‘Fact Checkers’ Going To Great Lengths To Hide Joe Biden’s Support For Late-Term Abortion

Abortion, conceptual illustration - stock illustration
Late-term abortion is deeply unpopular in America, with just 13% saying they support the practice during the third trimester and just 28% supporting it during the second trimester. Yet Democrats, including presidential candidate Joe Biden, refuse to put any limits on abortion, even up until the minute of birth or shortly thereafter.
Speakers at the Republican National Convention pointed this out, and The Washington Post has been there to run cover for Biden. On Wednesday, Sister Deirdre Byrne said that Biden and his running mate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) support “the horrors of late-term abortion and infanticide.” Following the statement, the Post attempted a “fact check” that doesn’t actually negate what Byrne said:
Biden does not support “late-term abortion and infanticide.” He supports abortion rights and says he would codify in statute the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Roe v. Wade and related precedents, which generally limit abortions to the first 20 to 24 weeks of gestation.
National Review’s David Harsanyi explained how the Post avoided what Byrne actually said in order to make it seem as if she were making an untrue statement.
“For one thing, the words ‘generally limit’ do a lot of heavy lifting. The Post notes that only ‘1 percent’ of abortions ‘happen after the fetus reaches the point of viability.’ What the Post avoids saying is that more than 8,000 viable fetuses, and probably more than 10,000 on the cusp of viability, are aborted every year. The killing of thousands of tiny human beings — whether it is ‘codified’ by law; or whether it is allowed by emotional health exemptions; or whether reporters find ‘experts’ to tell us it’s okay — is properly described as infanticide,” Harsanyi wrote.
Further, as Harsanyi pointed out, the Post would never use such dismissing language when talking about gun deaths.
“But can anyone imagine an alleged Post factchecker dismissing gun deaths as ‘generally’ unimportant because less than .01 percent of legal firearm owners commit murder? Or treating a public official who advocates for zero limits on gun ownership, as simply promising to ‘codify’ the Second Amendment? To do so would be to circumvent fundamental point of the debate — which is exactly what pro-choice reporters are trying to do,” Harsanyi wrote.
This isn’t the first time mainstream media outlets have covered for the Left’s extreme abortion views. National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru explained earlier this week another “fact check” from the Post used similar language to dismiss Biden’s personal support for late-term abortion. At that time, the Post actually did try to make a comparison to gun rights, but as Ponnuru explained that while the Post suggests 8,000 late-term abortions is negligible to the point of not needing to be discussed, a year with 13 school-shooting deaths warrants massive attention. Neither should be dismissed.
The New York Times was no better. The Times, Ponnuru wrote, deceptively described a bill introduced in the Virginia legislature as merely allowing late-term abortions “if the mother’s physical health or safety were at risk.” The bill actually allowed for late-term abortions for mental health reasons.

No comments:

Powered by Blogger.