Former MTV star and current Fox News contributor, Rachel Campos-Duffy, claims that pro-lifers are the “abolitionists of our day”.
Ms. Campos-Duffy claimed on a Fox and Friends appearance that : “These 2020 candidates aren’t just saying you know, rape and incest and exceptions and even first trimester, which pro-lifers like me don’t even agree with, but a lot of American population does. They’re saying abortion unfettered, unregulated all the way through the third trimester and even after birth.”
The fact that abortions cannot be performed after birth (that would be considered infanticide, and one would think a grown adult would be aware of the difference) and that, furthermore, no one has been advocating for legalizing infanticide seems to be lost on Ms. Campos-Duffy.
Campos-Duffy also seems unaware of the fact that only 1.3% of abortions are performed after 21 weeks and that most states limit abortions to 24 weeks. There are no children being “ripped from their mothers’ wombs”, as she and President Trump have claimed.
Yet Campos-Duffy is committed to what she views as a “human rights” violation—one comparable to one of the ugliest in US history. “Back in those days they focused on property rights and state rights and they talked about rights,” Duffy continued her slavery metaphor. “And they didn’t talk about the humanity of the people that were affected by those laws. So this is a place where pro-lifers feel very strong. They feel like they’re on a very high scientific and moral ground. They feel like they’re the abolitionists of our day. And they feel like science in particular is backing them up and moving momentum on their side.”
While in 2018 the split between pro-life and pro-choice Americans narrowed to an even 48:48, Duffy-Campos’s claim of science backing up the pro-life movement is misguided at best. There is a lack of scientific consensus as to when human life (or personhood) truly begins, rendering Ms. Duffy-Campos’s claim of “scientific backing” effectively meaningless. Sure, the pro-life moving has scientific backing—yet so does the pro-choice movement.
Hill contributor Juan Williams refuted Ms. Campos-Duffy’s slavery analogy:
“To go back to the slavery analogy that Rachel just used, I would think it is about having people being able to speak for themselves. If someone had asked, ‘Hey, do you want to be enslaved?’ They would’ve said no….What we are talking about here is protecting rights. “If slaves had rights, believe me, they wouldn’t have been slaves.”
Campos-Duffy hammered down, stating that the “victims” in this situation are the unborn children—to her, modern slaves.
Yet it is incredibly odd that Campos-Duffy would use a slavery metaphor to refer to the abortion debate in the wake of Alabama’s six-week abortion ban. The ban is the strictest in the nation: abortions past six weeks would be considered a felony, even in cases of rape and incest. Women who are rape victims in Alabama would be forced to have a their rapist’s child—much like female slaves living on plantations had to when raped by their masters.