A vintage 'End of Discussion' performance from Nance here, huffing that an entirely reasonable question is somehow illegitimate because it was "ideological" in nature, and -- more importantly -- asked by a man. Watch, via the Free Beacon:
Let's break this exchange down, shall we? In relation to the Planned Parenthood organ-harvesting and -selling scandal, the reporter asks the House Democratic leader whether or not a fetus with "a human heart and a human liver" (the latter example may be a reference to this) is a human being. This goes to the core of the abortion debate: At what point is a fetus entitled to legal protections and rights? Abortion supporters euphemize the practice as a "choice" a woman makes about "her body." But when a distinct heart begins to beat after six weeks of gestation, does the moral and scientific calculus involve one body, or two? Pelosi flat-out refuses to engage on this point. She begins by criticizing the question as "ideological." Yes. She is being asked to explain and justify her ideology, which informs her public policy stance on a controversial issue. Ideology is the philosophical lifeblood of politics. Next, she tells the reporter that she doesn't know who he is (okay, and?) before generously allowing that he has a right to be in the room. Then comes her "argument:"
(1) I'm a "devout practicing Catholic." Note that she injects religion into this discussion. As such, it's probably worth mentioning that she supports taxpayer-funded, late-term abortion-on-demand, a position so morally noxious to the Church that a Vatican official has called for her to be denied communion over it.
(2) I'm a mother of five, so "I think I know more about this subject than you, with all due respect." Fine, so is an unborn child a human, or not? Please, share your expertise. That was the point of the question.
(3) Because I'm a Catholic and a mother, "I do not intend to respond to your questions, which have no basis in what public policy is that we do here." A nonsensical, conversation-ending dodge. What actually has no public policy basis is her little lecture about how many children she's birthed. The humanity of fetuses, and the implications that stem from how that issue is resolved, is the veritable definition of a public policy issue. She just doesn't want to talk about it.
According to a raft of polling data, women are just as likely as men -- and sometimes more likely -- to support significant legal restrictions on abortion. Pelosi's views on abortion policy, shared by most top Democrats, are fanatically out-of-step with mainstream America. Her harangue about being a woman and mother was intended to shame and embarrass the male journalist. How dare you mansplain to me on such matters, sir? She uses cheap identity pandering and faux indignation as a substitute for actual argument. Tens of millions of American women strongly disagree with Pelosi on abortion. The question she categorically refuses to entertain is as legitimate coming from a man as it would be from, say, a fellow mother of five. Perhaps a female reporter should be the next person to broach this subject with the House Minority Leader. She still won't answer it, but at least she'd be denied one avenue for mindless deflection.