“I’m answering a more interesting question to me”
—-Insufferably arrogant and disrespectful witness Prof. Khiara Bridges, after being told by Senator John Cornyn (R-Tx) during today’s Senate hearing,regarding the fall of Roe v. Wade via the Dobbs decision, that she hadn’t answered the question he asked.
The question Cornyn asked was, “Do you think that a baby that is not yet born has value?” She answered, “I believe that a person with a capacity for pregnancy has value.”
And there it is. A flat-out, defiant refusal to acknowledge the existence of the other life in the abortion equation. Her response to Cornyn’s protest that she hadn’t asked the question insulted both the Senator and the professor’s supposed area of expertise, the law. No witness in a trial could say that she was answering a question of her own conceit that interested her more than the one she was asked. No witness at a Congressional hearing can ethically do it either. Nor could a law student in class or on an exam.Apparently progressives on social media thought Bridges’ snide responses put Cornyn and, later, Sen. Josh Hawley in their places. In truth, they unmasked the ugly reality of the rabid pro-abortion cult. This was a pro-abortion law professor, and she couldn’t discuss the issue fairly or candidly without defaulting to a deflection.
This moment of signature significance came after her jaw-dropping exchange with Hawley regarding whether a “man” could become pregnant. In the responses to Cornyn, Bridges used the ridiculous woke jargon phrase “person with a capacity for pregnancy” five times. Hawley, when it was his turn, asked Bridges why she was avoiding using “woman.” Women are the people who are equipped biologically to get pregnant and give birth.
“Why are you using the term “person with a capacity for pregnancy” instead of “woman?,” he asked. Bridges answered, “I want to recognize that your line of questioning is transphobic and it opens up trans people to violence.” And laughed.
This was another dishonest avoidance technique: attack the questioner who asks a question you can’t answer honestly without losing the exchange. The position of the extreme trans activists is absurd: a woman becomes a man by declaring herself/himself so, and thus a “man” (as in a woman identifying as one) can get pregnant. Even Bill Clinton would be embarrassed to try to get away with a rhetorical trick like that. By the same “logic,” a piano can get pregnant: all it takes is for a woman to declare herself a piano.
Hawley was properly incredulous, saying, “Wow. You’re saying I’m opening up people to violence by saying women can have pregnancies?”
Then the professor cited transgender suicide statistics, which, of course, was not germane to his question, even a little bit. Then she said Hawley was “denying trans people exist.”
“I’m denying trans people exist by asking you if you’re talking about women having pregnancies?” Hawley asked, as Bridges shouted “are you?” over his question.
“Do you believe that men can get pregnant?” Bridges asked the senator.
Hawley answered “no,” because, you know, if you can get pregnant, you’re biologically a woman. This isn’t a tough issue. But the answer led Prof. Bridges to accuse the Missouri senator of “denying trans people exist.” Nonsense. He was denying the professor’s fantasy definition of what “trans” people are.
“And that leads to violence? Is this how you run your classroom?” Hawley responded, asking if Bridges’ students were allowed to question her in class, “—or are they also treated like this…Where they’re told that they are opening up people to violence by questioning?”
“Oh we have a good time in my class, you should join,” Bridges retorted.
Yes, she’s an asshole.
And she should have been admonished for her insolence.
It is telling that so many progressives thought the professor’s performance was deft. In fact, it called into question her fitness to teach law, and her openly hostile attitude toward the Republican Senators was indefensible. Her exchange with Senators Cruz and Lee was especially dismaying. They opined that Dobbs returning the determination of abortion laws was a democratic solution. She exclaimed, “These are the same states that are stopping people from voting!”
Sure, professor. Protecting the integrity of elections is “stopping people from voting.” That’s your professional legal analysis, is it?
Bu it’s still the Unethical Quote of the Month above that resonates. asked directly whether she believed the unborn have value, she refused to reply, and returned to the only stake-holders in abortions that the Left cares about. Ironically, Sen Hawley never denied that trans people exist, but Professor Bridges answered as if the unborn don’t exist.
That undeniably opens them up to violence. Millions of them.