Disgraced Former Congresswoman Katie Hill Does the Impossible by Making Herself Look Even Worse – RedState
Katie Hill is a woman who has become so bitter over the self-inflicted “throuple” sex scandal that brought her Congressional career to a screeching halt in 2019 that she seems destined to make pretty much everyone hate her, including her defenders on her own side at the rate she’s going.
Not content with taking politically convenient cheap shots on social media at conservatives she doesn’t like including former colleagues, and not content with milking her long-expired 15 minutes of fame for all it is (was) worth, Hill is spending her days updating her supporters on how things are going with her pregnancy.
But her most recent update is not one you’d expect from someone who appears to be over the moon at the thought of having a baby with Alex Thomas, the former D.C.-based Playboy reporter who ran interference for her after the news of the scandal broke apparently without disclosing the fact that he was seeing her at the time.
Hill, who is seven months pregnant, tweeted out earlier this week that being two months away from having a child has made her even “more pro-choice” than she already was:
I didn’t think it was possible to become more pro-choice than I already was, but after 7 months of pregnancy all I can think about is how wrong it would be to make someone do this who doesn’t want to.
— Katie Hill (@KatieHill4CA) December 1, 2021
She also retweeted this tweet from British pro-abortion actress Jameela Jamil, who has proudly bragged in the past about terminating her unborn child’s life, and who has suggested that it was better to take away their chance at living a full life because life in a foster home allegedly would be so much worse:
LOL. Adoption is the answer to forced birth? As if pregnancy is just some walk in the park? As if it isn’t almost 10 months of risk, and derailment of your life/studies/career/health/emotional stability at risk. Not to mention so expensive in America because of no free healthcare
— Jameela Jamil 🌈 (@jameelajamil) December 2, 2021
As former President Ronald Reagan once said in so many words, isn’t it fascinating that all the people who make impassioned arguments in favor of abortion are alive to make them because their mothers made the choice to give birth to them? But I digress.
Back to Hill, it was an odd choice of tweets and retweets for her to make, especially considering the fact that Hill and Thomas have already named their unborn child, which obviously means that at this point they believe their unborn baby is a person:
We can’t wait to meet Finn in just a few short months. Thank you so much to everyone who has celebrated with us. This next chapter will be the best yet! pic.twitter.com/XceNlPXxt0
— Katie Hill (@KatieHill4CA) November 29, 2021
When Finn grows up, will he see Hill’s tweets? Read her statements on a woman’s so-called “right to choose”? Imagine thinking that writing something like that was a good idea at all, especially when you’re pregnant with a baby who, if born right now likely would be able to survive.
It continues to sadden me that in America, in the vast majority of instances an unborn child’s chance at life is subjected to whatever whims the woman is “feeling” at the time of her pregnancy. In Hill’s case, she views her baby as a human life at this stage and not just a “clump of cells” as other women have characterized unborn babies. In Jamil’s case, I don’t know what stage her pregnancy was when she terminated it, but she obviously viewed the baby as a parasite and one that was better off dead.
But Hill’s tweet also insinuates that she would be okay with abortion at her stage of pregnancy when the child is viable, a very dangerous argument.
And that brings me to another issue and the problem that I have with the whole “viability” argument, which is currently being heard before the Supreme Court regarding a 2018 Mississippi pro-life law. Without getting into the details about when a heartbeat is detected and when a baby can first feel pain, why is it acceptable in our country that one woman can view a child as a life while the other one can treat it as an inconvenience not worthy of giving a chance?
Whether the baby is “viable” or not, isn’t that a discussion worth having beyond the legal, biological, and scientific arguments? The moral argument, in my view, has always been the most important one in this issue. Because you can “legalize” something all you want to, but that does not necessarily make it right from a moral perspective – and I say that as someone who used to be pro-choice and who understands the dangers of politicians taking “legislating morality” too far.
Though I don’t have all the answers here, I do have a good sense of what’s right and what’s wrong. And I know it’s wrong – deeply wrong – to think our society should continue going on entertaining two diametrically opposed ideas about unborn children, with one being the mother thinking the child is a life and another one believing otherwise.
Just my .02.