In one fateful radio interview, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam has burned down four decades of political spin and media complacency on behalf of the pro-abortion movement in America. By accurately describing the abortion procedure he and his Democratic Party would make legal in his state, Mr. Northam unwittingly shed the light of truth on the big lie that the abortion debate boiled down to a woman’s right to choose.
“So in this particular example if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen,” Mr. Northam, a pediatrician-turned-politician clinically told WTOP in Washington. “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.”
Well, there it is. The abortion debate is not a libertarian, civil rights discussion over a woman’s right to make medical decisions about her body. Nor has it ever been. Thank you, Mr. Northam. Now maybe we can have a real and honest debate about this critically important issue.
Mr. Northam’s passionless description of what can only be described as infanticide was delivered in his defense of a proposed bill from Virginia Democrats that would loosen restrictions on current state law that allows for abortion up until the point of birth. The bill would have required only one doctor, instead of three, to certify that the abortion is necessary for the life or mental or physical health of the mother. It also would have removed the “need to find that any such impairment to the woman’s health would be substantial and irremediable.”
A bill allowing abortion after 24 weeks was signed into law in New York last week and was celebrated as a breakthrough on behalf of ensuring a woman’s “reproductive health.”
Mr. Northam painted a vivid picture of what “reproductive health” really looks like.
“Pro-choice” had long been the preferred euphemism for advocates of abortion on demand. The designation was dreamt up when abortion opponents embraced the term “pro-life” to describe their movement on behalf of protecting the innocent lives of unborn infants. If abortion opponents were pro-life, abortion advocates had to be pro-something. They chose “choice” because it appealed to American notions of liberty, freedom and individual rights.
It was a deception and the American people got wise to what “pro-choice” really meant so the abortion industry, its political minions and the ever-obedient mainstream media have used several new monikers to stand in for the movement that advocates killing infants, unborn as well as only recently born.
These days “women’s health,” “reproductive choice” and “reproductive health” are the Orwellian phrases of choice, but Mr. Northam cut through all the flowery language and soberly reminded us all what we’re really talking about when we say “reproductive health.”
Most Americans are repulsed by the notion that a newborn infant delivered from her mother could be allowed to die on the delivery table if a doctor says it’s OK. Mass murderer Kermit Gosnell is spending the rest of his life in prison for doing exactly what Mr. Northam and his party advocates: Killing a just-delivered infant is a bridge too far even for those who oppose a ban on abortion.
Even most Democrats (voters, not politicians who are beholden to NARAL, Planned Parenthood and the campaign funds they deliver) would agree that the procedure described by Gov. Gosnell — as he should now be called — should be outlawed. And that’s a great starting point for this critical discussion about who we are as a nation.
Science supports the pro-life argument. The infant — whether delivered from her mother or still in the womb — has distinct DNA, different fingerprints, often even a different blood type from her mother.
To reduce the debate to a woman’s choice over what she can do with her body is inaccurate at best and bald-faced deception at worst. There are two bodies here, by any real definition. One cannot argue that an abortion does not have a negative impact on another human life. Unless one purposely ignores science for one’s own political agenda.
Whether that separate and distinct human life has the exact same moral, ethical or legal value as a human baby no longer in the womb is what this debate is really about and for political reasons this critical discussion has been avoided since 1973.
Pro-choice, women’s health, reproductive choice are all terms of art accomplishing a well thought-out and market-tested political spin operation. Gov. Gosnell has shown us exactly what those euphemisms really mean.
America’s mainstream media should no longer play along with the political game plan of the pro-abortion Democrats. They should report the facts, deliver analysis and allow their viewers and readers to reach a well-informed decision on this critically important issue.
Of course, asking the media to do that is a little like asking Planned Parenthood to focus only on breast cancer screenings and OB/GYN exams for low-income women like the organization claims. That will never happen, right?
It depends. Let’s see if Gov. Gosnell keeps taking interviews on this topic. He’s done quite a bit for the pro-life cause so far.
• Larry O’Connor writes about politics and the media for The Washington Times and can be heard weekday afternoons on WMAL radio in Washington. Follow Larry on Twitter @LarryOConnor.
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC.