Unethical Quote Of The Week: UC Berkeley Law Prof. Khiara Bridges

“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.


Sources: Fox News, Red State1, 2

14 thoughts on “Unethical Quote Of The Week: UC Berkeley Law Prof. Khiara Bridges

  1. Because getting into a debate about the moral status of the thing growing inside the woman (which is the ACTUAL issue in the abortion debate) means that the left will have to say some outrageous things, and they want to avoid that debate. The right needs to directly ask people what it is that is growing inside of the woman.

    Don’t let go of this question until you get an answer. Her refusal is an acknowledgement that deep down, she knows the position she is advocating for isn’t defensible.

  2. I love the left’s take on voting requirements as voting ‘suppression’. Yes, they are preventing people from voting by checking requirements the same way banks are preventing people from having money by hiring guards and installing safes.

  3. Classic pigeon chess. Now she’s going to strut around acting like she won. This is a typical tactic of the left. Avoid answering questions, attack the questioner, slam him like he’s a fool, and then wait for the likes, upvotes, and comments about how you “owned” or “schooled” the other side to roll in. It was the same when George Galloway ducked, bobbed and weaved, and threw insults at Norm Coleman, talking about how standards had slipped. It was not quite the same but just as annoying when Martin Shkreli simply refuse to answer under the fifth amendment, and then tweeted about what dolts there were in Congress.

    The good thing about those other two situations is that “Pharma bro” ended up going to jail, when he really wasn’t equipped to do hard time. I shouldn’t say this, but I hope a couple of very large lifers taught him who was boss and broke his arrogance once and for all, while George Galloway ended up on the receiving end of “street justice, when this Jewish guy, offended by his virulent anti-semitism, confronted him in the street, call them out for the anti-semite that he is, and hit him in the mouth and broke his jaw.

    Unfortunately, that’s not going to happen here. But nothing destroys arrogance like being locked up or beaten up.

  4. Quite some time ago, a supporter of a right to abortion stated confidently that what was growing inside the woman (yes, at that time, a woman, now a birthing person) was just a blob of protoplasm. That idea sort of fit with the Roe v. Wade decision that there should be no restriction on a right to abortion during the first trimester. But, following that logic, the blob of protoplasm does transition into a human being at some point (during pregnancy, at the point of birth, after birth?). Those who support a right to abortion should be pushed to state when that takes place, and why it is at that point and not some other. I would not consider bald assertions to be adequate here.
    Likewise, some who oppose a right to abortion refer to a fetus as a potential human being. They likewise should be pushed to state when that potential human being becomes a human being, and why it is at that point. Ditto for bald assertions.
    Each side should be pushed to justify why it is right/wrong to end the growth of a blob of protoplasm/potential human being, and why a woman/birthing person should/should not be able to do so. To state that it’s a woman’s choice, or that it has all the potential of a human being, is a way to just try to end an essential debate.
    Now, on to something that may be “transphobic and opens trans people up to violence.” From the site, fact-files.com, we can learn about the current head of the Public Health Service that “She has two children from his marriage to Martha.” Confused? Well, Rachel Levine was once Richard Levine and, as a man, if I can use that term, fathered, if I can use that term, two children with his (her?) wife. Subsequently, Richard became Rachel. So, is she a father, or a mother, or both, or neither? I prefer precision in language, but perhaps we have to lose that so as to not incite violence and simply refer to her as a parental person. Or, we can refuse to even have the discussion, which is another way of ending a debate.

  5. Her comments included the assertion that not everyone gets to vote in Texas yet NEVER do we hear that these assertions of voter suppression without evidence to back them up. At least with voter fraud there are some cases to show actual fraud. If there were any actual people denied the right to vote the left would be in the streets yelling their name and demanding justice.

    I have come to believe that voter suppression is simply an argument without substance. My only hope is the courts wake up soon and figure that out as well.

  6. The reaction to Dobbs by the left is puzzling. It is, as you say, that there is an emphasis solely on the woman and her right to bodily autonomy. But this view is contrary to Roe. While Roe acknowledged bodily autonomy, it also acknowledged a legitimate state interest in potential life.

    In that sense, Dobbs is consistent with Roe in letting the various states strike a balance between those two interests.

    But, they don’t seem to want to acknowledge that there is a competing interest at all.


  7. Steve O said, “Classic pigeon chess” and that’s exactly right.
    During my twenty-plus years as a patrol deputy and a supervisor of patrol deputies, I (and most officers I know) dealt with arrogant and disrespectful people like Professor Bridges on a daily basis. She’s just like the people who wanted to litigate a simple traffic stop on the side of the road, or who insisted that I couldn’t serve a warrant or other process on them even though the legal paper in question stated plainly that the officer was commanded to execute it; it wasn’t a matter of choice. They will question your legal authority for preforming your duty, and then refuse to listen to your explanation. These are people who uncritically assume that they are entitled, somehow, to twist the world’s institutions and government’s functions to fit their own distorted logic and flawed thinking, absent any notions of civility or courtesy. They actually have no idea how ridiculous they sound to normal people. I wish I had a buck for every person who arrogantly proclaimed, “You can’t put me in jail!” but went to jail anyway. Sometimes their performance in court is very entertaining, especially when you know an unimpressed judge is about to deliver their comeuppance. Bridges has just achieved a bigger stage than most on which to play out her unhinged intellectual fantasies while repeating the Big Lies of her social/political philosophy.

    • This is one of the reasons I wouldn’t have made it as a cop. I would get too impatient, too quickly with the idiot “sovereign citizens” and other folks living in self-imposed and self-created delusions, and not hesitate to use a baton or a taser once I decided things were no longer up for discussion and that I was tired of hearing bullshit I’d already heard multiple times. I might even tell someone I stopped or arrested, “Listen you, I’m already having a bad day because I’m having to deal with you and your nonsense. If you make my bad day worse with all this sovereign citizen (or whatever) bullshit, I’m going to use my taser and baton to make your day a whole lot worse than the bad day I’m having and send you on a trip to Bruise City by way of Thump Road. Do you understand?” If the answer was other than “yes,” then the thumping would commence.

      • Steve– With all due respect, I must inform you that you have no appreciation for the unfiltered entertainment such people provide for the working cop. I share Jim Hodgson’s experience, except at the municipal level rather than county.

        These idiot clowns provide us with many a story to share after shift over a beer or at neighborhood BBQs. In Cali (my experience site) a person can go into actual custody (jail) should they fail to give their “promise to appear as directed” by signing the citation. “I ain’t signing nothing” usually yields a “Thank You” from the officer… followed by clicking of handcuffs and a ride downtown.

        The woods is full of ’em, as the saying goes, and you can’t let them get under your skin. If you do you will have employment continuation problems. Yeah the job is not for everyone. 🙂

        • Nope it’s not. And frankly we don’t need any more Andy Sipowicz or Hank Voight types, who beat confessions out of suspects or intimidate witnesses by violence (like smashing someone’s hand with a pool cue or kneeing him so hard in the groin you practically hear his testicles hit the inside of his skull)..

  8. Saying that men can’t get pregnant does not deny that transmen exists- it denies that transmen are men. Which they aren’t. “People with a capacity to get pregnant” are women, no matter what euphemism you use.

    Saying that 1 in 5 trans people attempt suicide does not mean we should change the definitions of man and woman. Gender may be a social construct, but male and female are physical facts.

    Here’s hoping UC Berkeley doesn’t assign her to teach any logic courses.

  9. Our next Civil War is going to be one side rallying around anti-abortion laws and the other side rallying around the notion that men can give birth. It’s gonna be lame.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.