March 1, 2019

The New York Times just provided us with another example of why the term “fact check” has been degraded by partisanship to the level of “fake news.”  The paper’s editors pompously attempted to “fact check” President Trump’s justified outrage at Senate Democrats blocking a bill that would have required doctors to provide life-saving medical care to babies born alive during abortion procedures.  They accused him of “misleading” people by saying it amounted to doctors “executing” babies.  They apparently forgot that a “fact” is not the same thing as “a feeble attempt at spin based on subjective opinion.”

The best "correction" they could come up with is that late term abortions are “rare,” only about 1% of all abortions (and so what?  They misled their readers by not mentioning that that’s still 10,000 such procedures a year, in a nation where the vast majority of citizens think it should be banned by law entirely.)  They also nitpicked that the doctors don’t actively “kill” the babies, they just let them die naturally by doing nothing to save them.  Talk about a distinction without a difference!

I wonder if the Times editors have ever heard of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986?  It’s the federal law that requires hospitals that accept Medicare (meaning virtually all of them) to provide emergency medical care, including helping women in labor, to any patient regardless of ability to pay, until the emergency is stabilized.  If they oppose making doctors provide care for babies born alive and in need of emergency treatment, then do they oppose the EMTALA as well? 

For the Times’ future reference, here are some actual facts, and a few questions they might want to ponder:

A baby that has already been born is not a “fetus” nor a “clump of cells.”  It’s a human being. 

Commentary continues below advertisement

Providing care to that human infant in no way infringes on the “reproductive rights” of the mother or her health.  By that point, she’s already reproduced, and the baby is no longer connected to her body in any way.

The percentage of Americans who die by homicide is 0.0049%.  Is the extreme rarity of murder of non-infant humans an argument for legalizing it? 

A doctor who refuses or delays emergency care to a critical patient may be sued for medical malpractice.  If it’s malpractice to deny life-saving emergency care to an adult, why is not also malpractice to deny life-saving emergency care to a baby?

In this editorial from last July opposing work requirements for Medicaid recipients, the Times’ editors seemed to agree with the common liberal premise that health care is a human right:

Why then does a human baby not have a right to it?

It’s ironic that the same paper that’s now trying to trivialize infanticide by dismissing it with semantic nitpicking ended that editorial with this paragraph in defense of Medicaid for poor people:

“A country’s deepest values are reflected in how it treats its most vulnerable citizens. So as officials consider the future of Medicaid, they must ask themselves: Is this how America is going to be?”

What citizen is more vulnerable than a newborn baby in need of lifesaving medical care?  The Times editors who would deny that must ask themselves: Is this how YOU are going to be? 


Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!

Comments 1-6 of 6

  • Shauna dickerson

    03/03/2019 07:43 PM

    I have to add my outrage to the after birth abortions, the late term abortions, or any abortions for that matter, considering how early on in pregnancy, a heart beat can be detected. But just allowing a living child to die and even more gruesome, putting the child in formaldehyde, God will not forgive this nation if this not stopped!!.

  • Stephen K Lentz

    03/01/2019 06:05 PM

    And again the rinos do nothing to stop this

  • Roger Russell

    03/01/2019 02:07 PM

    I think the Democrats may actually have a good idea. Let the US government be a single payer for any and all indigent care. All health, education and welfare with one twist. Any medical or support is paid initially by the state where aid is rendered. That state must then bill the US with proof of legal citizenship of the receiver of services. The US government then bills their naturalized country for the full cost. If that country does not pay the bill, their US foreign aid is reduced by that amount. If the foreign aid is reduced to zero, impose tarriffs to make up the difference. If that country does not have enough GDP and exports to cover the cost, bill the WMF and the UN because there must be a humanitarian crisis in that country. The US government then does not send money to states unless the state provides a bill. The bill from the state does not get paid until the US government gets paid.

  • Anne Turner

    03/01/2019 01:47 PM

    Speaking of Ivanska. There have been many cases throughout history where children of wealth have been given a start in business and failed abysmally. Ivanka may have been given seed money but she worked to build a successful business. Incidentally, some of her things where sold at WalMart so she was not just catering to the wealthy. Now to something more serious. The Dems seem to think that her husband is a security risk. Why would that he be? Is there any evidence that he should not have a Top Secret clearance? If they are so concerned about security risks, what about HRC? Such hypocracy..

    I contend that a fetus qualifies as a person when they could survuve outside of the womb. I’d you have ever seen a sonogram of a 16 week fetus, how could you say this is not a little person. Fetuses firm up pretty quickly into the shape of a person, with the usual appendages. I should think that if a fetus is not a person at birth, or near birth, that no one could be accused of murdering a baby if he/she murdered the mother or killed the fetus.

    Those who hope to rid of us of any religious symbolism merely want to erase The concept of a God who has rules for living. I would guess that most of those killed in WWI conceived of themselves as Christians with a few people of Jewish faith thrown in. We were pretty much a Judeo/ Christian nation at that time and most people identified with a place of worship. So is it not appropriate to honor them with a symbol of the faith they espoused? Libs just don’t want that pesky God with rules spoiling their fun. No reason to make people feel guilty about sordid behavior, right?

  • Joan petersen

    03/01/2019 01:44 PM

    Doesn’t the medical profession pledge the Hippocratic Oath anymore? Doctors should lose their license to practice if they perform abortions.

  • Christopher P. Kelley

    03/01/2019 12:09 PM

    BRAVO!!! Call out the NYts for small-mindedness and self-contradiction.
    Thank you!