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.
Bypass Tech Censorship!
Facebook, Twitter and Google are actively restricting conservative content through biased algorithms. Silicon Valley doesn't want you to read our articles. Bypass the censorship, sign up for our newsletter now!
Join the conversation!
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
Did Bernie Sanders Just Endorse a Neocon Regime Change Foreign Policy?
Is Bernie Sanders the anti-war candidate that many non-interventionists are making him out to be?
Journalists Jacob Crosse and Barry Grey presented some interesting observations about Sanders’ foreign policy views.
Sanders criticized the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Suleimani in January and also stressed his opposition to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
During the Iowa presidential debate, Sanders loudly boasted, “I not only voted against that war, I helped lead the effort against that war.”
However, Sanders changed his tune when chatting with the New York Times.
The answers the Sanders campaign gave the Times showed its flexibility when it comes to foreign policy.
In other words, the Sanders campaign signaled to the military and intelligence apparatus that Sanders won’t present a threat to their interests and may actually carry out their interventionist agenda.
One question in the survey that the Times sent the Sanders campaign stuck out above the rest.
The third survey question asked, “Would you consider military force to pre-empt an Iranian or North Korean nuclear or missile test?”
The Sanders campaign responded, “Yes.”
Based on this response, Sanders’ is signaling that he’s willing to continue Bush-era policies of “preemptive war.”
Like Obama, Sanders’ opposition to the Iraq War was a matter of politics rather than a principled opposition to regime change wars.
His campaign was also asked, “Would you consider military force for a humanitarian intervention?”
Sanders responded, “Yes.”
Some of the wars that the U.S. carried out in the name of “human rights” have been the Bosnian war and the bombing of Serbia in the 1990s along with the aerial campaign against Libya in 2011 and the Civil War launched in Syria.
All in all, Sanders’ pro-peace/non-interventionist image is at best window dressing.
Under a Sanders presidency, the interventionist status quo will likely stay in place.
News4 days ago
Bernie Sanders 2020 ‘Win’ in NH Netted a LOSS OF 80,000 VOTES from 2016
Violent Left3 days ago
New Mexico Bureaucrat Arrested for Vandalizing State GOP Headquarters
News4 days ago
Virginia State Police are Silent About Door-to-Door Enforcement of Suppressor Ban
News3 days ago
MS-13 Thug Gets Life Sentence in Virginia for Rape and Abduction
Tech4 days ago
More Censorship: Controversial Right-Wing YouTuber Nick Fuentes is Booted From Platform, Even Ben Shapiro Says It’s Too Far
Violent Left4 days ago
New Hampshire Thug Arrested After Assaulting ‘MAGA’ Hat-Wearing 15-Year Old at Polling Site
Deep State4 days ago
Bill Barr Pushes Back Against Trump, Criticizes President’s Comments on Stone, Drops Case Against McCabe
Culture3 days ago
How Vulture Capitalists Use Their Ill-Gotten Gains to Push Transgenderism Onto Children
Violent Left4 days ago
Wife of ‘Proud Boys’ Member Imprisoned for Self-Defense Pleads for Help for Their Three Children
The Swamp2 days ago
SWAMP: FBI Press Officer Accepted Baseball Tickets From CNN Reporter
News4 days ago
GUILTY: Creepy Porn Lawyer Michael Avenatti Convicted in Extortion Trial
Politics4 days ago
MIT Warns That Voting App Used in Several States is Vulnerable for Hackers to ‘Alter, Stop or Expose’ Votes