This is the article that appeared in the October 2024 edition of Catalyst, our monthly journal. The date that prints out reflects the day that it was uploaded to our website. For a more accurate date of when the article was first published, check out the news release, here.
During the presidential debate on ABC in September, former president Donald Trump took issue with vice president Kamala Harris and her running mate, Tim Walz, on the subject of abortion.
While he engaged in some hyperbole, Trump’s basic points were unassailable. Yet the media “fact checkers” took issue with him—they claimed that what he said was false. They are the ones who got it wrong, not Trump.
The media found fault with Trump for his claim that former Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, and vice presidential candidate Tim Walz, find “execution after birth” to be acceptable.
As Bill Donohue said in his defense of Trump (see p. 3), what he said was “basically true.” In discussing Northam, Donohue pointed out that “while the baby would not be ‘executed,’ per se, he could be put down, or left to die, after he was ‘kept comfortable.'” That is true.
Intentionally allowing a baby to die—it does not matter if the physician and the mother want that to happen—is to effectively kill the child. As governor of Minnesota, Walz revoked legislation that requires lifesaving care for newborns. In practice, this is a backhanded way of permitting infanticide.
Similarly, the media argued that Trump cannot be right because infanticide is illegal in every state. Infanticide may be proscribed in law, but as just pointed out, Northam and Walz allowed it to happen.
Factcheck and ctinsider noted that abortions in the ninth month are “exceedingly rare.” But Trump never contested how frequent they are—he simply said that Harris and Walz defend late-term abortions. They do and it is dishonest to pretend otherwise.
USA Today tried to rescue Walz by saying Trump was wrong to say the vice presidential candidate “says abortion in the ninth month is absolutely fine.” It claimed that “There is no evidence that Walz said this, though he signed a bill that removed limits to abortion based on gestational duration.” So who cares if Walz didn’t say he was “absolutely fine” with his decision? He indisputably favors no limits on abortion through term.
Poynter contended that when Northam said it was okay for a physician and the mother to decide not to resuscitate a baby who survived a late-term abortion, “Northam declined to say what that discussion would entail.” So what? It does not change the fact that they may decide not to treat the child, thus passively allowing infanticide to take place.
The media, in general, are so rabid in their defense of abortion rights that they are incapable of accurately reporting on this subject. Either that or they are lying in service to their cause.
