October 21, 2024
Credit where it’s due to The Atlantic, an outlet that managed to take a fresh angle on an ongoing and overly discussed issue: infanticide.
When a major (and likely hostile) media outlet talks about former President Donald Trump’s statements on late-term abortion and infanticide, they usually deny it exists entirely. Yet, in a recent article, The Atlantic’s writers (falsely) re-framed the issue as a matter of Trump’s ignorance and technical unfamiliarity.
“[Trump] has, however, been consistent on one position: his opposition to what he calls abortion “after birth,” something he claims his Democratic rival’s support. For example, at the September presidential debate, he declared that Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate, Tim Walz, support the “execution” of babies after they are born. Trump brought up Democratic support for “execution of a baby after birth” again in an X post later that month.
As a debate moderator noted, killing a baby after birth is illegal in all states. What Trump appears to have in mind, and to be disparaging, is perinatal palliative care (PPC)—a crucial medical service aimed at improving the quality of life for women and their babies after a severe fetal diagnosis or extreme prematurity.”
We will talk about what constitutes that, but let’s begin with the idea that Trump is confused.
The idea that Trump is conflating compassionate end-of-life care for a baby born with tragic medical problems with “executions” is unlikely, mainly because he made specific reference to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz’s record at the October debate against Vice President Kamala Harris. At that time, Trump said, “Her vice-presidential pick says abortion in the ninth month is absolutely fine. He also says execution after birth, it’s execution, no longer abortion, because the baby is born is OK. And that’s not OK with me.”
Does that sound like a mix-up? Or an intentional call out of barbaric medical policy?
In fact, in a recent article, Students for Life Action (SFLAction) identified that numerous media outlets have admitted outright that Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance and Trump were right about their claims against Harris and Walz when it comes to late-term abortion and infanticide.
In fact, according to data from his own Minnesota Department of Health and reporting from the National Review, “Since Governor Walz was inaugurated in 2019, eight babies survived abortion attempts in Minnesota. On five occasions, no measures were taken to preserve life.”
READ: The Fact Checkers are Catching On: The Democrats
Have LIED About Late Term Abortions
Despite the author’s attempts to paint a new picture of the issue, Trump is right that leaving babies to struggle and die on a medical table after they survive an intentional act of violence (abortion) isn’t PCC, nor is it compassionate.
It’s infanticide.
So, what about the standards for what qualifies PCC? According to The Atlantic article, “established ethics guidelines govern who is eligible based on the specifics of a diagnosis, a baby’s chance for survival, and what complications the baby is likely to suffer. PPC can begin at diagnosis during pregnancy, and include standard prenatal care in addition to psychological, emotional, and mental-health support for the parents. If the baby is born alive, the care continues until the infant’s death.”
For parents who lose a child because of fatal anomalies or medical issues, the pain is unimaginable. In those situations, PCC is often the right decision, and on the Students for Life of America (SFLA) website, we have many resources discussing why compassionate, palliative care matters.
READ: Prenatal Diagnosis & Fetal Anomaly
However, this tragedy is often used as justification for keeping abortion legal. But it’s based upon terrible science, and far too many babies are sadly aborted because medical professionals conclude that they’re doomed to die because of prenatal testing or health screening.
The rate at which these tests are wrong is staggering. Findings included in an April 2022 New York Times article identified five microdeletion screenings for which about 85% of the positive results were false positives. An additional New York Times update in June 2023 concluded that when these tests screened for rare diseases, their positive results were wrong 80% to 93% of the time.
Yet, this argument is often given as justification for why late-term abortion should remain legal.
Whether it’s misguided altruism or outright extremism, The Democrats and their allies in the media are fatally wrong about abortion. And they’re all too happy to ignore reality or lie about it to “prove” their position.
Unfortunately, we have the receipts – a LOT of them.
Below is a list of the articles written about the Harris-Walz ticket’s love for infanticide and late-term abortion and the media’s role in covering it up: