The media's ability to manipulate public opinion on abortion is a direct result of the left's extreme stance.
During the presidential debate on September 10, former President Donald Trump made a striking accusation against Democrats, claiming they not only endorse unrestricted third-trimester abortions but also support the “execution” of infants post-birth. This assertion sparked significant controversy and debate, highlighting the deep divisions in American political discourse regarding abortion rights and the treatment of newborns.
Following Trump's remarks, Linsey Davis, one of the moderators from ABC News, intervened to clarify the situation by stating that there is no legal framework in any state that permits the killing of a baby after birth. This fact-check aimed to provide a clearer understanding of the legal landscape surrounding abortion and infanticide, countering Trump's dramatic claims. However, had Trump been more prepared, he could have referenced Kamala Harris's stance during her 2020 presidential campaign, where she opposed a bill that would have mandated medical care for infants who survived abortions, a position that some interpret as a form of negligence rather than outright execution.
The debate surrounding the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act illustrates the complexities and moral dilemmas inherent in the abortion debate. This legislation sought to ensure that medical professionals would provide the same level of care to infants born alive after an attempted abortion as they would to any other newborn. Despite this, Harris and 40 other Democratic senators voted against it, arguing that such scenarios were exceedingly rare and thus the bill was unnecessary. This perspective, however, has been challenged by those who assert that late-term abortions and the survival of infants post-abortion do occur, raising critical questions about the ethical implications of these positions.
Tim Walz, the running mate of Kamala Harris, presents a complex perspective on rights and regulations. While the Minnesota governor may not regard free speech as an unassailable right, he has taken significant steps to ensure that abortion remains accessible. Notably, Walz has repealed laws that previously prohibited coercion in abortion decisions, eliminated funding for pregnancy resource centers, and rescinded informed consent requirements for abortion procedures. Furthermore, he has removed protections for infants who survive abortion attempts, resulting in tragic outcomes, such as the five infants who were left to die in 2021.
Despite Harris's dismissive laughter regarding the idea of unrestricted government-funded abortion from conception to birth, the current legal landscape reveals that seven states and Washington, D.C., impose no gestational limits on abortion. Among these, one state permits abortions during the third trimester, while sixteen others allow the procedure post-viability. This situation raises critical questions about the extent of abortion rights and the implications for both maternal and fetal health.
During a recent debate, former President Trump found himself in the position of challenging Harris to identify any restrictions she endorsed regarding abortion. Her response, characterized by a lack of clarity, failed to provide a single example. Instead, she reiterated her intention to codify the so-called "protections" of Roe v. Wade. It is essential to recognize that by the time the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case was adjudicated, Roe had effectively lost any enforceable protections. This reality is underscored by the account of Warren Hern, a physician who has spent decades performing late-term abortions, illustrating the stark consequences of the legal framework established under Roe v. Wade.
Hern has acknowledged that a significant number of his patients were in good physical health, a fact that aligns with findings from the Charlotte Lozier Institute. Their research indicates that the majority of late-term abortions are not pursued due to maternal health issues or severe fetal anomalies, contrary to the narrative often propagated by activists. Similarly, a study conducted by the Guttmacher Institute, which supports pro-choice perspectives, revealed that most late-term abortions are not performed for reasons related to fetal abnormalities or threats to the mother's life. It appears that inquiries into this contentious issue have ceased, leaving a gap in understanding the true motivations behind these procedures.
Determining the exact number of viable fetuses that are aborted annually presents a significant challenge, likely by design. Estimates suggest that this figure may represent approximately 1.3% of all abortions, translating to thousands of viable infants, potentially exceeding 8,000, who are terminated each year. Most of these cases do not involve considerations of maternal health, as there are no legal restrictions preventing doctors from prioritizing the mother's life. Alarmingly, the number of healthy infants lost to abortion surpasses the number of victims from school shootings each year, yet there is a push among some Democrats to solidify this practice within legal frameworks.
The complexities surrounding abortion decisions often involve profound ethical dilemmas that should not be overlooked. It is essential to recognize that the gravity of these choices is not trivialized by those who advocate for the protection of unborn lives. Furthermore, the Democratic agenda extends beyond merely upholding Roe v. Wade; initiatives like the Women’s Health Protection Act aim to eliminate fetal viability limits and would effectively invalidate numerous state laws. These include regulations against sex-selective abortions, protections for conscientious objectors, and requirements for parental notification for minors, among others. In the current political landscape, it is clear that one side presents a more extreme position on the issue of abortion.
Add comment
Comments