Psaki criticized for suggesting male reporter had no grounds to question Biden's abortion stance
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
White House press secretary Jen Psaki is facing criticism for suggesting a male reporter had no grounds on which to ask about President Biden's stance on abortion, following a Supreme Court vote on the matter.
Psaki, on Thursday morning after the high court voted to let stand a recently passed Texas law that limits most abortions past six weeks, said Biden "believes it's up to a woman to make those decisions."
She then said, "I know you've never faced those choices, nor have you ever been pregnant. But for women out there who have faced those choices, this is an incredibly difficult thing," in response to the question on who Biden thinks "should look out for the unborn child."
Students for Life President Kristan Hawkins told Fox News: "By Jen Psaki's arbitrary standard Joe Biden shouldn't be commenting on abortion either as he's never been pregnant."
Live Action's Lila Rose tweeted: "I've been pregnant, @PressSec and it's *still* not my right, or anyone else's, to kill a baby. Being a woman or being pregnant does not give you license to kill. Women deserve better than abortion. The President's position is illogical, unscientific, immoral & 40 years wrong."
Psaki did not immediately respond to Fox News' request for comment.
The question to her about Biden's stance was from EWTN's Owen Jensen.
Former Planned Parenthood Director Abby Johnson said Psaki's answer was "such a silly response. It was all men who decided to legalize abortion across this country in 1973. They certainly respected a man's decision then.
"The bottom line is that they simply don't respect a man's opinion who is pro life. But men should have a voice in whether or not their child is killed by abortion."
Tags
Who is online
86 visitors
What a condescending, dirty, feminist comment.
I thought it got by everyone, but evidently it didn't get by John Solomon!
Pretty sure that a woman has the same rights as a man. Her reproduction system is her own.
The question was: who Biden thinks should look out for the unborn child?
The Court forgot to extend rights to them.
That's no one's business except for the woman in question.
Why should it? The unborn do not have rights. But feel free to petition and make an argument before the courts for that.
The nonviolable unborn don't have rights. Their existence depends on use of the organs of a living, breathing, sentient woman.
Unless you're for forced organ donation? After all, why should you have more right to the use of your kidneys than I do, if my kidneys should happen to fail?
She controls two bodies then?
The unborn do not have rights.
We shall see about that.
She's not forced to give the use of her body to another. Unless you're for forced organ donation.
Yes.
States have tried and failed to do that.
She was forced if she was raped.
She's forced if she has no choice to continue a pregnancy or not, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy.
Why don't we answer the questions in post 2 ?
If she was raped, she didn't "give" the use of her body. All the more reason to allow her to control her body going forward.
Gordy already did.
Where?
Ah, I misread which post.
Because they are ridiculous on their face.
So did the Constitution.
Or to women seeking an abortion
Try to endure it and consider what Nerm was asking.
Oh, I see you left.
This one was easy.
Good night all.
What Nerm was saying was ridiculous on its face. If you want an answer in the affirmative, you, being male, have no right to question me as a female.
But then Nerm was doing what you're doing, accusing Psaki of saying something she didn't say, and running away with that accusation.
Griswold and Roe refute that.
What's "dirty" about that Vic ?
She is saying that as a man, he is disqualified from asking about the rights of the unborn.
You're putting words in her mouth.
I put the quote in bold.
[deleted]
[deleted]
She didn't say that. Stick to her quote.
Are you going to engage in a semantic argument? She said "I know you've never faced those choices, nor have you ever been pregnant. But for women out there who have faced those choices, this is an incredibly difficult thing."
That clearly disqualifies him from asking the question, which she never answered btw.
If the male reporter had no grounds to ask it, that is as much as saying that no man does. How can you NOT get that? You know, that pesky headline thing
Why bring up his sex then?
She gets it.
She is not wrong in that statement.
The mistake he makes is thinking the unborn have rights. Especially over that of the woman's rights. And since the man is not getting pregnant or having t deal with a pregnancy, they get no say in the matter, especially over women who do deal with pregnancy.
I'm only suggesting you discuss her actual words not your tortured interpretation of them.
Did she ?
Yes she did.
No, she didn't
I have in post 1
Which do NOT include saying anything about him being 'disqualified'.
But you be you Vic.
She didn't.
One would have to be completely retarded not to understand that Psaki is saying if you have never been pregnant and never had to make those choices, you wouldn't know. That disqualifies him.
Do you still want to parse words?
Do you honestly believe she would have said those words to a female journalist asking the same question? She was addressing the journalist directly as a male.
I know you've never faced those choices, nor have you ever been pregnant. But for women out there who have faced those choices, this is an incredibly difficult thing,"
How would she know that about a female journalist?
good grief, the ignorance some will stoop to for partisan hackery.
Nope, she didn't say that either Vic.
The act of parsing words illustrates qualities that FABRICATING words does not.
Yet you persist.
Do you mean the journalist?
The journalist didn’t say that. That wasn’t the question.
Psaki should have just been honest and said no one. That is if Biden believes that the unborn should not be protected. Instead she tried to turn it back to the journalist.
I guess Psaki forgot who she takes questions for.
That’s your rebuttal?
The brilliance is dazzling.
Perfect, isn't it?
He didn't have to.
Psaki was being honest and answered appropriately.
Seems like she doesn't take BS either! Good on her!
She didn’t answer the question given.
Seems she is as much of a coward as her boss .
Perfect for you.
No, she gave the best possible answer!
So, what are the grounds for a male President to take a stance on abortion?
What are the grounds for a female press secretary blocking a male reporter's questioning of the stance of a male President? Was Psaki trying to woman-splain the President's stance by throwing shade?
He wasn't blocked, he asked two questions.
BTFW, if Psaki wanted to block that particular male's questions, all she need do is follow the precident set by the Trump press secretary and take away his credentials.
[deleted]
Using that logic, or lack thereof, Biden isn't allowed to have a stance on abortion.
Biden says restrictive Texas abortion law is “almost un-American,” creates “vigilante system”
I wonder who wrote if for him?
Who cares? It's correct!
Sen. Amy Klobuchar on Roe v. Wade:
"These three Trump-appointed justices plus two conservatives that were already on the court had their own agenda. And that's why it is on Congress to put this into law."
Sorry Amy, you don't have the votes. Maybe you are right - that is where it should have been decided!
The right has really turned feigning outrage into an art form. You drama queens should consider joining your local theatre companies. Bravo!
Biden and psaki tell us men can give birth. So she’s also a bigot for assuming the questioner doesn’t want to have a baby,
She answered the question. Biden supports a woman's right to choose. The "question" about the unborn wasn't a question, and anybody reasonably intelligent and honest knows that. It was an argument with a question mark at the end.
It's interesting that some list "feminist" along with "dirty". Yet more misogyny.
I waited as long as I could. I have meatloaf just about ready. Catch you later.
Nice admission that you seed such articles and make such comments just to bait. That's very immature.
Not really. Pat invoked one of your sayings and It made me think that you would be arriving later.
The reporter asked a legitimate question. It’s a question that has been asked of Catholic politicians, including Joe Biden, for many years.
Furthermore, while a man obviously cannot understand the situation in the way that a woman can - particularly one who is going through it or has gone through it - that doesn’t preclude him from having an opinion on the matter or asking questions. We all do that with every issue.
Disagree. It was an argument. It puts the nonexistent rights of a fetus above the rights of a grown woman.
Possibly, but that is true of many questions from reporters. I think it’s a legitimate, but hard, question. The Catholic Church has an official position opposing abortion. Biden is a Catholic who supports abortion. That’s a direct conflict. And Psaki isn’t saying Biden’s intent is to uphold the law. She is saying what he “believes.” I mean, maybe he shouldn’t be a Catholic.
Biden keeps his personal, religiously-motivated opinions regarding abortion to himself, as he recognizes that he has no right to make somebody else live by his religion.
Maybe the Catholic Church should expect only its members to abide by its rules. Of course, most of the Catholics I know lived together before marriage and use the Pill. So maybe the Catholic Church should reconcile itself to giving advice based on its interpretation of the Bible, and recognize that it has no authority to mandate that anybody follow it.
Certainly you don't mean the religion he was born into. Joe is about as Catholic as I am. No, Joe's religion is a political movement and he does intend to have us live under that.
The problem we face today isn't religion, but ideology. The individual is being reinvented, conditioned and programmed into a devoted social activist or revolutionary tied to the cause through the movement of the new left. That's why I have to show up here day after day - to counter all of that.
I don't give a damn what Joe's religion is. Religion as political pandering is hardly new. What I care about is that he knows that his religion applies to him, and not to me. He gets that, so I'm happy.
The rest of your comment is a vaguely fearmongering word salad.
I was only pointing out that radical ideology has replaced "religion."
I think it's more accurate to state that Biden supports a woman's right to choose.
Melodrama at it's finest.
Yup. Psaki answers the question in a manner any normally intelligent person would understand, a reporter who disagrees asks a loaded question, she shuts him down, whining and poutrage ensues.
I'm pretty sure the Church knows his views, so how is that speaking out of both sides of his mouth? That implies an intention to deceive, and he has been clear about his views regarding abortion - he supports a woman's right to choose. I'm sure his priest knows.
try watching fox and fiends or fucker carlson with the sound off for classic silent melodrama.
I would heartily endorse changes in the Catholic Church. Biden could suggest that. So could Nancy Pelosi or any of a number of Catholic politicians who don’t mind advertising their faith when it suits them and ignoring it when it doesn’t.
don't bother. get a hobby, turn off fox.
There is no reason for Biden to try to change the Catholic Church. He needs only to follow the First Amendment, and allow himself to be Catholic, and other people to choose not to be Catholic, or follow its teachings. And he has done that. No need to change.
If he is a Catholic who thinks church doctrine is harmful and inconsistent with scripture, he has every reason to try to change it.
That's between him and the church.
That's the thing about churches - they tend to be top-down sorts of organizations. The members' voices only count for so much. Some Tudor kings (and a queen) found that out.
Not as much as you might think.
Oh, some churches have democratic tendencies. The Catholic Church isn't one of them, IMO. Most Catholics just act as they choose (like using contraception), whether the Church allows it or not, and the Church shows little sign of budging on that issue. Same with celibacy for clergy and abortion. They're here for the foreseeable future, despite being pretty unpopular, even among Catholics.
She gets away with anything (just like when she blew off questions about the leaked phone call whith Ghani and open borders and the disasterous withdrawl) via the same degenerates who were so openly hostile to McEnay.
Here is what intelligent people are saying:
"Fr. Frank Pavone, a Catholic Preist, wrote: 'Jen Psaki is still using the tired old excuse for #abortion that men cannot get pregnant. Since when does that take away a man's responsibility to defend a child from violence?'
Ed Condon, the editor of Substack page The Pillar, similarly wrote: 'The fundamental premise of Jen Psaki's comments is that fathers have no intrinsic stake in the life of their children. It's also the fundamental premise of a society which views children as transferable commodities.'
'I was told men can get pregnant and that they can chest feed,' pundit Katie Pavlich wrote beneath a clip of Psaki snapping at the male reporter.
Meanwhile, Newsmax contributor Jessie Jane Duff chimed: 'Jen Psaki and her ilk actually voiced their outrage that they can't kill another human being after its heart starts to beat. They are soulless ghouls. "Her choice to stop another human beings heartbeat" isn't quite as catchy as "My body my choice". And they know it.'
Pro-life advocate Lila Rose wrote: 'I've been pregnant, and it's *still* not my right, or anyone else's, to kill a baby. Being a woman or being pregnant does not give you license to kill. Women deserve better than abortion. The President's position is illogical, unscientific, immoral & 40 years wrong.'
I'd miss you guys too much.
Gee dennis, it seems that you support the idea of an elected official basing their actions on the dogma of their religion rather than representing all of their constiuents, no matter their religion.
You have a low bar for deeming someon intelligent if those quoted are your example.
You only need a modicum of intelligence to know or at least admit that Jen Psaki was disqualifying a valid question simply because it came from a man.
Some base their opinion on the actual words spoken, others have a need to filter those words through a bias lense and misinterpret their meaning in a sad attempt to discredit the speaker to bolster their own ideology.
You only need a modicum of intelligence to know which one of those practices is ethical.
That would be true if Biden wasn't an Elected Official. As a Representative of the Government he wields the power of the Government, it's implied even if it's unintentional. Let's face it aside from Biden's political career and standing he's a nothing, he might as well have pumped gas for the last fifty years so any influence he would have is purely from a projection of political power (aka Government power).
Like the "right to privacy" not found in the Constitution?
others have a need to filter those words through a bias lense
A comment such as "I know you've never faced those choices, nor have you ever been pregnant. But for women out there who have faced those choices, this is an incredibly difficult thing," requires little interpretation. The bias lense belongs to those in denial, which is btw a losing cause.
No.
BTFW, rinsing and repeating the same BS doesn't make it any more factual.
Yet you DID insert YOUR interpretation and insist that others embrace it.
False Vic. Any review of the comments in this seed proves that you've failed to make a cogent argument in support of YOUR interpretation of Psaki's statement. The majoirty disagree with you.
Does the Catholic Church demand that it's followers adhere to each and every part of it's written dogma in order to consider themself a 'good' Catholic?
Judging from the fact that thoughout history, the Catholic Church has allowed 'fallen' Priests to continue as 'Shepards' even after committing abhorant crimes, protected them and even profited from their actions is evidence that it does not.
It seems to me that the Catholic Church set the precident of ignoring it's own dogma long before any American politician can be seen as doing so.
Oh, wow, it's like she committed the Bowling Green Massacre.
And your source is the opinion of a Newsmax contributor? That explains a lot.
The right to privacy has been explained to you. You never did answer the questions posed in 5.1.5. I wonder why?
They're at least supposed to aspire to follow the rules and confession of sins is an admittance of wrongdoing. Biden's problem is he thinks the church is wrong, that doesn't fly. He could say he believes abortion is wrong but as a government representative he doesn't feel he has the right to force his religious beliefs on others but saying he's right and the church is wrong doesn't allow for contrition, without an admittance of wrongdoing there can be no forgiveness though Confession. Biden hasn't just become a Sinner he has become an Advocate for Sin by calling what the Church calls wrong right.
There have been "cafeteria Catholics" ( so named because they pick and choose what Church teachings to observe) for many decades now. This comes from social changes around the world in the post WWII era.
Protestants dont have a single voice of authority such as the Vatican. If there was we would likely see "cafeteria Protestants" too.
Do you have a link for that allegation?
Biden is on record stating EXACTLY that.
WHEN did Biden say the Church was wrong? Link?
Then rinse and repeat right?
At least THAT is what the Catholic Church has admitted to in all too many cases of fallen Priests. Of course when you add to that the FACT that the Catholic Church moved fallen Priests from parish to parish and even from country to country in order to cover up their 'transgressions'.
IMHO, the Catholic Church has abdicated all claim to the 'moral' high ground.
It seems that year after year a new revelation exposing the Catholic Church is unearthed. I haven't even mentioned the disgusting victim blaiming and legal shenanigans that the Catholic Church has practiced.
I'm sorry , the covering up of child sexual abuse occurs across society not only in the Catholic Church.
The First Amendment has never been interpreted to mean that a government official - even the president - cannot fully participate in his own church or publicly express opinions about its doctrine.
That is true.
It is also true that one would be very hard-pressed to find any other institution which covered abuse up and condoned it for so long, only stopping when the publicity got too bad.
Never said it didn't John.
Oh and BTFW, I'm not just talking about child sexual abuse.
I hope that you will acknowledge that the Catholic Church has an inherant obligation to be truthful with it's parishioners AND to counsel them based on it's proclaimed FAITH rather than on mitigating it's own monetary liability, as do ALL entities that claim religious autonomy and authority.
Unfortunately, the jury is out on whether is HAS stopped.
My source is my own eyes.
Yes! I notice that you can't show me where it is. I'll wait.
BTFW, rinsing and repeating the same BS doesn't make it any more factual.
Then why do it?
Yet you DID insert YOUR interpretation and insist that others embrace it.
It's known as the obvious
False Vic. Any review of the comments in this seed proves that you've failed to make a cogent argument in support of YOUR interpretation of Psaki's statement.
True Dulay: And the rational mind agrees
The majoirty disagree with you.
What does that mean? The majority of the CCP would disagree with me too.
In all the time I've know you, you have yet to show us where it is, nor has Justice Blackmun.
Then you clearly do not understand how the SCOTUS operates or the relevant rulings. And you still haven't answered my questions. Why the deflection?
You quoted the opinion of a far right wing conspiracy theory site. Not a credible support for your position.
When Psaki is announcing that she's pushing "alternative facts", be sure to let us know, mmkay?
You haven't answered mine. If you could have done that you'd win the argument.
I already won the argument. You just don't know it. Or fail to accept it, which is your problem and not mine. The right to privacy is an accepted legal precedent and constitutional right. Every legal scholar, from a first year law student to a SCOTUS Justice knows this. You have not offered anything to refute that outside of your own opinion. Your refusal or inability to answer my very simple questions only shows your position lacks any merit and your argument thusly falls flat!
It wasn't intended to be support for my OPINION. I happen to think my opinion is reasonable and I don't need to parse words. Just like my opinion of comment 11 is reasonable and when Perrie arrives, I'll see if It was as obvious as it seems.
It's the same as me saying to you "unless you know the kind of decisions a man has to make, you will be irrelevant. Everyone can plainly see it Sandy.
Then why are you still arguing?
I'm simply asking you a couple questions. You started the "argument" when you claimed the SCOTUS was legislating, which you also failed to demonstrate how. Then you double down on your dodge debate tactics by repeatedly not answering my questions posed to you. You could have avoided an "argument" had you simply admitted you were wrong. That would have been the honest thing to do.
Your opinion about your opinion doesn't mean much.
Everyone sees that's how you interpret it.
But most people agree that women are adult humans with bodily autonomy, and agree therefore that the person who decides what a woman does with her body is, well, her, not a man, nor another woman. If I were to experience an unwanted pregnancy and decided to terminate, it would be none of your business, not because you're a man, but because you're not me.
Well said Sandy. That pretty much sums it up.
I notice that you never asked me to.
Although I HAVE cited the fact that the SCOTUS cited the 9th and 14th Amendments.
It's your practice, not mine Vic.
I hate to burst your bubble Vic but you views are in a very small minority.
No Vic. Oh and pretending that yours is the only rational position is ludicrous.
What part of my comment didn't you understand Vic?
Yet your 'calling' for being here is to sway 'our readers' and in that you failed miserably.
How the fuck would you know Vic, you've never actually read Blackmun's opinion.
Yet it's obvious to 'our readers' that it was intended to support your POSITION, which is what Sandy said.
That is an utterly hilarious comment Vic.
If not for 'parsing words', you wouldn't be able to express your opinion or interpretation of Psaki's statement.
Maybe you should reconsider your aversion to the perfectly acceptable practice.
It isn't, but you be you Vic.
The majority of 'our readers' have already expressed their view that they do NOT agree with your interpretation Vic. It shouldn't be that hard to admit at least that much.
Every politician has to put his Catholicism, Jewishness or Hinduisms aside when he is acting as an elected official.
That is what is right with Joe Biden and wrong with Greg Abbott and Dan Patrick.
That is so partisan not to mention ilhan omar and rashida tlaib.
Partisan ??????
Ooooh I missed a religion or two?
Go troll someone else based on partisanship.
Gee, let's apply that to this seed:
And there are some who feel the need to tell others what someone meant when they spoke instead of letting the speakers words stand. That is certainly true for Trump supporters. Trying to spin her words shows their bias.
See how that works dennis?
You criticize others for being partisan yet here you are, being partisan. That’s not trolling, that’s pointing out inconsistencies in your behavior.
Guess you missed my criticisms of Clinton, Clinton, Obama and Biden over the last 14 years.
No problem.
Go fuck off, go troll someone else.
I've been here for 10 years and at NV since 2007 but I do understand
that when your standing in the lowest point of the valley you are looking up at everyone else.
I will gladly lend you some climbing equipment when you are ready to get out of the partisan gutter.
Exactly.
100 percent of the problem is that some strangers believe that they have a right to legislate medical decisions by claiming they have the right to do so because they are and/or belong to an organization that is the epitome of morality.
These are self-righteous, power hungry individuals/organizations/cults that should never have been allowed to play Game of Thrones with our lives for any reason.
We need to recognize what our laws have allowed the religious, utopian seeking zealots to do to themselves in the not so distant past. In the distant past, the atrocities committed, even to members of their own sect, are horrifying and should be researched, taught and remembered.
I don't want or need any Jim Joneses in my life. I don't know anyone who does.
How I wish I could vote this up a thousand times...
I was wondering how saying religion should not play a part in those that govern is partisan....
It's all in the eyes of the preacher silly.
I humbly thank you. I have spent the majority of my life living among the zealots. I have been surrounded by and married to an assortment of abusive personality types all of my life. As a Christian, I couldn't reconcile why a perfect, loving God would create such vermin to torture the compassionate. As an atheist, I know it did not happen. Evolution and society are responsible.
It is logical that abusive people usually need power over others in order to have victims. Some have to be satisfied with only abusing weaker family members - usually the women and children. Some manage to control large enough organizations to cause widespread harm throughout their community, or country, or even the entire world.
Abusers seek and recognize their prey just like any other predator. I honestly believe in order to save lives we need to teach people (including teenagers) about psychopaths, sociopaths, narcissists and other borderline personality traits as a public service. The very last thing they need to be taught is that they have a duty "to understand, help and forgive" abusers. Trained professionals can't help many, if not most, of these people.
The link below is about religious narcissistic leadership. There are explanations to how these men's personality disorders drove them to abuse others.
and explanations for murders that some people find "unexplainable". It can be explained. It seems that a lot of people have difficultly accepting the explanation.
I wonder if the men who have murdered abortion providers experience narcissistic rage as a result of their self-perceived authority being ignored?
My comment didn't mention Trump, only his supporters.
Not well for you.
Lmao!
"What a condescending, dirty, feminist comment."
And once again the seeder taints the conversation purposefully with an opening condescending and patriarchal opinion.
The "reporter" tried for a "gotcha" question and got handed his own balls.
A condescending, dirty, misogynist question, at that.
"Those more acquainted with Ginsburg and her thoughtful, nuanced approach to difficult legal questions were not surprised, however, to hear her say just the opposite, that Roe was a faulty decision. For Ginsburg, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that affirmed a woman’s right to an abortion was too far-reaching and too sweeping, and it gave anti-abortion rights activists a very tangible target to rally against in the four decades since.
Ginsburg and Professor Geoffrey Stone, a longtime scholar of reproductive rights and constitutional law, spoke for 90 minutes before a capacity crowd in the Law School auditorium on May 11 on “Roe v. Wade at 40.”
“My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.
“Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it? ” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.”
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Offers Critique of Roe v. Wade During Law School Visit
Jesus, you mean you actually understand it and still persist in your misogynies?
Amazing !
Actually, I don't think he DOES understand the link or the quote.
By 'faulty' Gingrich meant based on the physician's right vs a woman's right.