“For only the second time in our 179-year history, the editors of Scientific American are endorsing a candidate for president. That person is Kamala Harris.”

That’s the key line from Scientific American’s editorial yesterday endorsing the Democrats’ backroom-selected presidential “nominee.”

Scientific American has as much respect for science as Democrats do for democracy.

“Only the second time” might lead you to believe Scientific American usually stays out of politics. But its first endorsement was of Joe Biden in 2020, making this the beginning of a new trend of political activism that coincided with the coronavirus pandemic and increasingly irrational opposition to Donald Trump.

The editorial gives away the game in its first paragraph:

In the November election, the U.S. faces two futures. In one, the new president offers the country better prospects, relying on science, solid evidence and the willingness to learn from experience. She pushes policies that boost good jobs nationwide by embracing technology and clean energy. She supports education, public health and reproductive rights. She treats the climate crisis as the emergency it is and seeks to mitigate its catastrophic storms, fires and droughts.

The editorial proceeds to unpack all of that in the same way a Democrat operative would for a political action committee. It’s not about science but the Left’s distortion of science for political ends.

Scientific American pushes expanding ObamaCare and slams Trump for promising repeal. Increasingly, however, the Big Lie of ObamaCare — keeping your doctor and your plan — is hurting the very people Democrats and the editors of Scientific American claim to support. Shrinking networks and skyrocketing costs are the new normal. In any case, it’s a policy question, not a scientific one.

Despite praising Trump for Operation Warp Speed, which aided in the creation and production of the COVID vaccine, the editorial harshly criticizes him (including repeating the utterly false allegations about injecting bleach) for his handling of the pandemic otherwise. The editors act as if hundreds of thousands of deaths from a novel virus were his fault. By contrast, Biden and Harris get a pass, even though they grossly politicized masks and vaccines to the point that no one trusted anyone anymore. More deaths occurred on Biden’s watch than Trump’s, and numerous Americans lost their livelihoods because of his mandates.

The editorial lumps “gun safety” in with public health, falsely asserting, “The evidence is clear that easy access to guns in the U.S. has increased the risk of suicides, murder and firearm accidents.” No, the evidence is anything but clear that guns are the cause of what is ultimately and obviously a cultural issue. It is not science at all to say that inanimate guns cause deaths.

Climate change makes an appearance, as does the misrepresentation of Trump’s “hoax” comments. What is absolutely a hoax is the idea that any evidence of climate change necessitates only leftists’ preferred policy response — which just happens to be more power and control for them.

It wouldn’t be a “science” screed without mentioning abortion, either. Kamala Harris, the editors note approvingly, says she believes in “the freedom to make decisions about one’s own body” — decisions that “should not be made by the government.”

First, she did not say the same thing about masks or vaccines, instead arguing that the government was morally obligated to tell you what to do with your body and that you were a lying bigot if you disagreed. Second, writing for a journal of science, the editors should know that a baby’s body in the womb is not a woman’s body. Science reveals that life begins at conception. Science does not answer the question of what to do with that life, which is a moral one, not a scientific one. Yet the editors put the baby’s heartbeat in scare quotes, instead standing on the canard that six weeks into a pregnancy might be “before many people even know they are pregnant.” Their measure is not one of objective science but rather of subjective awareness.

For leftists, aborting children all the way through the ninth month is more religious ritual than legitimate healthcare.

Last but not least, gender does not make an explicit appearance in Scientific American’s ridiculous editorial, but it is implied in the statement I just quoted. In the editors’ alternate reality, you see, women aren’t the only people who can get pregnant.

“Here’s Why Human Sex Is Not Binary,” reads the headline of a May 2023 op-ed in Scientific American. Other op-eds argue against the “pseudoscience” that has been “used to oppress transgender people” and for the bodily mutilation of children in submission to the sex cult.

Science!

In short, if it’s immutable science like the two human sexes, Scientific American denies it. If it’s a political agenda wrapped in scientific language like abortion and climate change, Scientific American dogmatically preaches it.

No wonder its editors are endorsing Democrats. And no wonder millions of Americans no longer trust scientific institutions that have ruined their own credibility.

Follow Nate Jackson on X/Twitter.