Posted on May 19, 2024




Are Democrats for tearing babies' legs off?


Daniel Clark



At long last, a pro-abortion politician has been put on the spot. It wasn't a Democrat, of course, but what if prominent members of that party were given the same treatment? Ever since the Dobbs ruling, the media have delighted in portraying anti-abortion Republicans as the extremists on the issue, by demanding that they respond to baseless hypotheticals and dishonest anecdotes, asking them to condemn remarks that each other has made, and searching for secondary wedge issues to sow disunity among them. Meanwhile, the real extremists on the other side are rarely compelled to reveal themselves.

In an interview with former ESPN broadcaster Sage Steele, independent presidential candidate Robert Kennedy Jr. admitted that he is in favor of abortion being legal "even if it's full-term." Leading up to that remark, he had tried to rhetorically soften the blow, by saying "every abortion is a tragedy" and that he wants there to be fewer of them, but in the end he could not find a single circumstance under which he would say the practice should be illegal. His running mate, Nicole Shanahan, later expressed surprise at this answer, and insisted that the two of them had discussed it and this was not his true position. In a clumsy attempt at damage control, he responded with a social media post, saying "abortion should be legal up to a certain number of weeks, and restricted thereafter." Shanahan later chimed in to say this limit would be somewhere between 15-18 weeks.

It's not as if this was a hostile interview. Steele simply asked an important question, and being unsatisfied with unsatisfactory responses, she repeatedly followed up. Yet, because of this innocent exercise in journalism, a man who wants to take on the greatest responsibility in the world has revealed that he is not even the primary source of his own opinion about a major issue.

President Biden is never challenged this same way, mostly because he would never consent to an interview with anybody outside the reliably liberal media. Instead, he is allowed to get away with the equivalent of giving name, rank and serial number, by saying "I'm for Roe v. Wade," "I support Roe v. Wade," "I think Roe got it right," etc. What he thinks the logically impaired and often self-contradictory 1973 ruling actually means, he won't say.

For example, the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision purported to uphold Roe v. Wade, while at the same time allowing state restrictions that had not been permitted for the previous nineteen years. All of a sudden, Pennsylvania's law requiring parental consent, spousal notification and a 24-hour waiting period was legal, and yet Roe was still in force. So which Roe is it that Joe Biden thinks got it right, the original Roe, or its post-Casey incarnation? Does he believe, for example, that minors must be able to have abortions without parental consent? He has never had to answer.

In the majority opinion in Roe, Justice Harry Blackmun absurdly wrote that it was not necessary for the Supreme Court to determine when a new human life begins, even while declaring its killing to be a "fundamental constitutional right." Nevertheless, he wrote that if a human fetus is ever found to be a person, then it has a Fourteenth Amendment right to life. In other words, the ruling invited its own overturning, in such a way that would make abortion uniformly illegal nationwide. Biden should be asked to reconcile these two incongruous conclusions. Should the Court have legalized the killing of creatures it conceded might be people? Furthermore, because Roe made no judgment about when a new life begins, Biden's answer to that question cannot be "I support Roe." And if it is really unknown whether we are depriving over a million people a year of their constitutional right to life, shouldn't our government immediately and completely dedicate itself to answering that question?

Out of a sense of responsibility to the American people, an unbiased, uncorrupted reporter should at a minimum be willing to say to the president, "Not everybody understands what supporting Roe v. Wade means from a policy standpoint. Please enlighten us." Even if, like someone using a word to define itself, he said that supporting Roe v. Wade means he supports Roe v. Wade, such a weak evasion would itself be telling.

Anticipating the Dobbs decision overturning Roe, House Democrats twice passed the ghoulishly euphemistic Women's Health Protection Act, only to be thwarted by a narrow margin in the Senate. This bill, which was pitched as an attempt to codify Roe into law, would have legalized abortion at any time for any reason, all the way through nine months. It did draw a distinction without a difference between pre- and post-viability abortions, in that pre-viability abortions would be unconditionally legal, whereas a post-viability abortion would only be allowed if the abortionist felt it was necessary. President Biden did not have an opportunity to sign this legislation, but he did endorse it. How hard would it be for a reporter to ask him if, by saying he supports Roe v. Wade, he means he stands by the pro-abortion absolutist position of the Women's Health Protection Act?

If he answered yes, then he could be asked if he is aware that this bill would have prohibited any restriction on the distribution of abortion drugs like mifepristone by mail. This means a continuation of the practice of prescribing them through telemedicine, without an in-person examination, and therefore without regard to the age of the fetus or the possibility of an ectopic pregnancy. Is that any way to protect women's health, Mr. President? When mifepristone was approved by the FDA, this was done without adequate testing because President Bill Clinton fast-tracked the approval process, by categorizing pregnancy as a "life-threatening illness." Does President Biden agree that pregnancy is a life-threatening illness, and if not, does he believe mifepristone was wrongly approved?

Democrats often tell us that abortion is an issue that should be decided "between a woman and her doctor," by which they falsely suggest that abortions are routinely done for legitimate medical purposes. Doesn't the Women's Health Protection Act let the cat out of the bag, that when they say "doctor" they merely mean an abortionist, and not a practitioner of the healing arts? Moreover, when they say they "trust women" to make that decision, what are they trusting them with, if abortion is a matter of no moral significance, but merely a "choice," like coffee, tea or milk?

One might have thought Vice President Kamala Harris' "historic" campaign photo-op at a Planned Parenthood clinic was an obvious opportunity for a few questions that were begging to be asked. For starters, how much of the clinic she had seen beyond the lobby? Did they show her what actually goes on there, and would she care to describe it for us? Did she visit the "products of conception room," where the body parts from suction abortions are reassembled to make sure nothing was left behind in the womb?

Is Harris aware of Planned Parenthood's racist origins during the eugenics movement of the early 20th Century? Would founder Margaret Sanger not have considered her, America's first black vice president, to be a "human weed"?

Is she aware that Planned Parenthood harvests and sells organs from aborted fetuses? If so, how can it be possible to procure human hearts, lungs, brains and eyes from non-people? When Dr. Mary Gatter, who was medical director of PP in Los Angeles, suggested "using a less crunchy technique to get more whole specimens," what might she have meant by that? In the vice president's opinion, is it preferable for abortions to be less crunchy, or more so?

In a video recently made public during congressional hearings, Dr. Ann Schutt-Aine, chief medical officer of PP Gulf Coast, suggests that it is possible to circumvent the ban on partial-birth abortion by tearing off the legs of the fetus before pulling the trunk of the body through the birth canal. Do President Biden and Vice President Harris think this ought to be permissible? What about all the Democrat candidates across America who run ads bragging about receiving endorsements from Planned Parenthood? Are those endorsements mutual, meaning that they approve of all the gruesome practices that PP employees discuss so casually? And how does one tear the legs off a nonentity, anyway?

Not only don't the liberal media want Democrats to have to answer these questions; they don't want their viewers and readers to dwell on them, either. As much as the issue of abortion has dominated the news over the past two years, there has been next to no discussion of what one actually is. Perfectly accurate pictures and descriptions of it are considered outrageous and inflammatory, because the thing itself must be reduced to an abstraction in order to be made acceptable.

The total absence of any natural journalistic curiosity when it comes to this issue illustrates pro-abortion activism to be the mother of all media biases, so to speak. If Democrats were simply asked to explain where they stand, the way Sage Steele asked RFK Jr., each of them would ultimately have two choices. Either draw a line somewhere, or else condone abortion in every case, even if it means tearing the legs off a fully formed child in order to kill it and take its organs.



Return to Shinbone

 The Shinbone: The Frontier of the Free Press 

 Mailbag . Issue Index . Politimals . College Football Czar