Unlikable Mini-Hillary seems to have lost it — is she talking about Old Testament-style child sacrifice?!
I (half) joke about the Democrats being the Party of Moloch, but… maybe I’m not all that far off after all.
The Democrats have moved lightyears from their original “Safe, Legal, and Rare” position on abortion to “Government-funded, Right up to birth, and Without Apology” and even that is being pushed to include actual infanticide.
The party that wants to Regulate Every Damned Thing™ doesn’t want to “interfere” in the “private decision made between a woman and her doctor.” Yes, these same people that want the government to provide healthcare don’t want to impose any restriction on abortion which they claim is healthcare.
Two Republican bills to protect the lives of babies were being voted on in the Senate this week. One is Senator Lindsey Graham(R-SC)’s Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act which would restrict abortion at 20 weeks gestation, the other was Senator Ben Sasse(R-NE)’s Born-Alive Abortion Survivor’s Protection Act, and both were labeled in the Media(D) as “anti-abortion” bills. Senator Sasse has been clear that his bill does not restrict abortion but instead deals with lifesaving care for infants that survive an abortion procedure. Senator Sasse’s bill would also provide penalties for sick monsters like Kermit Gosnell who was convicted of multiple murders and hundreds of lesser charges. Both bills failed to gain the 60 votes needed in the Senate.
Simple — Democrats don’t like it when you say that abortion kills a child. They’d rather think of it like a tooth extraction or an appendectomy. The reason for this is also very simple. If you acknowledge the humanity of the child, then it exposes abortion for the horror that it is, and well, you can’t have that! That would mean admitting that Democrats are actually advocating for and cheering on the killing of innocent children.
MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell asked Senator Kirsten Gillibrand(D-NY) about the bills and Sen. Gillibrand brought out the most outrageous claims. She called it an “all-out assault on women” and said that the bills infringed on women’s civil rights, human rights, religious freedom, and moral freedom. She then says that the two measures would “change the landscape of how we treat a baby who was born that cannot survive out of the womb and how those parents want to have those final moments with their child.”
Sen. Gillibrand is going right to the fetal abnormality argument, which is telling. She refuses to acknowledge that late-term abortion is mostly done for the convenience of the mother. Even the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute study shows that the vast majority of women that choose to abort after 20 weeks are making the decision for the same reasons as the ones choosing to abort before 12 weeks.
She’s also not acknowledging that Sen. Sasse’s bill is about the protection of the child as well as protecting women from abortion butchers who put their lives at risk.
Sen. Gillibrand is also trying to play the Preachy Pete religion card, and, as with most things she does, it falls flat.
The worst part about this is that Mitchell just lets her get away with it.
.@SenGillibrand on the Senate taking up the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act: An “all-out assault on women”
"They’re trying to harm women. They’re trying to take away their civil rights, human rights … They’re taking away their religious freedom" pic.twitter.com/2Ne6rGzpR3
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) February 25, 2020
Gillibrand’s word salad is just typical of the disingenuous Democrats who are pushing further and further towards legal infanticide.
Opposing Sen. Sasse’s bill is tantamount to giving approval to kill babies outside of the womb.
But changing words is the name of the game when it comes to the abortion-peddlers. The Partisan Presstitutes continue to muddy the waters with regard to abortion with their double-speak. When several states introduced “heartbeat” bills last year, an article in the New York Times about Louisiana’s bill actually read, “The measure would require an ultrasound test for any woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy, and forbid abortion if the test detects embryonic pulsing — which can occur before many women know they are pregnant.” What is “embryonic pulsing”? They mean heartbeat, but cannot bring themselves to admit that an unborn baby has a heart. Truly, whoever wrote that article is the heartless one.
The same thing has been done with the use of the medical term “fetus” which is the Latin word for “offspring.” CNN had to backtrack on their coverage this week when they redefined newborn baby to “a fetus that was born.” That was a step too far.
CNN has updated an article about abortion survivors after facing backlash for describing a baby who survives an abortion attempt as a “fetus that was born.”
“CLARIFICATION: This story has been updated to more precisely reflect the language used in Sasse’s bill,” the article read.
The original phrasing described the implications of a bill that would require abortion providers to give lifesaving care to a baby who survives the procedure.
I know the news cycle has already come and gone, but I hope we never forget that CNN decided to call a literal baby a “fetus that was born.” Don’t tell me there isn’t rampant bias when it comes to covering abortion — or, apparently, care for infants.
— Alexandra DeSanctis (@xan_desanctis) February 26, 2020
Students for Life of America President Kristan Hawkins similarly blasted the network in a statement to Fox News, saying “CNN needs a refresher course on basic human development.”
“A fetus that was born is called a baby,” Hawkins said. “And a baby born during an abortion and left to die is a victim of infanticide. These basic facts should be common knowledge. But the verbal gymnastics of the abortion lobby shows just how anxious they are to hide the truth of what they are working for — abortion up to and including infanticide.”
Source: Fox news
Abortion will always be polarizing, but actual infanticide should be something that both parties unequivoally condemn.