MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell went full partisan activist on her Thursday show as she scolded Capitol Hill Correspondent Garrett Haake for using the term “pro-life” when discussing Rep. Nancy Mace because that is not an accurate description.” Additionally, throughout the segment, Mitchell would illustrate glaring hypocrisy and omitted key facts when denouncing Republicans on abortion.
Mitchell wasted no time in getting to dishonesty, “And the House’s passage of two anti-abortion bills Wednesday, despite a majority of Americans saying abortion should be legal.”
After introducing Haake, Mitchell recalled Wednesday’s show, “we had Nancy Mace, of course, the Republican from South Carolina, on yesterday and she spoke very, you know, passionately about why she thought it was the wrong tone for her caucus to be pursuing this abortion legislation and why it was unfair to women, especially women who have been subjected to rape or incest or, you know, other forms of sexual violence and she ended up voting for the abortion measures. Explain that.”
Neither bill banned abortion. One bill was the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act and the other condemned recent violence at “pro-life facilities, groups, and churches.” Whatever one thinks of Mace’s argument, the two resolutions have absolutely nothing to do with it.
As for Haake, his response was straightforward enough, highlighting the fact that Mace is still relatively pro-life, “Well, she told reporters after the fact that at the end of the day, she was, as she described herself, pro-life and that she felt it was important to vote for these measures despite their potentially politically damaging — or politically unappealing appearance, if you will for future voters—”
It was at this point that Mitchell interrupted, “Garrett, let me—let me just interrupt and say that pro-life is a term that they — an entire group wants to use, but that is not an accurate description.”
Haake defended himself by simply pointing out, “I’m using it because that’s the term she used to describe herself, Andrea,” to which Mitchell responded, “I understand. I understand. Anyway, that was her explanation.”
Of course, “anti-abortion,” is also a label “an entire group wants to use” and Mitchell and much of the media sees no problem simply regurgitating that. Many pro-lifers would also take issue with the label “pro-choice,” arguing the label “pro-abortion” is more accurate. Why should only one side get to insist on journalists using their preferred language?
This segment was sponsored by Progressive.
Here is a transcript for the January 12 show:
MSNBC Andrea Mitchell Reports
1/12/2023
12:19 PM ET
ANDREA MITCHELL: And the House’s passage of two anti-abortion bills Wednesday, despite a majority of Americans saying abortion should be legal. Joining me now is NBC senior Capitol Hill correspondent Garrett Haake. Garrett, Speaker, Kevin McCarthy held a press conference this morning. I want to talk to you about that, but also point out, we had Nancy Mace, of course, the Republican from South Carolina, on yesterday and she spoke very, you know, passionately about why she thought it was the wrong tone for her caucus to be pursuing this abortion legislation and why it was unfair to women, especially women who have been subjected to rape or incest or, you know, other forms of sexual violence and she ended up voting for the abortion measures. Explain that.
GARRETT HAAKE: Well, she told reporters after the fact that at the end of the day, she was, as she described herself, pro-life and that she felt it was important to vote for these measures despite their potentially politically damaging — or politically unappealing appearance, if you will for future voters–
MITCHELL: Garrett, let me—let me just interrupt and say that pro-life is a term that they — an entire group wants to use, but that is not an accurate description.
HAAKE: I’m using it because that’s the term she used to describe herself, Andrea.
MITCHELL: I understand. I understand. Anyway, that was her explanation.