52 comments

    1. 🙄As the host/moderator he has to give both side a chance to speak. Haven’t you ever seen a debate before?

      Reply

    2. @Arcturion Blade Ironic sure, doesn’t change the sentiment. It’s rare to see any meaningful conversation on CNN, then Don Lemon (or any other host) steps in to cut it off…

      Reply

    5. @Jerbo 1 Maintaining standards is still important if you want people to take the program seriously.
      So allowing it to turn into a shouting match would destroy any discussion and promote more division within the community (many people have become overly toxic in regards to this debate with some extreme finger point debasing their opponents as opposed to discussing the actual topic).

      Reply

  3. Has everyone noted that Ms Alice Stewart will not answer the question on voting right ?? It funny how much republican yell about the constitution but they pick and choose what party they want to uphold …

    Reply

    3. @Greg Cullers Using the logic behind the resolution, anything written after conception (it’s like they don’t care) of the constitution because amendments do not reflect the “original” document. You might as well say everything written after the 10 commandments is null and void.

      Reply

  4. Once again primetime TV oversimplifies a difficult issue for ratings. This “both sidesism” rhetoric is just performance art. You can’t take two people to represent the complexity of the reproductive rights issue and narrow it down to woman’s choice versus dead babies argument. 69,000 abortions does not mean all those babies would have survived. When the life of the mother and/or viability of the fetus are the issue, there’s not going to be a happy outcome – no matter whether abortions are legal or not.

    Reply

    4. @Cristina Chaves If a Supreme Court nominee can’t identify what a women is because she isn’t a biologist, how can you identify what a baby is?

      Reply

  5. Come on, where are your fact checkers? Why do you let her lie to your viewers about third term abortion in Virginia? It is very rare and only used in very bad circumstances, usually a nonviable baby.

    Reply

    4. The court decision suspended any true settlement of the issue. RBG even said so. If actual laws were passed by Congress, the issue would be settled.

      Reply

  7. THIS IS DEFINITELY SUCH A PERSONAL AND IN YOU’RE FACE SUBJECT,AND WHAT IF YOU HAVE A MISCARRIAGE AND HAVE TO WALK AROUND WITH THE BAGGED FETUS HANGING DOWN BETWEEN YOUR LEGS,AND HAVE NO PHONE OR HELP OF ANY KIND? THAT’S WHEN REALITY REALLY SETS IN,AND EVERY WOMAN SHOULD EXPERIENCE IT, ONLY ONE TIME IN THEIR OWN LIFE.

    Reply

  8. Interesting that this draft came out when it did. We became a deeply divided nation by design during trump’s Presidency. The pandemic didn’t bring us together because it was also used to continue the division and widen the divide. The war in Ukraine brought us closer together. Something that started to re-unite the United States. And now, a very divisive issue coming to the forefront is once again driving us apart.

    Reply

    1. If you think divisions started with Trump that’s because you were content to ignore millions of your fellow Americans throughout the 8 years of misery that were Obama

      Reply

  9. Must Watch: CNN: Why this former abortion-activist regrets the movement he helped build.
    Watch: MSNBC: For The Religious Right, Abortion Was Means To Power As Segregation Lost Political Potency.
    Watch: MSNBC: George Carlin’s Take On The Conservative Movement

    Reply

  10. Funny how the old blond woman talks about choices being best chosen closer to the people, but she does not like that it is those effected that in fact makes the choices.

    Reply

  11. Alice, just like Chris Christie, starts nearly every statement with “Look!” as if that makes the statement true.

    Reply

    3. Isn’t that what Biden does, when he can’t read a teleprompter? “Look, here’s the deal.”

      Reply

    4. Biden starts every statement with a “duh, duh, whaaa, duh”
      Kamala starts every statement with a cackling hyena laugh.

      Reply

  12. There it is… Alice does not understand the viewpoint of people who disagree with her. Even when she’s confronted with her own stupidity… she’s unwilling to ask a single question.

    Reply

  13. Thank you for having a civilized conversation with someone coming from a different direction.

    We agree on a lot but strong emotions and polarization still effects our ability to listen.

    Reply

  14. At this point I feel like their pranking women such foundation-less arguments to seriously impose laws over their ability to give birth is insane

    “to bring it to a state level”

    As a man they would never challenge us in this way and they know it

    Reply

    1. what do you mean specifically? How are women being challenged by giving states the right to choose if they want to allow abortion to take place in their jurisdiction? I don’t know how any serious judicial scholar could look at the constitution and say yup the writers definitely meant to include the abortion of fetuses as a fundamental right they just forgot to write it down.

      Reply

    3. The latest Supreme Court nominee can’t define what a woman is. How can something that can’t be identified lose rights.

      Reply

  15. I suspect that driving belts weren’t in their Constitution either. Constitutions are a guide to running a country fairly for all citizens, not absolute instructions on all aspects of life.

    Reply

    3. This is a matter of whether or not abortion is a constitutional right. Seatbelts aren’t a constitutional right, but they are mandated by state authorities. Not sure if you are from the US or not, but we don’t call them ‘driving belts’ here and their use is mandated on a lower level than the federal government. All repealing Roe v. Wade would do is leave it up to individual US states to decide about it.

      Reply

  16. The constitution of the US also allows/allowed for slavery. Under the constitution as it was originally written alice wouldnt even be giving this interview without the express permission of the men in their lives. Give up your rights woman!!

    Reply

  17. Judges talk directly from thier backside. How some get through and sit in that role, it’s anyones guess. Corrupt. Weak. Out of touch. Unsuitable. Evil.

    Reply

  18. meanwhile on fox they would be screaming and laughing and interrupting everyone who has a different opinion

    Reply

  19. Here’s a simple thought experiment: 5 countries where choice is legal: Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, France. 5 where it is not: Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. If forced to choose, where do you want to live? Which direction do you want to go?

    Reply

  20. So weird to see an absolute disconnect of what the argument was about. Did she not hear anything?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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