Quiet In The Face Of Evil

Democrats define the meaning of power. For them, it means running on pro-abortion, using the issue to gain power. And when someone calls it evil, they shrug it off as “you are just trying to take abortion rights away.” Note, I refuse to use the term reproductive rights.

When all the outrage came down over Gov Northam’s interview statements on abortion that could be described as infanticide, the Dems were speechless. Not for contempt but because they could not defend it. I mean Notham came right on and said what the agenda was in detail. How could they defend that?

They couldn’t say it was a lie or that it was fabricated and it was not out of context.

Then they adopted a more cavalier attitude. So what? They parsed it down that it somehow did not really mean anything because it was not that common. Instead, they shifted the debate to one about abortion or Roe v. Wade itself. But that was not the issue or source of outrage. Infanticide was.

All that dust up over Northam’s yearbook followed which is all anyone wanted to talk about since. Rather convenient is it not? They made the racism issue the bigger story.

Last night I heard a liberal Fox contributor give what must be the latest installment of talking points to divert from the issue. Jessica Tarlov made the claim that the “late-term” abortion description was a made up thing by conservatives. Yes, we invented the term, she said. But by it we are only trying to differentiate these from other abortions. Rightfully so. I suppose to her they are all just abortions, no need for any descriptors.

And she claimed that we were the only ones who use such terminology. Except for one thing, professionals and academics do as well. They commonly refer to earlier abortions vs later abortions. See, it is the element of time — which is development in the life of a fetus or baby — that Democrats do not want to acknowledge.

It would seem an important factor in many circumstances. But Jessica does not like the time frame being alluded to. We could also technically call them 3rd-trimester abortions. She probably would object to that, too. It reveals the developmental state of the baby.

If it is after 6 months, many people accept it can be a viable fetus. She would like to divert from the viability issue. Note how we are at fault for calling it “late-term.” I guess if you have no other argument or defense, then the only thing left is to argue over semantics and descriptors. No, she doesn’t want them to have an identifiable identity or humanity.

How does terminology change what Gosnell did or what Northam was talking about?

For background reference, here is the Grand Jury Report on Kermit Gosnell, in its details. By the way, it refers to late-term abortions as well as infants born alive and “infanticide.’ But then there can never be a full accounting for how many of these procedures were done, or how many babies were killed, because he destroyed the records.

When the Gosnell story finally broke in media, it was met with the same silence among Democrats and leftists that the media initially gave it. The same deadly silence that kept Gosnell in practice for years. Terminology was not the problem, what was done was. Even “fact-checkers” could not excuse it. So the answer was just do not talk about it.

But something else is also marked by that time frame of first, second and third trimester. That is the support for abortion according to trimesters. At late-term, only about 13% of people support it. So it sounds like she is the one with the language problem, everyone else knows what it is. Speaking of time, that dislike is consistently about the same since ’96 when they first began polling it. But blame it all on the words late-term abortion. Sigh.

Right Ring | Bullright