on, not only because the review contains most of the lines of attack against my book, but because it is extraordinarily shoddy and ... Read More