In Response to Casey Williams' Piece in 'The Stone' in the New York Times

Apropos of my earlier comment that commentary is fungible; that is, that comment about one thing (film) can stand as comment for another thing (life), I offer this as a standard statement of my view on the relation between science and politics. One need only substitute 'plant ontology' for 'fetal development' to make it an assertion about vegetal rather than human life. 

One does not find these manipulations of truth only on the right. The contortions and gyrations by the left on the relation between scientific understandings of fetal development and philosophical and legal assessments of human personhood match anything you see produced by conservatives on other issues. The stance by the president on abortion is the most scientifically creditable position he has. It is the trump card, so to speak, that won for him the election. Until the Democrats take a more nuanced and scientifically accurate position on abortion, they will always suffer from a lack of credibility, even though on many other issues they are far more in line with and attendant to observable scientific fact than the Republicans are.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/17/opinion/has-trump-stolen-philosophys-critical-tools.html