New York Times Writer Defends Killing Babies in Infanticide: It’s Just “Forgoing Medical Intervention”

“No, we’re not — you are!” So far, that seems to sum up the far-Left’s best defense against President Trump. In the infanticide debate, where the White House is leaning into one of the greatest areas of American consensus in years, Democrats are scrambling for some foothold — any foothold — to explain away their extremism. And their latest attempt — accusing the president of “inciting violence” — just might take the cake.

It takes a powerful dose of cruelty to stand at the table of a newborn baby and argue she has no right to live. Democrats have been making that case for the last four months at every level of government, and the wear and tear is finally starting to show. With even their own party lined up against them, liberals have been desperately looking for some way to justify the horribly inhumane agenda they’ve been pushing. They’ve trotted out nurses to say infanticide doesn’t happen; moms who testify that some fetal abnormality gave them no choice; and even politicians like Hillary Clinton who say the “one percent” of children isn’t enough to worry about.

A quarter of a year into this debate, nothing the Democrats are selling seems to stick. So, they’re doing what they do best: attacking Trump. Over the weekend, when the president made his pro-life plea to Congress a centerpiece of the Wisconsin rally, he didn’t miss an opportunity to point out what the Left is advocating. Taking on the latest governor, Tony Evers (D-Wisc.) to buck 82 percent of voters, the president reiterated what these politicians are standing for: “The baby is born. The mother meets with the doctor, they take care of the baby, they wrap the baby beautifully, and then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby. I don’t think so. It’s incredible.”

In the handful of days since Saturday, liberals have seized on the president’s statement, sending bogus fact-checkers to parse the meaning of the word “execute” as if that somehow changes the reality of what Democrats are defending. In the New York Times, Michelle Goldberg actually made the astonishing accusation that President Trump — not the party lobbying for the killing of newborn babies — was the violent one.

“Besides their potential to inspire violence,” Goldberg argues, “Trump’s words are a cruel insult to parents who have to make agonizing decisions about end-of-life care for babies that are born extremely prematurely, or with serious anomalies. Doctors and mothers don’t choose to ‘execute’ newborns. They are forced to decide, in excruciating situations when to forgo medical interventions…”

So it’s not an execution — it’s a “forgoing of medical intervention?”

The president’s word choice makes people uncomfortable — and it should. It forces them to confront the barbarity of the situation. But like difference between a firing squad and lethal injection, the result is still the same. There’s nothing “bizarre and dangerous and insulting” about it — unless you’re the innocent child.

SUPPORT LIFENEWS! Take on the abortion industry, please help LifeNews.com with a donation!

Goldberg insists the words of Virginia Governor Ralph Northam (D) — who confirmed that infanticide happens — had been mischaracterized. That’s interesting, since even he has stood by them. At times, NRO’s Alexandra Desanctis points out, even doubling down on the horror. And while he didn’t say anything about “executing” infants, she writes, the reality is he’s “clearly condoning allowing at least some infants to die after birth if they were meant to have been aborted a few minutes earlier.”

Like a lot of extremists, Goldberg suggests that the point of these bills is to put Democrats in a “no-win situation.” Actually, the point of these bills is to save lives. She thinks that voting in favor of Born-Alive legislation that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has refused to bring to the floor 33 times is to “concede the premise that these bills address something real.” 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!

Even if it weren’t common, as the Left would love everyone to believe, what’s the harm in addressing it again? None. The real harm is in not addressing it and leaving a 17-year-old law in place that’s powerless to stop the killing.

To make your voice heard, click over to our End Birth Day Abortion website and send Nancy Pelosi a newborn baby hat!

LifeNews Note: Tony Perkins is the president of the Family Research Council.