[ad_1]
TThe newspaper "Democracy Dies in Darkness" came out this week with an unscrupulous defense of abortion fanaticism.
All but three senators voted this week to reject the law on the protection of survivors of abortion during Senator Ben Sasse's lifetime, which would have forced health care providers to "exercise the same degree of professional competence, care and diligence to: preserve the life and health of children who survive an attempted abortion. In other words, the bill would have provided abortion victims with the same level of medical care as all newborns.
On Tuesday, just one day after the death of the Senate's Born-Alive Act, the Washington Post issued the following headline: "Trump and Republicans Are Trying to Depict Democrats to be Radical in Abortion."
It's as absurd as if a newspaper published a headline that said, "The Democrats are trying to describe Steve King as a racist." There would be no "painting" in this story. They are just people who accurately describe others.
If you can believe it, the title is the least of the problems in Post's article. Here's how the report opens [emphasis added]:
Republicans have long used opposition to the abortion of their party as a rallying cry and a way to convince voters. Now, they seem to be preparing to make abortion a central issue of the 2020 race.
A key element of this strategy: to introduce Democrats as radical baby killers.
This week, Senate Republicans advocated a bill that seemed designed for that.
Sasse first introduced the Born-Alive Act in 2017. It strengthened its legislation in January before the recent national campaign of the Democratic Party in favor of extreme legislation for abortion. C & # 39; was after Sasse had reintroduced his 2017 bill according to which New York Governor Andrew Cuomo had signed the new ultra-permissive abortion law of the Empire State. A legislator from the Democratic State of Virginia also unveiled in the House of Representatives of Virginia an equally ultra-permissive abortion law, with an unexpected backlash, after Sasse had already brought the Born-Alive Act back to the US Senate .
The Post reporter writes that the Democrats "have argued that [Sasse’s] This measure was an "unwarranted attack" against the right to abortion, an excessive effort to restrict the rights of doctors. "
However, the author makes no effort to determine whether there is any credibility to these claims. If he had done the bare minimum required for his work, he would have found their points of discussion inaccurate (even downright dishonest), since the provisions included in Sasse's bill in no way limit the ability of A woman to end her pregnancy. via abortion. Just read the damn thing.
The newspaper article also claims that Republicans' criticism of proposed abortion bills in New York and Virginia is part of a broader campaign to qualify Democrats for the purpose of providing abortions. # 39; extremists.
But again, what would happen if the bills were so radical?
The article actually tries to defend the measure adopted in New York, which the Republicans have perfectly described as crazy: "In reality, the article of the Post states that" the measure authorizes abortion within 24 weeks following the early pregnancy. or at any time when necessary to protect the life or health of a woman. "The key phrase here is" at any time necessary "because" health "can be invoked for any reason. The bill also removed all references to "abortion". of Article 125 of the Criminal Law, which explains why a New York man accused of stabbing to death his pregnant girlfriend, having killed her daughter and her unborn child, will face a charge of less.
The real big question is this: why do the Democrats' obviously radical bills have such a broad rhetorical defense in a "news" article, while the much simpler Sasse bill is turned into a subject for debate? double-sided?
The newspaper article concludes by recalling that Trump had mentioned the Democratic Legislature's support for late abortion in his State of the Union address.
"Trump's speech did not recognize that" late abortions "are very rare," notes the author. "Instead, he sought to capitalize on their unpopularity. This will probably work in favor of the president in 2020, especially for white evangelicals who see abortion as a fundamental problem.
I wrote earlier this week that Senate Democrats who voted against the Born-Alive Act will not have to worry about any major negative press coverage. This job report is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.
[ad_2]
Source link