Austin Chron Says “Infanticide Epidemic” Is “Non-Existent”
John Griffing
|
The Chronicle’s shameless shilling for the pro-abortion lobby is mirrors the cold, emotionally vacant remarks of Democratic Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam on the subject of New York’s infanticide legalization statute:
So in this particular example if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen,” he said. “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.
One of the most powerful men in Texas has some choice words for the glorification of “infanticide” in modern America.
“It’s no longer abortion. It’s euthanasia, is what it is. You’re killing a person,” said Sid Miller, Texas Commissioner of Agriculture in an exclusive interview with Big League Politics.
“I never thought the words ‘post-birth abortion’ would ever cross my lips in this country,” Miller continued. “It’s a cruel world we are living in and we keep sliding down the slope. We’ve got to dig in our heels and stop the the slide. We can’t let this go on anymore.”
“And I think we’ve got a president who will do just that,” He added.
The story continues, alleging the promotion and promulgation of “five myths” by Republicans in the Texas legislature about “reproductive rights,” listing as “Myth #1,”
So-called ‘infanticide’ is a real problem.
The Chronicle fails to establish why infanticide isn’t actually a problem, however. What follows is hardly a refutation of the alleged “myth” and does nothing to factually discredit the claims of those who suggest “infantificide” is a growing problem in America.
Simply claiming that something is false without providing new information that establishes inaccuracy, does not rebut or refute anything. That’s “Logic 101” in any junior college.
Big League Politics illustrates the difference between simple contradiction, and actual refutation below:
GOV. ABBOTT: “The growing support for infanticide demonstrates a monstrous disregard for basic human dignity, and it is vital that we take a stand on behalf of unborn children and abortion survivors in the state of Texas.”
AUSTIN CHRON: “If you relied on the rhetoric from our Governor or any of the anti-choice politicians that masquerade as health champions, you’d think women or abortion doctors were murdering infants left and right after failed abortions. This dangerous and grotesque narrative stems from the right wing’s inflammatory push to falsely cast abortion as frequently occurring right before or even at the time of birth, as President Trump has implied,”
Nowhere in the Chronicle’s “rebuttal” of the alleged “myth” do they provide new data or facts that invalidate the claims of Abbott. Instead, we find nothing but meaningless fluff, that is — unsupported opinion.
And since the Chronicle passionately argues (with some merrit) that late-term abortions in Texas are a rare occurrence and all-but-illegal after 20 weeks, then it should be no big thing to double down legally and ensure that any attempt to normalize the post-birth medical murder of human fetuses surviving abortions that is now legal in other states, is met with harsh penalties, correct? If there’s no real problem, then why the heavy opposition to legislation merely clarifying that there’s no real problem, unless there’s actually a problem? some may ask.
In its report, the Chronicle suggests that the “Texas Born-Alive Infant Protection Act” (HB 16 and SB 23) “would interfere with the doctor-patient relationship and cast a chilling effect on doctors who may fear politically motivated pushback.”
For the record, were that accurate, any hypothetical pushback would be against “infanticide.” And since, the Austin paper says that’s not a real problem — a myth even — then it’s likely not something to worry about.
In short, there can’t be pushback by abortion-providers against something that’s not really a problem in Texas.
Share: