The Washington Post is known to be particularly critical of pro-life Republicans, yet its most scathing commentary is reserved for elected officials. Should they perceive a promising future for this individual, they will be prepared to deploy a range of rhetorical strategies.
For example, Governor Glenn Youngkin of Virginia, who is pro-life. It would be reasonable to assume that the Washington Post’s Gregory S. Schneider is discussing a different event to Olivia Gan Turner, president of the Virginia Society for Human Life. However, it appears that they are in fact referring to the same event, namely Wednesday’s Virginia Pro-life Day.
The headline of the article by Schneider provides a clear indication of his perspective on the matter: “Youngkin joins Va. antiabortion march despite issue’s political cost.” This is the second consecutive year that Governor Youngkin has participated in the march.
Schneider joyfully informs us that “Democrats were eager to highlight Youngkin’s opposition to abortion.” In a dismissive manner, Schneider references the governor’s assertion that Democrats want to allow abortions past the point of birth, a position that is frequently espoused by Republicans during election campaigns.
It is important to note that the Democratic Party does not advocate abortion after birth, which would amount to infanticide. One might be forgiven for questioning this assertion. One might inquire whether such a position is indeed espoused by the Democratic Party.
In a filmed exchange at a legislative hearing in Virginia, Kathy Tran, the sponsor of an unlimited abortion bill, acknowledged under questioning from then House Majority Leader Todd Gilbert that her bill would permit abortion even in the event that the mother exhibited imminent signs of giving birth.
Gilbert: So if it’s obvious that a woman is about to give birth, she has physical signs that she’s about to give birth, would that still be a point at which she could request an abortion if she was certified as such? [She’s dilating?
Tran: Mr Chairman, you know, that would be a decision that the doctor, the doctor and the woman would make.
Gilbert: I understand that. I’m asking if your bill allows that.
Tran: My bill would allow that, yes.
We return to Schneider. It is evident that the Democratic Party does not advocate abortion after birth, which would be tantamount to infanticide. However, they became vulnerable to criticism several years ago when then-Governor Ralph Northam (D), a paediatric neurologist, made statements on a radio show about end-of-life care for a baby born with fatal abnormalities. Those who are pro-life reacted strongly to Northam’s statements.
This is a common tactic employed by reporters from outlets such as the Washington Post.
However, it is necessary to ascertain precisely what Northam stated. He proposed that medical treatment for babies who survive abortions be made optional, with the decision left entirely to the aborted mother and the abortionist.
I am pleased to inform you that… An abortionist has no motivation to provide care for the infant. The fundamental objective of an abortion is to terminate the life of the unborn child.
This viewpoint is not exclusive to the Democratic Party in Virginia. One might also find similarly compassionate Democrats in other states who are willing to overlook the survival of a baby.
One might inquire as to the status of this matter at the federal level. It is important to recall that the Democratic Party in Congress has consistently opposed a bill that would require abortion providers to provide the same level of care to a baby born alive during an abortion as would be provided to any other child born at the same gestational age, including transportation to a hospital.
What sweethearts.
I would like to extend my congratulations to Governor Youngkin. It is encouraging to observe that in a state where pro-abortion Democrats hold sway in both legislative chambers, he is prepared to espouse a pro-life stance unreservedly.
Daniel Miller is responsible for nearly all of National Right to Life News' political writing.
With the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency, Daniel Miller developed a deep obsession with U.S. politics that has never let go of the political scientist. Whether it's the election of Joe Biden, the midterm elections in Congress, the abortion rights debate in the Supreme Court or the mudslinging in the primaries - Daniel Miller is happy to stay up late for you.
Daniel was born and raised in New York. After living in China, working for a news agency and another stint at a major news network, he now lives in Arizona with his two daughters.
