In the latest example of pro-abortion doublespeak, U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-New York) stated that a proposed bill requiring hospital care for babies who survive abortion is “dangerous.”

Seriously?! Mandating hospital care could be dangerous for the baby?

And should we be skeptical of Rep. Nadler’s genuine concern for this baby, since he would have fully supported the mother’s attempt to abort this same child?

To quote Nadler directly,

“The problem with this bill is that it endangers some infants by stating that that infant must immediately be brought to the hospital.” He added, “It directs and mandates certain medical care, which may not be appropriate, which maybe [sic] endanger the life of an infant in certain circumstances.”

Rep. Nadler was referring to the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (H.R. 26) proposed by Rep. Ann Wagner on January 9. As posted on the Congress.gov website, “This bill establishes requirements for the degree of care a health care practitioner must provide in the case of a child born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion.”

So, in the event that the baby, targeted for termination in the womb, somehow survives the abortion procedure, the health care provider who is present must give that baby the exact same care that would be given “to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.”

And, assuming that the abortion took place in an abortion clinic rather than a hospital, that health care practitioner must “ensure the child is immediately admitted to a hospital.”

That is the very least that should be done for this little survivor, and one would think that every adult with a beating heart would agree that this bill should become law.

As for how many babies actually survive abortion attempts, according to the Abortion Survivors website, “17,855 babies have survived abortion since 1973.” (Assuming that this number relies on actual reports, this might be a very low number.)

Yet not only did Rep. Nadler, together with all but two of his Democratic colleagues, vote against this bill, he actually branded it “dangerous.” Yes, said Nadler, it is not that this bill adds any protections to this infant (which Nadler has claimed have long been in place). Rather, it is that the bill “endangers” the baby by mandating that the child be brought to a hospital, since this may not be the best medical option.

Seconding this opinion was U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-Chicago) who opined that the bill “could create more harm” for the baby since it “requires immediately taking a struggling baby to a hospital.” That hospital, she explained, “could be hours away and could be detrimental to the life of that baby. This is nothing more than part of the effort to make abortion illegal nationally in this country. I object, and I urge a no vote.”

As for Nadler, he raised the same argument back in 2018 when a similar bill was proposed, claiming that,

“Despite what its supporters would have us believe, this legislation would do nothing to enhance protections, or the quality of health care, if an infant is born after an attempted abortion. What it would do, however, is directly interfere with a doctor’s medical judgement and dictate a medical standard of care that may not be appropriate in all circumstances, which could, in fact, put infants’ lives at greater risk.”

So, Nadler’s big concern as a strong pro-abortion advocate is protecting the well-being of the baby. Really?

He also claimed that,

“It has always been the law that health care providers cannot deliberately harm newborn infants, and that they must exercise reasonable care in their treatment of such infants. . . .

“In opposing this bill, I do not oppose, in any way, proper medical treatment for newborn infants, whatever the circumstances of their birth. But determining the proper treatment is for medical professionals to decide, not politicians in Congress.”

He added,

“When I supported the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in 2002, my reasoning, and the reasoning of my pro-choice colleagues, was simple: killing an infant who was born alive, either by an act of omission or commission, is infanticide. It was, is, and always should be, against the law, and we saw no harm in reaffirming that fact. That law passed Congress with bipartisan support precisely because it was harmless – even if it was also useless since it did not change the pre-existing law in any way. The bill specifically just reiterated existing law in florid language and did nothing to interfere with doctors’ medical judgment or cause needless harm.” 

But it is not that simple. U.S. Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE) stated in 2021 that,

“Current federal law does not adequately protect a born child who survives an abortion. In the 116th Congress, the legislation passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a bipartisan vote of 248 to 177.”

And, in a private communication, pro-life leader Rev. Patrick Mahoney noted that

“there is something called the abortion survivors network in which many children were born alive from late term abortions and doctors didn’t attempt to save their lives.”

He added that the reason the proposed bill requires that the baby be brought to the hospital is that “doctors would leave the children without any emergency medical care and they would die a ‘natural death.’”

Under the current bill, doctors would be required to provide whatever medical care was necessary to try to save the infant’s life.

As for the real possibility of infanticide being practiced, let’s remember that in 2019 Virginia’s Governor Ralph Northam infamously said that in certain cases,

“If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians & mother.”

So, keep that infant comfortable while the family discusses whether to let it live or not.

No wonder the outcry was so great.

Even the left-leaning Snopes.com could only find the claim that Northam said he would “execute a baby after birth” to be “Mostly False.” That is saying a lot.

Not only so, but recent bills would allow for infanticide, such as Maryland’s Pregnant Person’s Freedom Act (House Bill 626/Senate Bill 669), which was defeated. In California, the ACLJ reported that, “On September 27, 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom signed what amounts to a perinatal infanticide bill, AB 2223 (along with 12 other pro-abortion bills).”

So, for a number of reasons, the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act is genuinely needed, and it is unconscionable that anyone would vote against it, especially someone claiming to care for the wellbeing of the infant.

Even more ironic, tragically so, is the fact that Reps. Nadler and Schakowsky and their Democratic colleagues have argued passionately for a mother’s right to kill that same baby in the womb, even if it was at a viable age for birth.

It would be better if they simply stated what we all know (and what others have often stated elsewhere). Those who oppose bills like the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act do so because they believe the bill is designed to undercut a woman’s “right” to abortion, and they will protect that “right” at almost all costs.

Their expressed concern for the wellbeing of the baby who survives an abortion is beyond cynical.

It is doublespeak in the extreme, putting pro-abortion phrases like “reproductive rights” to shame.

Let us expose it loudly and clearly.

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.

As expected, pundits on the left are in an uproar at the president’s claims that a doctor conspires with parents as to whether to execute their newborn baby. In Trump’s words (spoken at a recent rally in Green Bay), “The baby is born, the mother meets with the doctor, they take care of the baby, they wrap the baby beautifully. Then the doctor and mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby.”

In response, Rolling Stone senior writer Jamil Smith tweeted, “President Trump keeps telling the same lie about abortion doctors murdering healthy fetuses after delivery. This doesn’t happen. Yet he said it again last night. This is precisely the kind of hysteria that inspires people who murder doctors and patients.”

Julia Pulver, a former neonatal nurse, said this: “When a baby dies in the hospital, it is a very sad thing but it is not something that is ever chosen. It is a horrible situation thrust upon parents who want their baby, who have prepared for the baby, who have framed sonograms sitting on their desks.”

According to Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, “What Trump asserted, for the second time, is false, illegal, and simply not happening — nor would it happen.” She claimed that, “The president “not only straight-up lied but also vilified women, families, and doctors facing situations every single one of us prays we never encounter.”

And Huffington Post adds this: “The recent focus on the alleged horrors of late-term abortions is especially fact-free. Only 1.3 percent of abortions take place after 21 weeks, and experts say these involve pregnancies that endanger the mother (and by extension the baby) or severe fetal anomalies that are incompatible with life.”

Let’s address these claims one at a time.

First, President Trump said nothing about the baby being healthy (contra the tweet of Smith). Instead, he spoke about the very real situation in which a baby survives an abortion (or, presumably, is born with a life-threatening defect) and is allowed to die. That’s why Congress keeps trying to pass the Born Alive Protection Act.

In its current form, the bill reads, “To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.”

This is a real bill designed to address real, life and death situations.

Not only so, but it was Virginia governor Ralph Northam who provided Trump with his main talking points about infanticide.

As Northam infamously said during a radio interview, “If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. So I think this was really blown out of proportion.”

Yet the left rails on Trump for calling this out rather than on Northam for saying it.

To repeat: These things are really happening.

An official government document dated September 23, 2016, notes that, “In 2002, Congress responded by passing the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which was signed by President George W. Bush and is current federal law. This law recognized a child who is born alive after a failed abortion attempt, as a legal person under the laws of the United States. The legal definition of live birth includes any sign of life, such as breath, heartbeat, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles.

“Unfortunately, incidents involving born alive children being killed after an attempted abortion have continued after this law was passed. Infanticide is unacceptable in a civilized society, regardless of what one may think about abortion itself. It should be uncontroversial for the federal government to supplement current law with enforcement protections for born-alive children after attempted abortions. That is why Congress must pass the proposed legislation known as the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (H.R. 3504/S. 2066).”

Trump is not lying. These things are happening. They may happen just as he described (with the baby being wrapped in a blanket) or they may not (perhaps the baby is left naked and crying on a table). But they are happening, nonetheless.

Yet, to repeat, there’s no outcry from the left about these horrors. The outcry is about the president drawing attention to the horrors.

As noted by Tony Perkins, “Liberals certainly thought infanticide was real enough in 2002, when protecting infants was so uncontroversial that it passed without a single Democratic opponent. Since then, the CDC’s data only confirms these atrocities — as do mountains of eyewitness testimony, grand jury reports, survivors’ own stories, and admissions by doctors like Northam himself!”

Second, what point is made by saying, “Only 1.3 percent of abortions take place after 21 weeks”? What if the sentence read, “Only 1.3 percent of abortions take place after birth”? Would that lessen the severity of the crime? We only kill a tiny percentage of babies once they’re born!

Let’s also put this in real-life numbers.

According to a just-released CDC report, in New York City in 2015, “the number of abortions at or after 21 weeks was 1,485 while the number of homicide victims was 352.”

Shall we celebrate the fact that this (allegedly) represents “only” 1.3 percent of abortions?

These, in short, are the facts: States like New York have passed laws allowing for abortions right up to the time of delivery. Infanticide is taking place. And in countries like the Netherlands, “650 babies a year [are] euthanized so that their parents don’t have to witness them struggle with disability or disease.”

In light of all this, I’m glad that President Trump continues to speak up. He is addressing something terribly evil, and it behooves every person of conscience to stand with him in standing for the rights of “the least of these.”

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.

Nothing screams “nasty woman” quite like Virginia lawmaker Kathy Tran’s cold-blooded and thankfully defeated bill that would have legalized de facto infanticide. When asked prior to the vote if her bill would allow the slaughter of a full-term baby during labor, she was forced to publicly admit that it would.

If it had passed, full-term healthy babies could have been slaughtered for any reason that a murderous doctor deemed a threat to a mother’s “mental health.” Just wondering, shouldn’t this be a hate crime? Wikipedia defines a hate crime as one in which a “perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership in a certain social group.” Doesn’t the premeditated, direct killing of humans based on their age fit that definition?

Tran’s morally transgressive and repugnant bill removed the requirement that abortion is permitted if “continuation of the pregnancy is likely to substantially and irremediably impair the mental… health of the woman.” She removed the words “substantially and irremediably.” This means that a mother could have her full-term child aborted if she says it would only insubstantially and remediably “impair” her “mental health.” And y’all know what that means. It means that Virginia would have followed Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont—where women can have their full-term babies killed for no reason—in legalizing de facto infanticide.

As I wrote several days ago, 24 other states permit the active, intentional killing of full-term babies for “mental health” reasons, which include “emotional, psychological, and familial” considerations. In other words, for any reason. What Tran’s removal of the words “substantially and irremediably” did was make it glaringly obvious that “mental health” is a deceitful rhetorical pretext to conceal that abortion of full-term, healthy humans is legal.

When asked about this barbaric law, Democratic governor and pediatric neurologist Dr. Ralph Northam employed some tricksy rhetoric to try to persuade listeners that de facto infanticide of full-term babies is justified if they are defective:

When we talk about third-trimester abortions…. it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus which is non-viable. So… if the mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if this is what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physician and the mother.

First, who calls a full-term baby a “fetus”? Interestingly, in the next sentence, he inadvertently acknowledged the truth that the full-term “fetus” is actually an infant.

Second, would an infant that may or may not be resuscitated be a dead infant—one whose breathing or heart has stopped? If so, this raises some questions. How did this fetus/infant in Northam’s sanitized hypothetical come to be dead? Was Northam alluding to the natural death of an infant born with a condition incompatible with life, or was he referring to an infant whose death was caused during labor by a Dr. Mengele-wannabe? If full-term babies can be killed because of severe deformities or terminal conditions one day prior to their birth day, why shouldn’t full-term babies with severe deformities or terminal conditions be killed post birth—also known euphemistically as “after-birth abortion.”

Tran and Northam seek to implement legislatively what philosopher Michael Tooley, Princeton University “bioethicist” Peter Singer, and eugenicists everywhere advocate. They advocate for the legal right of some humans—let’s call them Superhumans—to decide which humans have a right to live and which—because of their defects—have no such right. Let’s call the latter group the Expendables.

Tooley wrote this in 1972 in an article titled “Abortion and Infanticide”:

An organism possesses a serious right to life only if it possesses the concept of a self as a continuing subject of experiences and other mental states, and believes that it is itself such a continuing entity…. If this view of the matter is roughly correct, there are two worries one is left with at the level of practical moral decisions, one of which may turn out to be deeply disturbing. The lesser worry is where the line is to be drawn in the case of infanticide…. The practical moral problem can thus be satisfactorily handled by choosing some period of time, such as a week after birth, as the interval during which infanticide will be permitted. This interval could then be modified once psychologists have established the point at which a human organism comes to believe that it is a continuing subject of experiences and other mental states.

Through some tortured reasoning about the ethics of torturing kittens, Tooley concludes that it is not membership in the species “homo sapiens” that determines the right to life but rather self-conceptualization as a “continuing subject of experiences and other mental states” and a belief that one is “such a continuing entity” that confers on humans a right to live. Therefore, neither newborns nor humans in the womb—or as Tooley calls them, “parasites”—enjoy that right.

As I have written, Peter Singer wants to extend killing “rights” 30 days post-natally to allow parents to ascertain the health status of their conditionally wanted children. After all, some imperfect humans may have escaped all the currently available tests for determining human perfection and, therefore, “wantedness.”

The infamous Singer himself acknowledges in his book Practical Ethics that we have already started down the unctuous slope:

I do not deny that if one accepts abortion on the grounds provided in Chapter 6, the case for killing other human beings, in certain circumstances, is strong. As I shall try to show… this is not something to be regarded with horror…. [O]nce we abandon those doctrines about the sanctity of human life that… collapse as soon as they are questioned, it is the refusal to accept killing that, in some cases, is horrific.

More recently, in 2011, two philosophers at the University of Melbourne, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, published a paper in which they advocated for “after-birth abortion”:

[W]e argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.

In the “social justice” paradigm that divides society into oppressors and oppressed, who are the oppressors: the Superhumans or the Expendables?

We are fast returning to paganism, from pagan sexuality to child sacrifice. Is there a moral difference between sacrificing babies to imaginary gods and sacrificing babies to the god of self?

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Virginia-Lawmaker-Wants-to-Make-Child-Sacrifice-Even-Easier_01.mp3

On February 22^nd, IFI is hosting a special forum with Dr. Erwin Lutzer as he teaches from his latest book, “The Church in Babylon,” answering the question, “How do we live faithfully in a culture that perceives our light as darkness?” This event is free and open to the public, and will be held at Jubilee Church in Medinah, Illinois.

Click HERE for more info…

The deadly Islamic terrorist truck attack in New York City on Halloween exposed a cauldron of issues, from national security to immigration policy.

But it’s about much more than that. The attack and its aftermath have shone a light on the Left’s campaign to radically transform America through cultural Marxism. That’s the revolutionary philosophy that aims to cure inequality by destroying traditional Western culture. This includes massive, unrestricted immigration.

Sayfullo Saipov, a 29-year-old Uzbekistan native living in New Jersey, yelled “Allahu Akbar” while mowing down 20 people, killing at least eight on a bike path in lower Manhattan. He came to the U.S. in 2010 via the “diversity lottery” system created as part of the Immigration Act of 1990. Officials say he was “radicalized” by ISIS after moving to the U.S.

As President Trump rightly noted, U.S. Senator Charles Schumer (D-New York), was a prime backer of the diversity program, in which 50,000 foreigners are admitted annually in a lottery. It doesn’t matter whether they love America or hate it.

Before the bill’s passage, Schumer explained that America owes all of the countries of the world a certain amount of guaranteed entry into the United States, an extremely odd quota system that only a fool could advance with a straight face. There is no “right” in the Constitution to immigrate to the United States, and no other nation has embraced this wacky idea.

“There are certain countries that have been left out,” Schumer said.

Schumer’s defenders note that, as part of the Gang of Eight in the U.S. Senate in 2013, he proposed ending the diversity lottery. But it was only because he was trying to ram through a liberalized immigration reform bill.

Why do progressives promote diversity over unity, multiculturalism over American heritage, sexual anarchy over marriage, and applaud when people speak languages other than English?

The answer is that it ripens the field for identity politics and is part of the cultural Marxists’ goal to radically transform America. Like Obama’s former pastor the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, some appear gleeful each time our country suffers a terrorist attack because “America’s chickens are coming home to roost.” We have it coming, right? They actually believe that America is free and prosperous not because of our foundational values but because other countries are a mess and it’s our fault.

Liberals and conservatives used to disagree about means but not so much about ends – a freer, more prosperous society in which character and hard work count more than skin color. But no longer. The hard Left’s cultural Marxism has replaced yesterday’s liberalism. They laugh at equal opportunity and demand racially determined outcomes. Disagree, and you’re a Nazi. Or worse, a Christian.

In Mr. Schumer’s New York City, officials have floated the idea of allowing noncitizens to vote in city elections, just as they do now in at least ten Maryland jurisdictions.

In California, as a recent Washington Times editorial noted, 44.6 percent of residents aged five or older speak no English at home. In Texas, 35.6 percent speak another language at home, and another 14 percent are “English-impaired.” Several states have populations where more than 30 percent do not speak English. In fact, more than one-fifth of the entire U.S. population doesn’t speak English.

Most immigrants are hardworking, here legally, and love America. But unlike earlier immigrants, they are being told by the Left not to assimilate. Can the wholesale rejection of a common language be a good thing? Only if you are sowing the seeds of identity politics and cultural upheaval.

Earlier this month, the Latino Victory Fund unleashed the most vicious political propaganda since the anti-Goldwater spot in 1964 in which a little girl picks daisies as a nuclear bomb goes off.

The ad depicts a driver in a pickup truck with a Confederate flag, a Tea Party license plate and a Gillespie bumper sticker bearing down on minority children. Ed Gillespie was the GOP candidate for Virginia governor. As the truck is about to kill the frightened youngsters, one of them in Muslim garb, a child awakes from the nightmare. Voiceover: “Is this what Ed Gillespie and Donald Trump mean by the American Dream?” The screen says: “Reject Hate.”

This despicable ad that backs Democrat gubernatorial candidate Ralph Northam, who is not mentioned but whose campaign listed it as a contribution, does more than slander Mr. Gillespie and President Trump. It’s aimed at any Americans who resist the cultural Marxists’ campaign to turn America into a socialist Babylon.

The anti-Gillespie “murderous trucker” ad was quickly withdrawn after the terrorist truck attack in New York.

I guess they wouldn’t want people to start thinking too hard about how we came to this.

This article was originally posted at Townhall.com