The abortion public relations machine is working overtime to find tragic cases where an emotional case can be made to attack pro-life laws.
In Louisiana they have found a case that is producing an endless number of outraged tweets and a perfect storm of pro-abortion propaganda; a young black mother carrying a baby with a fatal condition known as
acrania. Although the baby is alive and developing, it suffers from the rare condition that does not allow the proper development of the skull and almost always results in the death of the child soon after birth.
Before the state’s pro-life laws came into effect, this baby would have been killed by a dismemberment abortion. Now, the baby will be treated like any other human being with a terminal illness. The young mother has been denied her request to kill the baby, and this has caused the latest pro-abortion media feeding frenzy.
Although pro-life laws are intended solely to safeguard the right to life of children, the media fails to report on any of the intended outcomes of the law and instead focuses only on cases like this one, where an emotional appeal can be made to draw reactions of outrage from people.
Where are the reports of the thousands of children with down syndrome who will not be aborted because of the pro-life protections? What about stories highlighting the lives of baby girls saved from sex-selection abortions? And what about highlighting some of the amazing work done by pregnancy resource centers, censored by Big Tech and hated by Senator Warren and her ilk, but which provide resources and hope to mothers who would otherwise feel pressured to abort and then live with the guilt of having assented to killing their own children?
You will not find any of these emotional stories supporting the pro-life laws because the media is rabidly pro-abortion.
In the case of the Louisiana law preventing the young mom from killing her disabled child, the question remains, what is the difference between killing a terminally ill child in the womb and euthanizing one that is already born?
Of course, pro-lifers and honest pro-aborts know there is no difference, which is why nations that are the most pro-abortion also support euthanizing born children with terminal illnesses.
Already the Netherlands and Belgium practice full fledged euthanasia on children and in Canada, the UK, and most of the “developed” world, the practice of denying children with terminal illnesses life saving care borders on euthanasia and is a widespread problem.
In the past five years, the United Kingdom has seen a number of highly publicized cases where the socialized healthcare system not only refused to provide ongoing care to children with severe disabilities, but even prevented them from taking the children out of the country for medical care.
In the case of Charlie Gard, a British court denied the parents the right to take their child out of the country for treatment and insisted on the child being denied life support.