“They will take the life of a child in the eighth month, the ninth month and even after birth.”
That statement was made by Donald Trump during last Thursday’s debate with President Joe Biden.
It has been soundly attacked by most of our media as a lie.
But it is not. It is our media that are lying. Let me show you just how dishonest they are.
The easiest way to do so is to republish the following blog I wrote on May 12, 2022. Please read it through. And then you tell me if Mr. Trump had a point:
================================
THE DEMOCRAT POSITION ON “A WOMAN’S RIGHT TO CHOOSE” – THE PART YOU’RE NOT SUPPOSED TO KNOW ABOUT
How far will Democrats go to “prove” their abortion credentials?
How about the killing of babies who survive abortion attempts?
That’s right. The killing of babies who are alive, out of the womb, and whose only crime is surviving a murder attempt (if the baby is alive, the effort to “abort” it must be attempted murder).
In that regard, some readers might be aware of this remarkable comment by then-Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, who was being asked about a bill that would allow third-trimester abortions (through the entire 9th month right up to the point of birth):
“There are, you know, when we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of, obviously, the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician by the way. And it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that’s non-viable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. So I think this was really blown out of proportion.”
That seems pretty clear to me: if the child survives an abortion, the child should be “kept comfortable” and only resuscitated “if that’s what the mother and family desired”. In other words, the mother would decide whether the born child lives or dies.
Incredibly, a couple of the “fact-checkers’ favored by media – all of which lean almost unwaveringly to the left – have tried to convince us that that’s not what Governor Northam meant. (If you can figure out how a different meaning can be ascribed, please let me know).
But Northam is just one Democrat, right? And you can’t pin something like that on the entire party if it’s just one.
With that in mind, I will finish by posting, in its entirety, a blog I wrote on September 24th, 2020, concerning an executive order signed by then-President Donald Trump. Please read it though and, I assume, you will understand its relevance to this issue….and you will understand exactly where Democrats positioned themselves on the lives of babies who survive abortions:
WHY DOES PROTECTING A LIVE NEWBORN BABY REQUIRE AN EXECUTIVE ORDER?
The answer to that question is because Democrats, earlier this year, via cloture (which requires 60 votes to overcome) blocked passage of BASPA (The Born Alive Survivor Survivors Protection Act).
Every Republican voted in favor of this bill. But Democrats voted 41 “nay”, 2 “yea”, and 3 “no vote”. That is why it failed.
From Emily Zanotti’s article for dailywire.com:
PRESIDENT TRUMP ANNOUNCES ‘BORN ALIVE’ EXECUTIVE ORDER GUARANTEEING MEDICAL TREATMENT TO INFANTS THAT SURVIVE ABORTION
President Donald Trump announced Wednesday that he will sign an executive order guaranteeing medical care to infants who survive failed abortion attempts, bringing the weight of the federal government behind the Born Alive Act.
“Today I am announcing that I will be signing the Born-Alive Executive Order to ensure that all precious babies born alive, no matter their circumstances, receive the medical care that they deserve. This is our sacrosanct moral duty,” Trump said.
And what is BASPA? What does it say? What is so objectionable about it that Democrats fought successfully to prevent it for passage, thus causing President Trump to issue his executive order?
Well, here’s what the bill says (the full extents of the legislation can be found by clicking here):
To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
This Act may be cited as the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act”.
Congress finds the following:
(1) If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws.
(2) Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care.
Did you read that carefully? Please read it again, just to be sure.
As you can see, it says that if an abortion is attempted, and it fails – i.e. it results in the birth of a live child – the child has to be treated like the live child that it is. Every effort must be made to keep the child alive and well.
I have been writing about Democrats’ aversion to this bill – their insistence that a live child be treated as what it is, a live child, for years (it was originally called BAIPA (the Born Alive Infant Protection Act). But the latest attempt, BASPA just eventuated this year. You can read my blog about it from February, by clicking here.
What possible reason can Democrats have had for fighting this legislation? The most frequent mention is that it somehow inhibits women’s abortion rights.
That is patently absurd on its face. Whatever the woman’s intention was, this act has nothing whatsoever to do with her right to have an abortion. It only involves children who have already been born and are out of the womb.
So what is the point of contention? That a live child should die for the crime of daring to survive an abortion attempt?
And, not incidentally, if a child is born alive during an unsuccessful abortion, does it not inherently follow that the child was alive in the first place, and that the “abortion” was, in reality the killing of that live child? That’s a little something you might want to think about.
So thank you, President Trump, for signing this executive order. My only complaint is that you didn’t do it the day after Democrats dumped BASPA.
And eternal shame to every member of the senate who voted against it. You can rationalize it any way you like, but the fact is that your vote was in favor of infanticide, pure and simple.
==================================
There it is. You’ve seen it. You’ve read it. Now try to convince me Trump didn’t have a point when he talked about “after the ninth month”. I dare you.
