Up next
Author
Tags

If you check in on Twitter today, the left is uniformly thrilled that UC Berkeley law professor Khiara Bridges has put a couple of white Republican Senators in their place. Seriously, they are over the moon about this performance, especially for her exchange with Sen. Josh Hawley. This started when Sen. Hawley asked about her use of the phrase “people with the capacity for pregnancy.” Hawley asked if that meant “women” and she said not it wasn’t limited to women but included trans people.

“So you’re view is the core of this right is about what?” Hawley asked.

“I want to recognize that your line of questioning is transphobic and it opens up trans people to violence,” Bridges replied with a laugh. Cue the hosannas from the left:

There are hundreds more people on the left saying some version of this. There’s also a longer version of the clip where Sen. Hawley challenges the idea that asking a witness a question is opening people to violence. Skip about 56 seconds in to this one which is where the other clip cuts off. In her clarification, Bridges says that 1 out of 5 transgender people have attempted suicide. “Because of my line of questioning?” Hawley asked, “So we can’t talk about it?”

Professor Bridges claimed it was the result of denying trans people’s existence. “Do you believe men can get pregnant?” she asked. When Hawley said no, she added, “So you’re denying that trans people exist.”

“Is this how you run your classroom? Are students allowed to question you? Or are they also treated like this where they’re told they are opening up people to violence by questioning?” Hawley asked.

“We have a good time in my class. You should join. You might learn a lot,” Bridges snarked.

I guess this is something of a Rorschach test because while Bridges explanation of “people with the capacity for pregnancy” might excite the left, her claim that refusing to use that language instead of just saying “women” causes trans people to harm themselves seems a bit strained and defensive.

There’s another clip circulating on Twitter today, this one featuring Sen. Cornyn asking Prof. Bridges about the value of life. And in this case, again, people on the left seem to think she did well but I honestly don’t see it. Here’s the clip:

It takes her 3-4 seconds to admit that babies born alive have value. Is that really a head-scratcher for normal people. Then when asked about babies about to be born she refuses to answer and offers this filibuster: “I believe that a person with the capacity for pregnancy has value, they have intelligence, they have agency, they have dignity…”

“No, I’m talking about the baby,” Cornyn interjected.

“And I’m talking about the person with the capacity for pregnancy,” Bridges snapped.

“You’re not answering the question” Cornyn said.

“I’m answering a more interesting question to me,” Bridges said.

Or maybe you’re just dodging the question for which you have no good answer. Objectively, the question she’s answering is not more interesting it’s definitely less interesting. It dodges the core of the debate. Even if she disagrees (as she clearly does) the question should not be a surprise question for someone who teaches on this topic for a living. Bridges’ inability to give a humane answer suggests her classroom is probably not a place where different opinions are often heard or treated with much respect.

To be fair, I think there are a lot of pro-choice people in the world who could answer this question without sounding like a cultist following a set of talking points from their reasoning book. The answer is simple. Yes, a baby has value before birth but… And the but could be followed by any number of things like but the mother’s life also has value or but the mother’s life can’t be ignored, etc. Bridges view is not what I believe but you really can be pro-choice and at least admit what many expectant mothers have known throughout human history, i.e. the baby has value even before it is born. Her inability to do so doesn’t strike me as a big win.

Source: