Tomi Lahren returns, proves she still can’t explain the pro-abortion position

When there are pro-lifers to smear, fifteen minutes of fame can last forever and be restarted at any time. One might have expected the story of Tomi Lahren, the “conservative” pundit fired by the Blaze after she trashed the pro-lifers in its audience as hypocrites, to be over. Yet that noted journal of substantive political discourse Marie Claire has resurrected the controversy with a new interview with Lahren.

In “tell[ing] her story,” the ousted talker shows she hasn’t learned a thing from the mountain of feedback she got, and if anything doubles down on the shallowness of her position:

I would never get an abortion — I would never tell anyone to get an abortion; in fact, I’ve had friends in that position, and I have tried to counsel them otherwise.

If this sounds familiar, it’s because it’s the same cliché you’ve all heard from countless pro-aborts. Lahren knows full well that her not personally having or encouraging an abortion doesn’t at all explain why it’s okay to permit procedures like the one below, explained by former abortionist Dr. Anthony Levatino.

It does, however, open her up to another line of questioning: what is it about that procedure (and the other common abortion procedures) that makes you feel the need to distance yourself from it, Tomi?

But from my view, I just don’t feel right having the government tell a woman that she is restricted from having an abortion. I would personally feel like a hypocrite for doing that.

This is just a regurgitation of the original line that exposed her, with no explanation of why it’s not utterly hypocritical. In fact, nothing at all added to address any of the scores of rebuttals it inspired. The fact that Lahren is thoroughly uninterested in patching up her own argument’s logical holes reveals that she’s only interested in playing to a new audience, not in finding the right answer to abortion.

After the first trimester, I do think that there is some room for the government to intervene, because at that point, it is an unborn child that could be viable on its own.

Now we’re getting somewhere — unfortunately, that somewhere is just as insipid. Are you not aware that he or she is already an “unborn child” in the first trimester, Tomi? That science unequivocally says every new human life begins at fertilization? Why does viability matter? Are there any born people who no longer deserve a right to life because they’re no longer viable without external medical machinery? Even if viability is the deciding factor (for reasons you’ve yet to articulate, other than the fact that it’s the standard-issue dodge you’ve cribbed from pro-aborts), why does that only create “some” room for legal protection?

I think we need to approach all of these issues on abortion with compassion, first and foremost, and try to put ourselves in the shoes of someone in a situation that, luckily, we’ve never had to be in. We need to have some understanding for those people rather than having the almighty government tell them what to do.

Ah yes, “compassion” is why we have to let mothers have their sons and daughters killed. Very compassionate. What about this common abortion procedure below…compassionate?

And tell me, Tomi, if laws saying “you can’t kill preborn people” are a manifestation of “the almighty government” bossing people around, why doesn’t the same go for laws saying “you can’t kill born people”?

I just don’t think there’s a place for that, and I don’t like it. It bothers me that there are some pro-lifers who don’t see that side of it. They don’t have to agree with it, but I wish they could see that side.

“I just don’t.” That’s the piece’s most honest summary of where Lahren’s thinking on abortion began or ended. On a related note, we pro-lifers can indeed see her side; we just have no respect for it because it’s morally repugnant and logically indefensible — as evidenced by the fact that we’ve addressed your criticism repeatedly, Tomi, and you have yet to address ours.

In fairness, it must be acknowledged that when interviewer Kayla Webley Adler asked about government-mandated birth control coverage and taxpayer-funded Planned Parenthood, Lahren opposed both. It by no means makes up for her support of slaughtering children, but for the record she hasn’t adopted every part of the pro-abortion agenda…yet.

Lahren also unwittingly reinforces suspicions that this was all a victimhood-mongering publicity stunt when she cries that it “was hell” to have been “silenced” when the Blaze took her Blaze-owned Facebook page away, which supposedly meant she was unable to “comment on the stuff that’s been happening” or “have my voice out there.” That’s odd, considering she had well over 600,000 Twitter followers at the time, not only enabling her to continue to opine, but which would have made redirecting her audience to a new personal media page on Facebook, a website, or any number of other platforms the easiest thing in the world.

With the final questions, we get to Marie Claire’s real reason for bringing Lahren back: as a weapon to use against their political enemies. She says:

It’s a cautionary tale for conservatives. They need to understand that we’re going to have some voices, especially from conservative women, that might not fit within the box […]

[I]f we keep treating [young, outspoken conservative women] like this, we’re not going to see any of them, right? That’s why this is so troubling to me. You finally have someone like me who is a rising star on the right…and I was cast aside because I don’t fit the mold. My message to women is: It’s okay not to toe the party line on every issue. You don’t have to be a puppet or a mouthpiece for your party on every issue. You can be an independent thinker, you can take it issue by issue, and that’s okay. You shouldn’t be told, “You can’t sit with us.”

What. A. Load. Of. Crap.

First, one has to marvel at the arrogance of “you finally have someone like me.” You really think you’re the first strong, outspoken female in this field, Tomi? Ever heard of Lila Rose, Michelle Malkin, Dana Loesch, Star Parker, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, SE Cupp, Stacey Dash, Kat Timpf, or Kimberly Guilfoyle?

Second, and most importantly, nobody wants you to “be a puppet or a mouthpiece,” and nobody has any problem with “independent thinkers” (in fact, our problem is your stance’s complete lack of thought). If an employee of the Blaze, Live Action, or any similar website went on TV and said, “you know, segregation’s not such a bad idea,” they’d have been fired just as fast, and nobody would think it was about enforcing any groupthink. All would instantly understand it was about the evil and backwardness of the position espoused, which has no place in an honorable organization in 2017.

That’s exactly what happened in your case, Tomi. Declaring it should be permissible to execute an innocent baby for convenience is even more disgusting than the vile practice of segregation. The only reason we’re even having this discussion is because society hasn’t yet agreed — to its shame — on which side of the decency line abortion should fall. But make no mistake: if sympathy for child murder doesn’t demand ostracizing, nothing does.

Editor’s Note: All op-eds are the opinion of the writer, and not necessarily the official position of Live Action.

What is Live Action News?

Live Action News is pro-life news and commentary from a pro-life perspective. Learn More

Contact editor@liveaction.org for questions, corrections, or if you are seeking permission to reprint any Live Action News content.

GUEST ARTICLES: To submit a guest article to Live Action News, email editor@liveaction.org with an attached Word document of 800-1000 words. Please also attach any photos relevant to your submission if applicable. If your submission is accepted for publication, you will be notified within three weeks. Guest articles are not compensated. (See here for Open License Agreement.) Thank you for your interest in Live Action News!

To Top